Bearbones, Inc. et al v. PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY
Plaintiff: |
Bearbones, Inc. and Amaral Enterprises LLC |
Defendant: |
PEERLESS INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY |
Case Number: |
3:2015cv30017 |
Filed: |
February 6, 2015 |
Court: |
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
Office: |
Springfield Office |
County: |
Berkshire |
Presiding Judge: |
Mark G. Mastroianni |
Nature of Suit: |
Insurance |
Cause of Action: |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
Jury Demanded By: |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
August 23, 2019 |
Filing
166
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. By no later than September 13, 2019, Peerless Indemnity Insurance Corporation ("Peerless") is directed to file an affidavit signed by an authorized representative of Peerless s tating Peerless' place of incorporation and its principal place of business as of February 6, 2015. In connection with Peerless' statement of its principal place of business, the affidavit shall state facts supporting the February 6, 2015 location of Peerless' principal place of business in compliance with the nerve center test set out by the First Circuit in its August 21, 2019 opinion and order. To the extent the plaintiffs, Bearbones, Inc., d/b/a/ Morningside Bakery and A maral Enterprises LLC, seek to take discovery related to Peerless' principal of business following the filing of Peerless' affidavit, a document concisely describing the discovery the plaintiffs propose to take shall be filed with the court within seven (7) days of the filing of Peerless' affidavit, or by no later than September 20, 2019, whichever is earlier. There will be no extensions of these deadlines. See attached Order for complete details. (Rivera, Melissa)
|
December 11, 2018 |
Filing
161
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered re: 138 Motion to Vacate; 141 Motion for Sanctions; 153 Motion to Vacate ; 157 Motion to Vacate. For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs three Motions to Vacate the Judgment entered in favor of Defendants are DENIED - (Dkt. Nos. 138, 153, 157), and Defendants Motion for Sanctions is DENIED - (Dkt. No. 141). (Finn, Mary)
|
January 25, 2018 |
Filing
133
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) - (Dkt. No. 127) is DENIED. (Finn, Mary)
|
October 17, 2017 |
Filing
124
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: ORDER entered. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Regarding Defendant's 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Plaintiffs' 88 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. For the reasons stated, Count I of the verified complaint is DISMISSED and the court finds that judgment as a matter of law is warranted in favor of Peerless on Counts II and III. Therefore, Defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and Plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment is DENIED. The Clerk's Office is directed to enter judgment for the defendant. The case may be closed. (See attached Memo & Order for complete details.) (Calderon, Melissa)
|
October 11, 2016 |
Filing
50
Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered. Plaintiffs Motion to Supplement its complaint by adding three counts pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws chs. 93A and 176D, adding a count for declaratory relief as to the unconstitutionality of Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 175, § 99, cl. twelfth, and adding collective action allegations - 40 is DENIED in its entirety. (Finn, Mary)
|
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?