Lakewood Cemetery Association v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company
| Lakewood Cemetery Association |
| Twin City Fire Insurance Company |
| 0:2023cv03688 |
| November 30, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| Jeffrey M Bryan |
| Douglas L Micko |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance Contract |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
(Text-Only) ORDER. This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Answer or Otherwise Respond to Defendant's Counterclaim #13 . Having considered the matter and finding good cause, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until and including February 29, 2024 to answer or otherwise respond to Defendant's Counterclaim. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on 1/26/2024. (jme)
|
| Filing 14 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re #13 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #7 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim filed by Lakewood Cemetery Association.(Gaertner, Susan) |
| Filing 13 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #7 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim filed by Lakewood Cemetery Association. (Gaertner, Susan) |
| Filing 12 (Text-Only) CLERK'S NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT. Due to the appointment of Judge Jeffrey M. Bryan, this case is reassigned to him. Judge John R. Tunheim is no longer assigned to the case. NOTE: the new case number is 23-cv-3688 JMB/DLM. Please use this case number for all subsequent pleadings. . Note: any current hearings or conferences before the district judge in this case are canceled unless otherwise indicated by the new DJ courtroom deputy. (CLK) |
|
Filing 11
(Text-Only) ORDER: This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time Answer or Otherwise Respond to Defendant's Counterclaim #8 . Having considered the matter and finding good cause, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall have until and including January 31, 2024 to answer or otherwise respond to Defendant's Counterclaim. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko on 12/27/2023. (jme)
|
| Filing 10 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. There is no parent corporation, publicly held corporation owning 10 percent or more of its stock, or any subsidiaries to report for Lakewood Cemetery Association. (Gaertner, Susan) |
| Filing 9 PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE re Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Respond to Defendant's Counterclaim #8 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. (Gaertner, Susan) |
| Filing 8 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #7 Answer to Complaint, Counterclaim filed by Lakewood Cemetery Association. (Gaertner, Susan) |
| Filing 7 Defendant's ANSWER to Complaint , COUNTERCLAIM against Lakewood Cemetery Association. filed by Twin City Fire Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1) (Tibor, Alexander) Modified text on 12/11/2023 (ACH). |
| Filing 6 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Parent corporation, publicly held corporation owning 10 percent or more of its stock, or subsidiary reported for Twin City Fire Insurance Company. (Spevacek, Charles) |
| Filing 5 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Twin City Fire Insurance Company re #1 Notice of Removal, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Rule 7.1 - Disclosure Statement (Spevacek, Charles) |
| Filing 4 (Text-Only) CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge John R. Tunheim per 3rd/4th Master list, referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko. Please use case number 23-cv-3688 (JRT/DLM).Notice: All Nongovernmental Corporate Parties must file a #Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement. (MMP) |
| Filing 3 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR. TO BE REFILED//RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. There is no parent corporation, publicly held corporation owning 10 percent or more of its stock, or any subsidiaries to report for Twin City Fire Insurance Company. (Spevacek, Charles) Modified text on 12/4/2023 (ACH). |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET re #1 Notice of Removal, filed by Lakewood Cemetery Association filed by Twin City Fire Insurance Company. (Spevacek, Charles) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Defendant from Hennepin County District Court (filing fee $ 402, receipt number AMNDC-10690919) filed by Twin City Fire Insurance Company. No summons requested. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) A) (Spevacek, Charles) |
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
| Search for this case: Lakewood Cemetery Association v. Twin City Fire 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: Lakewood Cemetery Association | |
| Represented By: | Susan E Gaertner |
| 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: Twin City Fire Insurance Company | |
| Represented By: | Alexander Tibor |
| Represented By: | Charles E Spevacek |
| 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.
