Jones v. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company et al
| Kenton Jones |
| Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Progressive Specialty Insurance Agency, Inc. |
| 6:2018cv00021 |
| January 22, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky |
| London Office |
| Laurel |
| David L. Bunning |
| Employment |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
81
OPINION & ORDER 78 SECOND MOTION for Summary Judgment by Progressive Casualty Insurance Company : 1. The Court GRANTS DE 78; 2. The Court CANCELS all scheduled proceedings and deadlines in this matter; and 3. The Court will enter a separate Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert E. Wier on 1/21/20.(SYD)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
70
OPINION AND ORDER: 1) The Court, pursuant to the parties' undisputed agreement, DISMISSES all claims against Progressive Specialty Insurance Agency, Inc., WITH PREJUDICE; and 2) The Court dismisses Plaintiffs Counts IIXIII WITH PREJUDICE. The interference claim, alone, persists. Signed by Judge Robert E. Wier on 9/24/19. (MRS)cc: COR
|
|
Filing
24
OPINION AND ORDER re 13 MOTION for Leave by Kenton Jones TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT : the Court GRANTS DE 13 and DIRECTS the Clerk to file the previously tendered exhibit (DE 13-2) as Plaintiff Kenton Jones's First Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge Robert E. Wier on 7/9/18.(SYD)cc: COR added text on 7/9/2018 (SYD).
|
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 Kentucky Eastern 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.
