PRESCOTT ARCHITECTS INC v. LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY
PRESCOTT ARCHITECTS INC |
LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY |
3:2008cv00532 |
November 26, 2008 |
US District Court for the Northern District of Florida |
Insurance Office |
Okaloosa |
M CASEY RODGERS |
ELIZABETH M TIMOTHY |
Plaintiff |
Diversity |
28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 30 ORDER DISMISSING CASE (titled ORDER). Defendant Lexington's Motion to Compel Arbitration 14 is GRANTED; Plaintiff Prescott's Motion to Stay Arbitration 18 is DENIED; The parties shall immediately engage in arbitration on the issue stated in Lexington's September 25, 2008 arbitration demand; This case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; The Clerk is ordered to administratively CLOSE this case. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 7/1/09. (lcu) |
Filing 26 ORDER. The parties' supplemental briefs must be filed no later than April 3, 2009. Maximum length is twenty-five (25) pages. No reply briefs will be permitted. As a final matter, as explained at oral argument, the court will rule on plaintiffs'motion to amend following its consideration of the motion to compel arbitration and the motion to stay arbitration. This case remains stayed pending the court's disposition of the opposing motionson arbitration. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 3/19/09. Miscellaneous Deadline - by 4/3/2009 (lcu) |
Filing 12 ORDER re 7 MOTION to Continue to Abate or Continue Deadlines set forth in 4 Initial Scheduling Order and 8 Supplemental MOTION to Continue. The requested relief is GRANTED, to the extent the deadlines set forth in the cou rts December 1, 2008, scheduling order are STAYED, until further notice. The court also addresses the following. Prior to the removal of this case from state court plaintiffs filed a motion to stay arbitration proceedings and for an expedited hearin g; defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, stay the proceedings, and to dismiss and/or strike plaintiffs' complaint. These motions were not heard in state court and remain pending. Both motions are DENIED, without prejudice to their elec tronic refiling in this court. By January 26, 2009, the parties shall advise the court of the current status of this matter, including an explanation as to why it warrants expedited treatment and why a hearing or oral argument is necessary to resolve the issues presented. Signed by District Judge M CASEY RODGERS on 1/12/09. Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 1/26/2009) (lcu) |
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 Florida Northern 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: PRESCOTT ARCHITECTS INC v. LEXINGTON 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: PRESCOTT ARCHITECTS INC | |
Represented By: | JONATHAN THOMAS HOLLOWAY, ESQ |
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: LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY | |
Represented By: | ROBERT SCOTT NEWMAN |
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.