Wong v. Scottsdale Insurance Company
| Gisela Rodriguez Wong |
| Scottsdale Insurance Company |
| 1:2020cv23839 |
| September 16, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
| Darrin P Gayles |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 28, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 Joint SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 26(f) by Scottsdale Insurance Company (McLean, Patricia) |
| Filing 5 Notice and Consent to Jurisdiction US Magistrate Judge signed by all parties . Filed by Scottsdale Insurance Company (McLean, Patricia) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF COURT PRACTICE. Unless otherwise specified by the Court, every motion shall be double-spaced in Times New Roman 12-point typeface. Multiple Plaintiffs or Defendants shall file joint motions with co-parties unless there are clear conflicts of position. If conflicts of position exist, parties shall explain the conflicts in their separate motions. Failure to comply with ANY of these procedures may result in the imposition of appropriate sanctions, including but not limited to, the striking of the motion or dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles (mcy) |
| Filing 3 Certificate of Other Affiliates/Corporate Disclosure Statement by Scottsdale Insurance Company (McLean, Patricia) |
| Filing 2 Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Darrin P. Gayles. Pursuant to 28 USC 636(c), the parties are hereby notified that the U.S. Magistrate Judge Alicia M. Otazo-Reyes is available to handle any or all proceedings in this case. If agreed, parties should complete and file the Consent form found on our website. It is not necessary to file a document indicating lack of consent. Pro se (NON-PRISONER) litigants may receive Notices of Electronic Filings (NEFS) via email after filing a Consent by Pro Se Litigant (NON-PRISONER) to Receive Notices of Electronic Filing. The consent form is available under the forms section of our website. (cds) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (STATE COURT COMPLAINT - Gisela Rodriguez Wong vs.Scottsdale Insurance Company) Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number AFLSDC-13533178, filed by Scottsdale Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E)(McLean, Patricia) Text Modified on 9/16/2020 (cds). No Answer/Motion to Dismiss Filed. |
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 Florida Southern 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: Wong v. Scottsdale Insurance Company | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Scottsdale Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Chancey O'Neal Smith |
| Represented By: | Patricia Anne McLean |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Gisela Rodriguez Wong | |
| Represented By: | Robin D. Benjamin |
| 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.
