Maxum Indemnity Company v. Court Services, Inc.
| Maxum Indemnity Company |
| Court Services, Inc. |
| 2:2011cv02014 |
| July 29, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of California |
| Sacramento Office |
| Sacramento |
| Edmund F. Brennan |
| Garland E. Burrell |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2201 |
| Plaintiff |
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
26
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 7/31/12 ADOPTING IN FULL 25 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 19 Motion for Default Judgment. Maxum is awarded a declaration stating that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Court Services, Inc. in the Underlying Action entitled Mays v. Board of County Commissioners, Case No. 1:09-cv-00662-WJ-KBM (D.N.M.). (Meuleman, A)
|
|
Filing
25
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/8/12 RECOMMENDING that 19 MOTION for DEFAULT JUDGMENT be granted; and Maxum be awarded a declaration stating that it has no duty to defend or indemnify Court Services, Inc. in the Underlying Action entitled Mays v. Board of County Commissioners, Case No. 1:09-cv-00662-WJ-KBM (D.N.M.). Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.; Objections to F&R due within 14 days.(Dillon, M)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 2/16/2012 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall file a motion for entry of default judgment before the Magistrate Judge within forty-five (45) days of the date on which this Order is filed. If Plaintiff fails to timely file the motion, Plaintiff shall show cause in writing no later than 4/2/2012, why this action should not be dismissed for failure of prosecution. Further, the status conference scheduled for hearing on 2/27/2012, is CONTINUED to commence a t 9:00 a.m. on 8/20/2012. A status report shall be filed fourteen (14) days prior to the status conference in which Plaintiff is required to explain the status of the default proceedings. Lastly, Does 1-10 are DISMISSED since Plaintiff has not justif ied Doe defendants remaining in this action. See Order Setting Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference filed 8/8/2011, at 2 n.2 (indicating that if justification for "Doe" defendant allegations not provided Doe defendants would be dismissed). (Zignago, K.)
|
|
Filing
12
ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/6/11 ORDERING that the Status Conference is CONTINUED from 12/12/11 to 2/27/2012 at 09:00 AM. A further joint Status Report shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior. Further, Plaintiff is notified under Rule 4(m) of the FederalRules of Civil Procedure that failure to serve Defendant Court Services,Inc. with process within the 120 day period prescribed in that Rule may result in the unserved defendant being dismissed.(Mena-Sanchez, L)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER CONTINUING (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) CONFERENCE signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr., on 10/24/11 ORDERING that per plaintiff's 8 Request, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is CONTINUED to 12/12/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GEB) before Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr.. A further joint status report shall be filed no later than 14 days prior. On or before 11/28/2011 Plaintiff shall file proof of service for any unserved defendant or a sufficient explanation why service was not effected within Rule 4(m)'s prescribed service period. (Kastilahn, 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
| Search for this case: Maxum Indemnity Company v. Court Services, Inc. | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Maxum Indemnity Company | |
| Represented By: | Elizabeth L. Musser |
| Represented By: | Paul Steven White |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Court Services, Inc. | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
