SMITH v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY
| susan smith |
| GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY |
| 1:2020cv02221 |
| August 24, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Mark J Dinsmore |
| James Patrick Hanlon |
| James R Sweeney |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 21, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
ORDER Regarding Protective Orders. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 10/21/2020.(CBU)
|
| Filing 10 Agreed Proposed CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Defendant GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY . (Rosta, Thomas) |
|
Filing 9
SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 10/21/2020 01:00 PM (Eastern Time) in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Counsel shall attend the conference by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. The parties shall file a proposed Case Management Plan ("CMP") no fewer than seven days before the pretrial conference. Section III(A) through (E) of the proposed CMP shall include the following deadlines (see Order for established deadlines and additional details). Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 9/25/2020.(SWM)
|
| Filing 8 ANSWER to Complaint , filed by GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY.(Rosta, Thomas) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Reassignment of Case to Judge James Patrick Hanlon. Judge James R. Sweeney II is no longer assigned to this case. Please include the new case number, 1:20-cv-02221-JPH-MJD, on all future filings in this matter. (AKH) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER OF RECUSAL. Clerk is directed to randomly reassign case and notify parties of newly assigned Judge. Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 8/31/2020. (BRR)
|
| Filing 5 PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES before Judge James R. Sweeney II. (JDC) |
| Filing 4 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (AKH) |
| Filing 3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY. (Rosta, Thomas) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas Edward Rosta on behalf of Defendant GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY. (Rosta, Thomas) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Marion County Superior Court, case number 49D05-2007-CT-022413, filed by GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY. (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0756-6145747) (Attachments: #1 State Court Record Complaint, Appearance, Summons, Motion for Time, Order for Time, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Rosta, Thomas) |
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 Indiana Southern 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
| Search for this case: SMITH v. GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: GEICO CASUALTY COMPANY | |
| Represented By: | Thomas Edward Rosta |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: susan smith | |
| Represented By: | Paul Stanton Petro |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
