Ronshagen v. Reliance Standard Life Ins Co
Plaintiff: Dianne Ronshagen
Defendant: Reliance Standard Life Ins Co
Case Number: 3:2007cv00976
Filed: June 25, 2007
Court: US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office: New Haven Office
County: New Haven
Presiding Judge: Robert N. Chatigny
Nature of Suit: Labor: E.R.I.S.A.
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Jury Demanded By: Defendant

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 13, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 43 ORDER granting 20 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 23 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 31 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert N. Chatigny on February 12, 2009. (Shapiro, S.)
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ronshagen v. Reliance Standard Life Ins Co
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dianne Ronshagen
Represented By: Daniel Stackpole
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: Reliance Standard Life Ins Co
Represented By: Gary N. Stewart
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?