Guam Industrial Services, Inc., dba Guam Shipyard et al v. Zurich American Insurance Company et al
| Guam Industrial Services, Inc., dba Guam Shipyard and Mathews Pothen |
| Starr Indemnity and Liability Company and Zurich American Insurance Company |
| 1:2011cv00014 |
| May 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Guam |
| Hagatna Office |
| Guam |
| Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood |
| Joaquin V.E. Manibusan |
| Marine |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1333 |
| 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
220
Decision and Order granting 89 Zurich and Starr's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Count II; denying 131 Guam Shipyard and Pothen's Motion for Summary Judgment on Count II; granting 169 Zurich's Motion for Partial Summary J udgment on Count I; denying 176 Guam Shipyard's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Count I. This results in the dismissal, in entirety, of Guam Shipyard and Pothen's complaint. Zurich and Starr, however, have filed their own complaint for declaratory relief. That complaint's basic aim is a declaration that there is no insurance coverage here, which the court effectively provides in this decision. However, the Court notes that this complaint also seeks costs and other appropriate relief and that this decision does not rule on those claims. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 9/13/2013. (fad, )
|
|
Filing
217
Order Re: Sanctions. The court finds: (1) Plaintiffs failed to comply with a court order which required the video taking of an inspection on board the dry dock Machinist on November 3, 2011. (2) Plaintiffs' belief that a camera pass issued by VC C was required prior to entry into the GISI facility was not substantially justified because their belief had no reasonable basis in law and fact. (3) There exists no other circumstances which would make an award of expenses unjust. (4) Defendants ar e entitled to receive from Plaintiffs the sum of $8,975.00 as their reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. Plaintiff shall make this payment within 30 days of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joaquin V.E. Manibusan, Jr on 8/26/2013. (related document(s): 195 Guam Industrial Services, Inc. dba Guam Shipyard, and Mathews Pothen's Opposition and Objections to 193 Zurich's Request for Money Sanctions filed by All Plaintiffs, 98 Motion for Sanctions). (fad, )
|
|
Filing
104
Order re: 48 Motion to Strike Defendant Starr Indemnity and Liability Company's Answer and for Default Judgment; 82 Stipulation re: Motion to Strike Starr's Answer and Leave for Plaintiffs to File a Third Amended Complaint. The court GRANTS the stipulation and ORDERS the following: 1. Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a Third Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this court order. 2. Pursuant to 22 G.C.A. Section 15207, Defendant Starr shall post a suret y bond in the amount of $3,706,911.00 within thirty (30) days of this court order. 3. Nothing in the parties' stipulation or in this court order shall prevent the Plaintiffs from filing the same Motion to Strike or similar motion, in the ev ent Defendant Starr fails to post a surety bond pursuant to 22 G.C.A. Section 15207. In light of the parties' stipulation, the hearing date scheduled for August 22, 2012 to hear the Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and for Default Judgment is hereby VACATED. Signed by Chief Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood on 8/2/2012. (fad, )
|
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 Guam 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.
