Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Rymer Companies, LLC et al
Cincinnati Insurance Companies and Cincinnati Insurance Company |
Rymer Companies, LLC, Cannon Falls Mall, Inc. and Rymer Companies |
0:2019cv01025 |
April 12, 2019 |
US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
Tony N Leung |
Eric C Tostrud |
Insurance |
28 U.S.C. § 1332 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on June 20, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 16 PRETRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 10/1/2019. Fact Discovery due by 12/15/2019. Expert Discovery due by 2/1/2020. Motions (non-disp) due 12/15/2019. Motions (disp) due by 4/1/2020. Ready for trial due by 8/1/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on 6/18/2019. (HAM) |
Filing 15 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung: Initial Pretrial Conference held on 6/18/2019. Pretrial scheduling order will be issued. (HAM) |
Filing 14 Cincinnati Ins. Co. REPLY to Counterclaim Rymer Companies, LLC et al. filed by Cincinnati Insurance Company. (Kane, Anthony) |
Filing 13 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. Filed by Cincinnati Insurance Company. Jointly Signed by Rymer Companies, LLC, a/k/a Rymer Companies, Inc. and Cannon Falls Mall, Inc..(Kane, Anthony) |
Filing 12 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. The Vanguard Group, Inc. is a publicly-held corporation owning 10 percent or more of stock of Plaintiff Cincinnati Insurance Company, Counter Defendant Cincinnati Insurance Company. (Kane, Anthony) |
Filing 11 NOTICE OF AND ORDER FOR PRETRIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE: Pretrial Conference set for 6/18/2019 at 01:00 PM in Judge's Chambers 9W (MPLS) before Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. Signed by Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung on 5/14/2019. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(HAM) |
Filing 10 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. There is no parent corporation, publicly held corporation or wholly-owned subsidiary to report for Counter Claimant Rymer Companies, LLC. (Hammond, Bradley) |
Filing 9 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. There is no parent corporation, publicly held corporation or wholly-owned subsidiary to report for Cannon Falls Mall, Inc. (Hammond, Bradley) Modified text on 5/15/2019 (kt). |
Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by Bradley K Hammond on behalf of All Defendants. (Hammond, Bradley) |
Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Bradley K Hammond on behalf of All Defendants. (Hammond, Bradley) |
Filing 6 ANSWER to Complaint , COUNTERCLAIM against All Plaintiffs. filed by Rymer Companies, LLC. (Hammond, Bradley) |
Filing 5 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Cincinnati Insurance Company re #2 Complaint, upon Defendant Cannon Falls Mall, Inc., (Kane, Anthony) |
Filing 4 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Cincinnati Insurance Company re #2 Complaint, upon Defendant Rymer Companies, LLC (Kane, Anthony) |
Filing 3 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Eric C. Tostrud per Civil (3rd, 4th - Master) list, referred to Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung. Please use case number 19-cv-1025 ECT/TNL. (CLK) |
Filing 2 COMPLAINT against Cannon Falls Mall, Inc., Rymer Companies, LLC (filing fee $ 400, receipt number AMNDC-6807840) filed by Cincinnati Insurance Companies. No summons requested. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Kane, Anthony) |
Filing 1 FILED IN ERROR. DUPLICATE ENTRY. COMPLAINT against Cannon Falls Mall, Inc., Rymer Companies, LLC (filing fee $ 400, receipt number AMNDC-6805954) filed by Cincinnati Insurance Companies. No summons requested. (Kane, Anthony) Modified text on 4/15/2019 (CLK). |
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 Minnesota 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.