Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company
| Hartford Roman Catholic Diocesan Corporation |
| Interstate Fire & Casualty Company |
| 3:2012cv01641 |
| November 19, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| New Haven Office |
| Hartford |
| Janet Bond Arterton |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
265
ORDER: For the reasons stated in the attached Ruling, Plaintiff's Motion 256 for Amended or Additional Findings and Conclusions of law and to Amend the Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 7/26/17. (Denker, J.)
|
|
Filing
264
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the attached Ruling, Defendant's Opposition 254 to Plaintiff's 2016 Pre-Judgment Interest Calculation is DENIED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 6/23/17. (Denker, J.)
|
|
Filing
250
ORDER: As set forth in the attached Memorandum of Decision, the Court concludes that the Archdiocese has proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Interstate breached its contracts with the Archdiocese as to each of the underlying claims by fa iling to timely reimburse the Archdiocese on those claims. However, the Archdiocese has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating that Interstate violated its duty of good faith and fair dealing or that Interstate violated CUIPA/CUTPA. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 07/28/2016.(Harris, J)
|
|
Filing
217
ORDER: Plaintiff's Motions 202 203 to Strike are DENIED.(Poueymirou, M)
|
|
Filing
110
RULING granting 101 Defendant's Motion to Compel to the extent set forth in the attached Ruling. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 8/24/2015. (Watson, M.)
|
|
Filing
93
RULING Following Seventh In Camera Review (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 06/03/15.(Malone, A.)
|
|
Filing
92
RULING Following Sixth In Camera Review (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 05/22/15.(Malone, A.)
|
|
Filing
91
RULING Following Fifth In Camera Review (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 05/06/15.(Malone, A.)
|
|
Filing
86
RULING Following Fourth In Camera Review (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 3/31/15.(Malone, A.)
|
|
Filing
85
RULING Following Second In Camera Review (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 3/25/15.(Malone, A.)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER; the partial objections 41 50 to the discovery rulings 39 43 are OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Janet Bond Arterton on 1/13/2015.(Morril, Gregory)
|
|
Filing
63
RULING Following Second In Camera Review (see attached). Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 6/12/2014.(Watson, M.)
|
|
Filing
49
RULING FOLLOWING FIRST IN CAMERA REVIEW. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 2/26/2014.(Watson, M.)
|
|
Filing
43
RULING: granted in part with respect to Requests for Production Nos. 3-4, 14-16, 19, 34-36, 39, 41, 54-56, 59, 61, 66-67, and 74 to the extent that an in camera review by this Magistrate Judge, consistent with this Ruling, is ordered, with cop ies to be submitted to this Magistrate Judges Chambers on or before March 10, 2014; and denied without prejudice as moot with respect to Request for Production No. 21 34 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 2/19/2014. (Rodko, B.)
|
|
Filing
39
RULING: granting in part and denying in part 28 Motion to Compel. Signed by Judge Joan G. Margolis on 1/24/2014. (Rodko, B.)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
