Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Corporation et al v. Affiliated FM Insurance Company et al
| Mauna Kea Beach Hotel Corporation and Hapuna Beach Prince Hotel Corporation |
| Affiliated FM Insurance Company, John Does 1-20, Doe Corporations 1-10 and Doe Entities 1-10 |
| 1:2007cv00605 |
| December 17, 2007 |
| US District Court for the District of Hawaii |
| Hawaii Office |
| Honolulu |
| KEVIN S.C. CHANG |
| DAVID ALAN EZRA |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract |
| Plaintiff |
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
185
ORDER AFFIRMING IN PART AND VACATING IN PART MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO COMPEL. "The Magistrate Judge's limitat ion on Interrogatories 2 and 4 is affirmed. The Magistrate Judge's decision that Defendant's handling of other claims and lawsuits outside of Hawaii is relevant to establish a bad faith claim is vacated. The Magistrate Judge's time li mitation on Document Requests 15 through 17 is affirmed and this Court further limits those requests to claims arising in Hawaii." Signed by JUDGE DAVID ALAN EZRA on 5/1/2009. [re: 153 APPEAL of 151 Order denying 136 Motion for Reconsideration of 132 , the Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part 83 Plaintiff's Motion to Compel] (afc)
|
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 Hawaii 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.
