Quanta Specialty Lines Insurance Company v. Wong et al
| Quanta Specialty Lines Insurance Company |
| John B. Wong, Jill Peasley, Chris Lynch and Michael Fontanello |
| 3:2008cv00488 |
| January 23, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of California |
| San Francisco Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Edward M. Chen |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| Defendant |
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
55
ORDER Requiring Filing of Amended Motion for Default Judgment. Amended motion shall be filed by 1/14/2009. Opposition shall be filed by 1/28/2009. Reply shall be filed by 2/4/2009. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/12/2008. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/12/2008)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER re 53 Stipulation filed by Quanta Specialty Lines Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 12/11/08. Case not closed pending Plaintiff's motion for default judgment against John Wong(bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/11/2008)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER re 51 Stipulation filed by Quanta Specialty Lines Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 10/27/08. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/28/2008)
|
|
Filing
48
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 45 Stipulation filed by Quanta Specialty Lines Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 9/11/08. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2008)
|
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 Northern 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.
