Hughes v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit Connecticut District Court Hughes v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

Hughes v. Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company

Plaintiff:	Patricia Hughes
Defendant:	Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
Case Number:	3:2017cv01561
Filed:	September 18, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the District of Connecticut
Office:	New Haven Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Jeffrey A. Meyer
Nature of Suit:	Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
Cause of Action:	29 U.S.C. § 1132
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
February 5, 2020	Filing 81 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. For the reasons set forth in the attached opinion, the Court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff Hughes's motion for attorney's fees and costs, Doc. # 74 , in the amount of $105,762.25 in attorney's fees and $3,576.54 in costs to be paid to Hughes's counsel by Hartford Life no later than February 26, 2020. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/5/2020. (Al-Jarani, Y.)
March 25, 2019	Filing 72 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 41 ) is GRANTED insofar as the case is remanded to defendant for a full and fair review of plaintiff's claim. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 39 ) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/25/2019. (Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 5, 2020

Filing 81 ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS. For the reasons set forth in the attached opinion, the Court GRANTS IN PART plaintiff Hughes's motion for attorney's fees and costs, Doc. # 74 , in the amount of $105,762.25 in attorney's fees and $3,576.54 in costs to be paid to Hughes's counsel by Hartford Life no later than February 26, 2020. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 2/5/2020. (Al-Jarani, Y.)

March 25, 2019

Filing 72 ORDER ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. For the reasons set forth in the attached ruling, plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 41 ) is GRANTED insofar as the case is remanded to defendant for a full and fair review of plaintiff's claim. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Doc. # 39 ) is DENIED. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer on 3/25/2019. (Sokoloff-Rubin, E.)

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: Hughes v. Hartford Life and Accident 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: Patricia Hughes
Represented By:	Paul Michael Kampfer
Represented By:	Scott M. Riemer
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: Hartford Life and Accident Insurance Company
Represented By:	Patrick Walter Begos
Represented By:	Gregory J. Bennici
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?