Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company v. Burlington Insurance Company, et al
|Plaintiff / Appellant:||ARTISAN AND TRUCKERS CASUALTY COMPANY|
|Defendant / Appellee:||BURLINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN TRUSS, INC., DOUGLAS FORREST, GAYLON CRUSE, CRUSE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and MARK DUCKWORTH|
|Filed:||July 21, 2022|
|Court:||U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit|
|Nature of Suit:||Insurance|
This docket was last retrieved on August 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
|Date Filed||Document Text|
|August 3, 2022||Filing 9 ORDER re: Artisan and Truckers Casualty Co.'s agreed motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice. [ # 7 ] This cause is DISMISSED pursuant to F.R.A.P. 42(b). Mandate issued, no record to be returned.  [22-2284] (PS) [Entered: 08/03/2022 11:56 AM]|
|August 3, 2022||FOR COURT USE ONLY: Certified copy of 08/03/2022 Final Order with Mandate sent to the District Court Clerk. [7252172-2]  [22-2284] (PS) [Entered: 08/03/2022 12:09 PM]|
|August 1, 2022||Filing 8 Amended Jurisdictional Statement filed by Appellant Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company.   [22-2284] (Buck, Thomas) [Entered: 08/01/2022 04:21 PM]|
|August 1, 2022||Filing 7 Motion filed by Appellant Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company to dismiss case.   [22-2284] (Buck, Thomas) [Entered: 08/01/2022 03:10 PM]|
|August 1, 2022||Filing 6 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Thomas L. Buck for Appellant Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company.   (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-No) [22-2284] (Buck, Thomas) [Entered: 08/01/2022 03:04 PM]|
|July 26, 2022||Filing 5 ORDER: In the present case, plaintiff relies on diversity of citizenship for federal jurisdiction. However, appellants Circuit Rule 3(c) docketing statement fails to identify the state of citizenship of all parties. Appellant must provide this information. It is insufficient to state that the district courts jurisdiction is based upon diversity of citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1332. Accordingly, plaintiff-appellant shall file a complete statement of jurisdiction that includes the omitted information. The statement is due on or before August 1, 2022. (See order for further details) DW    [22-2284] (PS) [Entered: 07/26/2022 10:23 AM]|
|July 26, 2022||Filing 4 ORDER: Appellant Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company shall file, on or before August 8, 2022, a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. A motion for voluntary dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) will satisfy this requirement. Briefing shall be SUSPENDED pending further court order. (See order for further details) DW    [22-2284] (PS) [Entered: 07/26/2022 10:20 AM]|
|July 26, 2022||Filing 3 ORDER: A review of the short record reveals that this appeal involves more than one appellee represented by different counsel. Counsel for appellees are encouraged to file a joint brief and appendix or adopt parts of a co-appellees brief. The parties are reminded that redundant and uncoordinated briefing will be stricken. See United States v. Torres, 170 F.3d 749 (7th Cir. 1999); United States v. Ashman, 964 F.2d 596 (7th Cir. 1992). DW    [22-2284] (PS) [Entered: 07/26/2022 10:17 AM]|
|July 22, 2022||Filing 2 Circuit Rule 26.1 Disclosure Statement and Appearance filed by Attorney Rosa M. Tumialan for Appellee Burlington Insurance Company.   (L-Yes; E-Yes; R-No) [22-2284] (Tumialan, Rosa) [Entered: 07/22/2022 10:43 AM]|
|July 21, 2022||Filing 1 Private civil case docketed. Fee paid. Docketing statement filed. Transcript information sheet due by 08/04/2022. Appellant's brief due on or before 08/30/2022 for Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company.   [22-2284] (AD) [Entered: 07/22/2022 09:48 AM]|
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.