Carr v. Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company
| Sydney Anne Carr |
| Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company |
| 1:2026cv01417 |
| April 3, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Cyrus Y Chung |
| S Kato Crews |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 29, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 20 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Jessica Rae Schultz on behalf of Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance CompanyAttorney Jessica Rae Schultz added to party Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company(pty:dft) (Schultz, Jessica) |
| Filing 19 Proposed Scheduling Order by Defendant Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company. (Kust, Katherine) |
| Filing 18 CONSENT to Jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge by Defendant Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company All parties do not consent.. (Kust, Katherine) |
| Filing 17 RESPONSE to #16 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss #15 Reply to Response to Motion filed by Defendant Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company. (Kust, Katherine) |
| Filing 16 MOTION for Leave to File Surreply to Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss #15 Reply to Response to Motion by Plaintiff Sydney Anne Carr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Proposed Surreply)(Ferrell, Michael) |
| Filing 15 REPLY to Response to #12 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim filed by Defendant Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company. (Kust, Katherine) |
| Filing 14 RESPONSE to Defendant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss by Plaintiff Sydney Anne Carr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit Exhibit 6)(Ferrell, Michael) |
Filing 13
MINUTE ORDER: Pursuant to the Order of Reference, this Court will hold the Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) Scheduling Conference on June 3, 2026 at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom C-201, on the second floor of the Byron G. Rogers United States Courthouse located at 1929 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. It is ORDERED that Defendant shall notify all Parties who have not entered an appearance of the date and time of the scheduling conference. The Parties shall file the proposed Scheduling Order with the Clerk's Office, and in accordance with District of Colorado Electronic Case Filing ("ECF") Procedures, no later than seven days prior to the scheduling conference. The proposed Scheduling Order is also to be submitted in Word format by email to Magistrate Judge Chung at [email protected]. Entered by Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung on 04/13/2026. (agryan)
|
| Filing 12 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim by Defendant Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Certified Copy of Policy)(Kust, Katherine) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE ENCOURAGING CONSIDERATION OF CONSENT TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION: This district's magistrate judges play a crucial role in the work and structure of the district court and the administration of justice. Under Local Rule 72.2, the parties have the option to consent to their case being presided over by a magistrate judge instead of a district judge. This court encourages parties to meaningfully confer and consider consenting to magistrate judge jurisdiction. There are many benefits to consenting. One such benefit is having a single judicial officer preside over every aspect of your case rather than two. A second benefit is the certainty of not having your trial date vacated when set before a magistrate judge. District judges preside over felony criminal cases and those cases receive priority over civil cases because of a criminal defendant's speedy trial rights. Magistrate judges do not preside over felony criminal cases, and therefore, they do not have to vacate civil trials because of criminal cases. If the parties do not choose to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, they should keep in mind Local Rule 72.3. Under this rule, the parties may consent to the final determination of a dispositive motion (motion for summary judgment or motion to dismiss) by the assigned magistrate judge by filing a notice of consent for that motion. Please refer to Local Rule 72.3 for more information on that option. Consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction is voluntary, and no adverse consequence will result if one or more parties decline to consent. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 4/8/2026. Text Only Entry (skcja, ) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung for non-dispositive matters. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and (b), this case is referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge to (1) convene a scheduling conference under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b) and enter a scheduling order meeting the requirements of D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.2, (2) conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon a showing of good cause, and (3) hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions. Court-sponsored alternative dispute resolution is governed by D.C.COLO.LCivR 16.6. On the request of the parties by motion, this Court may direct the parties to engage in an early neutral evaluation, a settlement conference, or another alternative dispute resolution proceeding. Alternatively, the Magistrate Judge, at their discretion, may convene such early neutral evaluation and/or settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case without the necessity of a motion or prior authorization of the undersigned. Counsel for the Parties and all counsel who may later enter an appearance shall review and familiarize themselves with the undersigned's Standing Order and Practice Standards, as well as the Practice Standards of the assigned Magistrate Judge. By Judge S. Kato Crews on 4/8/2026. Text Only Entry (skcja, )
|
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Entry of Appearance by Michael Riley Ferrell on behalf of Sydney Anne CarrAttorney Michael Riley Ferrell added to party Sydney Anne Carr(pty:pla) (Ferrell, Michael) |
| Filing 8 Magistrate Judge consent form issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). (agarc, ) |
| Filing 7 Case assigned to Judge S. Kato Crews and drawn to Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung. Text Only Entry. (agarc, ) |
| Filing 6 STATE COURT ORDER Granding Defendant Garrison Property and Casualty Company's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time for Response to Plaintiff's Complaint by Boulder County District Court Judge on March 24, 2026. (agarc, ) |
| Filing 5 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint upon Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company on 3/4/2026. (agarc, ) |
| Filing 4 COMPLAINT and Jury Demand against Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company, filed by Sydney Anne Carr.(agarc, ) |
| Filing 3 FIRST AND FINAL NOTICE TO ALL ATTORNEY(S) AND UNREPRESENTED PARTIES IN REMOVED, TRANSFERRED, OR OTHER CASES. To receive any further notice in a case removed or transferred to this court, or special matters including discovery disputes, bankruptcy appeals, or withdrawals of reference, Multi-district litigation (MDL), etc., all attorneys and unrepresented parties must enter an appearance under D.C.COLO.LAttyR 5(a). An attorney must be an active member of this court's bar and be in good standing in accordance with D.C.COLO.LAttyR 3. A waiver of the fee for bar admission may apply in limited situations. (Text Only Entry) (agarc, ) |
| Filing 2 ADMINISTRATIVE REMINDER to Filer. It is the responsibility of the attorney or pro se party removing the case to follow Local Rule D.C.COLO.LCivR 81.1 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1446a when filing a Notice of Removal. (Text only entry.) (agarc, ) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company from District Court Boulder County Colorado, Case Number 2026CV30204. (Filing fee $ 405, Receipt Number ACODC-10924397), filed by Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A - Complaint, #2 Exhibit B - Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Exhibit C - Affidavit of Service, #4 Exhibit D - UMEOT to Respond to Complaint, #5 Exhibit E - Order re UMEOT to Respond to Complaint, #6 Exhibit F - Dec Page, #7 Exhibit G - Voter Registration Info, #8 Exhibit H - Colorado Secretary of State Summary for Garrison)(Kust, Katherine) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Carr v. Garrison Property and Casualty 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: Sydney Anne Carr | |
| Represented By: | Michael Riley Ferrell |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Garrison Property and Casualty Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Katherine K. Kust |
| Represented By: | Jessica Rae Schultz |
| 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 | [ 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.
