Quality Time, Inc. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Quality Time, Inc.
Defendant: West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
Case Number: 6:2012cv01008
Filed: January 5, 2012
Court: US District Court for the District of Kansas
Office: Wichita Office
County: Montgomery
Presiding Judge: J. Thomas Marten
Presiding Judge: Gerald L. Rushfelt
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 5, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 177 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 169 plaintiff's Motion in Limine. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 4/5/2013. (mss)
March 18, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 144 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 130 Motion to Exclude as provided herein. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 3/18/2013. (jlw)
February 7, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 134 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 74 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 80 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 84 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; denying 103 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 105 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, except as to certainconclusions noted in the order. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 2/7/2013. (aa)
January 23, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 132 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 122 Motion to Reconsider. Plaintiffs seek reconsideration of the Court's order (ECF No. 120) that found Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike/Dismiss Defendant's Fraud Affirmative Defenses (ECF No. 97) moot. For the reasons stated in the Memorandum and Order, the Court denies the motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 1/23/2013. (bw)
December 26, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 121 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 108 Defendant West Bend Mutual Insurance Company's Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration. The Court hereby modifies 101 Memorandum and Order to permit Defendant to produce a redacted Claim Log and red acted internal emails as set out herein. Within twenty days from the date of this order Defendant shall (1) complete the production and redaction that the Court has ordered, (2) serve an amended log of withheld documents that fully complies with Fed . R. Civ. P. 26(b)(5), and (3) file and serve a certificate that Defendant has fully complied with this Memorandum and Order and the one entered November 13, 2012. See Memorandum and Order for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 12/26/2012. (bw)
November 13, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 101 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 67 Rule 37(a)(3)(B)(iv) Motion to Compel. Within thirty days of the date of this Order, Defendant shall produce all items responsive to Requests 9, 10, and 13, except for Emails 10 through 25 protected as work product and listed in the Privilege Log. In addition, based on Defendant's statement that for disclosed experts, it can make billing documents responsive to Request 12 available for inspection and copying, Defendant shall m ake those responsive billings available within thirty days of the date of this Order. The production ordered herein shall take place at the offices of Plaintiffs' counsel or at any other location to which the parties agree. An award of expense s or fees is inappropriate under the circumstances. Each party shall bear its own attorney fees and expenses incurred in connection with the motion to compel. See Memorandum and Order for additional details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 11/13/2012. (bw)
July 12, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 42 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 30 Motion for Leave to Amend to Assert Claim for Reformation and Substitute Party. Within seven days of the date of this Memorandum and Order, Plaintiff may file a stand-alone amended comp laint that does not adopt or incorporate matters set out in the original complaint and which otherwise comports with this order. The amended complaint may contain only the allegations of the original complaint and those contained in the proposed amendment. The motion is otherwise denied. See Memorandum and Order for more details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 7/12/2012.(bw)
May 15, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 31 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying without prejudice 25 Motion to Add Party Plaintiff. The denial is without prejudice to consideration of Plaintff's later motion (ECF No. 30). See Memorandum and Order for additional details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 5/15/2012. (bw)
March 12, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 12 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 9 defendant's Motion to Strike. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 3/12/2012. (mss)
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 Kansas District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Quality Time, Inc. v. West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: West Bend Mutual Insurance Company
Represented By: J. Philip Davidson
Represented By: Brian L. White
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: Quality Time, Inc.
Represented By: William J. Fitzpatrick
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.


Why Is My Information Online?