Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Hudson Specialty Insurance Company

Plaintiff: Scottsdale Insurance Company
Defendant: Hudson Specialty Insurance Company
Case Number: 3:2015cv02896
Filed: June 22, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Francisco Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Haywood S Gilliam
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 21, 2017 Filing 91 CLERK'S JUDGMENT in favor of Hudson Specialty Insurance Company against Scottsdale Insurance Company. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/21/2017)
March 6, 2017 Filing 88 ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFFS ADMINISTRATIVE 62 MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/6/2017)
December 9, 2016 Filing 55 ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 54 Stipulation Revising the Court's Amended Scheduling Order. Motion Hearing set for 2/23/2017 02:00 PM before Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/9/2016)
December 6, 2016 Filing 50 ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 48 Stipulation to Allow Hudson Specialty Insurance Company to Amend Responses to Requests for Admission. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/6/2016)
October 27, 2016 Filing 43 ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 42 Stipulation Revising the Court's Amended Scheduling Order re 4 40 Order. Close of Fact Discovery due by 12/2/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/27/2016)
September 28, 2016 Filing 40 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER. Discovery due by 11/3/2016; Motion Hearing set for 1/26/2017 02:00 PM before Hon. Haywood S. Gilliam Jr. ( 37 Stipulation and Order Re Revising the Court's Scheduling Order DENIED) Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 9/28/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/28/2016)
August 15, 2016 Filing 36 ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 35 Stipulation To Continue Early Neutral Evaluation Deadline and Excusing Personal Attendance. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/15/2016)
June 28, 2016 Filing 31 ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. Granting 30 Stipulation Selecting Early Neutral Evaluation. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2016)
May 2, 2016 Filing 28 SCHEDULING ORDER. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 5/2/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/2/2016)
March 25, 2016 Filing 23 ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. DENYING DEFENDANT'S 16 MOTION TO DISMISS; SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE.(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/25/2016)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Hudson Specialty Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Scottsdale Insurance Company
Represented By: Sheryl Weinberger Leichenger
Represented By: Christopher Cuyler Ranck
Represented By: James Ronald Tenero
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: Hudson Specialty Insurance Company
Represented By: Stephen M. Hayes
Represented By: Gabrielle Ana Hollingsworth
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.


Why Is My Information Online?