Smith v. Safeco Insurance
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|Date Filed||#||Document Text|
|March 7, 2014
ORDER Dismissing Case: Court grants Safecos motion to dismiss and dismisses Smiths Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. Status hearing set for 3/10/2014 is stricken. Civil case terminated. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 3/7/2014.Mailed notice(tsa, )
|October 11, 2013
Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the reasons stated herein, this Court dismisses Smiths corrected amended complaint without prejudice. Further, this Court denies Safecos motion to strike Smiths claim for attorneys fees as moot. Smith has tw enty-eight days from the date of this order to file a third-amended complaint that sets forth factual content that supports an inference that Safeco knowingly violated or recklessly disregarded its obligations under the FCRA. In view of Smiths pro se status, this Court advises Smith that he can file a third-amended complaint only if the factual contentions have evidentiary support, or if specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further i nvestigation or discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). This Court further advises Smith that a third-amended complaint, if filed, must stand on its own. Additionally, Smith may consider seeking the assistance of the Pro Se Assistance Program. Smith can make an appointment by calling 312.435.5691 or 312.582.8727. Signed by the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall on 10/11/2013.Mailed notice(tsa, )
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.
Why Is My Information Online?