Koerner v. Vigilant Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Louis R Koerner, Jr
Defendant: Vigilant Insurance Company
Case Number: 2:2016cv13319
Filed: July 27, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana
Office: New Orleans Office
County: Orleans
Presiding Judge: Lance M Africk
Presiding Judge: Janis van Meerveld
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 18, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 112 ORDER AND REASONS granting 81 MOTION for Summary Judgment; all of Koerner's claims against CMR are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 10/18/2017.(blg)
May 10, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 60 ORDER AND REASONS: ORDERED that CMR's 50 motion to set aside the Clerk's entry of default and this Court's partial default judgment are GRANTED and that the 36 entry of default and 46 default judgment are VACATED. FURTHER ORDERED that all dates and deadlines are continued, and will be reset at a scheduling conference with the Court's case manager on 5/23/2017 at 10:15am. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 5/10/2017.(blg)
March 9, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 46 ORDER AND REASONS re 37 Motion for Default Judgment - IT IS ORDERED that Koerner's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that there be judgment in favor of plaintiff, Louis R. Koerner, Jr. , and against defendant, CMR Construction & Roofing, LLC, in the full sum of $497,257.71, plus legal interest from date of judicial demand until paid, and costs. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Koerner may file a brief and supporting documentation b y Monday, March 20, 2017 substantiating his claimed attorney's fees and his entitlement to expert witness fees. If no such brief is received, such claims will be waived, final judgment will issue, and the case will be closed. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 3/8/2017. (bwn)
September 12, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER AND REASONS granting 4 MOTION for More Definite Statement; No later than 9/19/2016 plaintiff shall filed an amended complaint to specify precisely how defendant breached its policy with respect to plaintiff's claimed damage. FURTHER ORDERED that should Vigilant believe the amended complaint fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, it shall file a motion to dismiss no later than 9/28/2016. Should Vigilant do so, plaintiff shall respond by 10/5/2016, at which time the Court will take the motion under submission. Signed by Judge Lance M Africk on 9/12/2016.(blg)
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 Louisiana Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Koerner v. Vigilant Insurance Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Louis R Koerner, Jr
Represented By: Louis Roy Koerner, Jr.
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 ]
Defendant: Vigilant Insurance Company
Represented By: John W. Joyce
Represented By: Laurence D. LeSueur, Jr.
Represented By: Steven W. Usdin
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?