Standard Bank PLC v. Vero Insurance Limited et al
Plaintiff: Standard Bank PLC
Defendant: Vero Insurance Limited and Runge, Inc.
Case Number: 1:2008cv02127
Filed: October 1, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of Colorado
Office: Insurance Office
County: XX Outside US
Presiding Judge: Boyd N. Boland
Presiding Judge: Zita L. Weinshienk
Nature of Suit: Both
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 7, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 95 ORDER VACATING JUDGMENT AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT: Denying 84 Defendant Standard Bank PLC's Motion to Amend the Judgment. Because the Court has independently determined that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under &# 167; 1332(a), the Courts previous orders, the judgment 82 , and the taxation of costs 94 are vacated and the case is remanded to the district court for Jefferson County, Colorado, where it was initially filed as Civil Action No. 08CV3710, Division 4, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 12/7/09.(ebs, )
February 26, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 81 ORDER that nominal defendant Runge, Inc., f/k/a Runge Mining, Inc., d/b/aPincock, Allen & Holt, Inc. is dismissed, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/26/09. (ebs, )
February 24, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 78 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 22 Defendant Vero Insurance Limited's Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. Standard Bank's complaint and all claims against Vero Insurance Limited are dismissed without prejudice to their being ass erted in an Australian forum. Denying as moot 55 APPEAL OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE DECISION to District Court; denying as moot 57 Motion to Compel; denying as moot 6 Motion for Summary Judgment. Clerk to forthwith enter judgment in favor of Vero Insurance Limited and against Plaintiff. Defendant Vero Insurance Limited may have its costs by filing a bill of costs within 11 days, by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 2/24/09.(gmssl, ) Modified on 4/30/2009 to correct spelling error (gmssl, ).
January 29, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 65 Minute ORDER granting 56 Motion to Stay all Discovery in this case by Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 01/29/09.(jjh, )
January 13, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 50 ORDER re: 42 Denying MOTION to Stay. Order Denying 43 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Plaintiff's Written Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 01/13/09. (jjh, )
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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Standard Bank PLC v. Vero Insurance Limited et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Standard Bank PLC
Represented By: Shannon Wells Stevenson
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: Vero Insurance Limited
Represented By: Elliot Jude Scott
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: Runge, Inc.
Represented By: Jay Stanley Horowitz
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?