Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Knapp et al
||Scottsdale Insurance Company
||Johnson & Bell, Ltd., Moyenda M. Knapp and Juanita B. Rodriguez
||February 6, 2013
||Illinois Northern District Court
||XX US, Outside the State of IL
||Matthew F. Kennelly
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||28:1332 Diversity - Legal Malpractice
|Jury Demanded By:
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|April 30, 2015
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 4/30/2015: For the reasons stated in the accompanying decision, the Court denies Scottsdale's motions for summary judgment on the legal malpractice claim [dkt. no. 92] and the third and fourth affirmative defenses [dkt. no. 96], but grants its motions for summary judgment on the first and second affirmative defenses [dkt. no. 93 & 95]. The Court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment [dkt. no. 86]. The Court denies Scottsdale's motion to strike plaintiffs' expert disclosures [dkt. no. 89 & 90], without prejudice to renewal as a motion in limine. Defendants' motion to strike portions of Scottsdale's Local Rule 56 statement [dkt. no. 126] is terminated as moot; the Court did not consider the portions in question. The case is set for a status hearing on May 11, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. for the purpose of setting a trial date and discussing the possibility of settlement. (mk)
|July 22, 2013
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER signed by the Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly on 7/22/2013: Defendants' motion to dismiss 16 is denied for the reasons stated in this decision. (mk)
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 Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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.