Universal Casualty Company v. A&H Express, et al,.
| Universal Casualty Company |
| A&H Express, Inc., Amandeep Sandhu, Ajmer Singh, Jackie Fletcher, Clayton Baker, Robert Newcomber, Denene Delgado, Marvin John Vandersloot, Estate of Clay Newcomer, Nationwide Insurance Company, 21st Century Insurance Company, Estate of Dotsie Irion and Progressive Insurance Company |
| 2:2011cv00354 |
| February 8, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
67
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/26/2012 DIVIDING the insurance proceeds interpled by Universal Casualty Company as follows: Jackie Fletcher...$268,940.55, Clayton Baker...$208,940.55, Robert Newcomer...$15,000.00; D IRECTING the Clerk of Court to issue 3 checks made payable for the amounts of $268,940.55, $208,940.55, $15,000.00 to the respective payees listed herein; ORDERING the Clerk of Court to retain a 10% Registry Fund Fee and to disburse the balance of interest as follows: Jackie Fletcher...48%, Clayton Baker...48%, Robert Newcomer...4%. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/17/2012 ORDERING the parties, or party, to explain in writing by 9/24/2012, whether or not the 64 Stipulation and Proposed Order accounts for the registry fund fee assessed under L.R. 150(i). (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/7/12; On June 30, 2011, Defendant Robert Newcomer filed an unnoticed motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 22.) However, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on Se ptember 14, 2011, which is now the operative pleading. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc., v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989)(stating an amended complaint supercedes the prior complaint). Since the pending dismissal motion does not address the operative pleading, it is denied as moot. (Matson, R)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 11/8/2011 ORDERING parties to file a Joint Status Report indicating how they intend to proceed with this action and what changes, if any, should be made to the Rule 16 scheduling order already in place. Joint Status Report due by 11/30/2011. (Michel, G)
|
|
Filing
47
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/28/2011 re 37 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall deposit the referenced funds with the Clerk's Office within ten (10) days of the date on which this order is filed, or explain in a filing due no lat er than 4:00 p.m. on October 14, 2011, why the Stipulations should be considered notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to deposit the referenced funds as stated in Plaintiff's "Notice of Intent to Deposit" filed on September 12, 2011.(Duong, D)
|
|
Filing
42
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 9/14/11: Plaintiff is granted five (5) days leave within which to file the Second Amended Complaint attached to the Stipulation. (Kaminski, H)
|
|
Filing
29
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 8/2/11 ORDERING that a dispositional document shall be filed no later than 8/19/11. The Status Conference Scheduled for hearing on 9/16/11 will remain on calendar in the event no dispositional document is filed, or if this action is not otherwise dismissed. A joint Status Report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 6/8/11 RESETTING Initial Scheduling Conference for 9/19/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. Further joint status report due no latre t han 14 days prior. Plaintiff is notified that any defendant not served with process within 120 day period may be dismissed as a defendant unless Plaintiff provides proof of service and/or shows good cause for the failure to serve within this prescribed period in a filing due no later than 4:00 p.m. on 7/5/11. (Meuleman, A) Modified on 6/9/2011 (Meuleman, A).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
