U.S. Specialty Insurance Company v. LaSalle County, Illinois et al
| U.S. Specialty Insurance Company |
| LaSalle County, Illinois and Brian Towne |
| 1:2018cv08289 |
| December 18, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John J Tharp |
| Contract: Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 7, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Brian Towne (jjr, ) |
| Filing 11 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant LaSalle County, Illinois by Jennifer Lynn Turiello (Turiello, Jennifer) |
| Filing 10 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant LaSalle County, Illinois by Kevin Mark Casey (Casey, Kevin) |
| Filing 9 WAIVER OF SERVICE returned executed by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company. LaSalle County, Illinois waiver sent on 1/3/2019, answer due 3/4/2019. (Xhaferri, Diola) |
| Filing 8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff U.S. Specialty Insurance Company by Diola Xhaferri (Xhaferri, Diola) |
| Filing 7 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff U.S. Specialty Insurance Company by Stephen John Schlegel (Schlegel, Stephen) |
| Filing 6 FIRST AMENDED complaint by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company against LaSalle County, Illinois, Brian Towne (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H)(Schlegel, Stephen) |
| Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr: Plaintiff USSIC is directed to file, by 1/3/19, an amended complaint setting forth an adequate factual basis for its assertion of jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1332. The complaint does not include sufficient information to assess the claims of citizenship of defendant Towne. An individual's citizenship is based on the state in which he is domiciled (which may differ from the state of residence). See generally Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012). Mailed notice (air, ) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (rp, ) |
| Filing 3 NOTIFICATION of Affiliates pursuant to Local Rule 3.2 by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company re complaint, #2 , civil cover sheet #1 (Schlegel, Stephen) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF filed by U.S. Specialty Insurance Company; Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-15291925. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H)(Schlegel, Stephen) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Schlegel, Stephen) |
| CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John J. Tharp, Jr. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jjr, ) |
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
- 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.
