Hartford Fire Insurance Company v. Nottingham Construction Company, LLC et al
| Hartford Fire Insurance Company |
| Ted Christopher Hicks, Nottingham Construction Company, LLC, C&T Equipment, L.L.C., Casey Rayborn Hicks, Constance F Hicks and Ted Hicks |
| 3:2011cv00590 |
| August 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana |
| Baton Rouge Office |
| Brian A. Jackson |
| Stephen C. Riedlinger |
| Contract: Recovery/Enforcement |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Defendant |
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
42
AMENDED RULING AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment ishereby GRANTED. The Court further ORDERS Defendants to submitpayment to Plaintiff in the amount of $579,802.32, the amount of theSuspensive Appeal Bond, plus costs and attorney's fees. Signed by Chief Judge Brian A. Jackson on 11/30/2012. (PJH)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER to Amend Complaint: IT IS ORDERED that plaintiff Hartford Fire Insurance Company shall have 14 days to file an Amended Complaint which clarifies the organizational form of defendants Nottingham Construction Company, L.L.C. and C&T Equipment, L.L.C., and properly alleges the citizenship of the defendant if it is a limited liability company.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 8/26/2011. (CMM)
|
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 Middle 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.
