Federated Mutual Insurance Company v. Peery's Auto Parts, L.L.C. et al
| Federated Mutual Insurance Company |
| Debbie Peery, Cody Peery, Abby Peery, Peery's Auto Parts, L.L.C. and C&A Automotive, Inc. |
| Peery's Auto Parts, L.L.C., Debbie Peery, C&A Automotive, Inc., Abby Peery and Cody Peery |
| Federated Mutual Insurance Company |
| 4:2011cv00172 |
| February 14, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Missouri |
| Kansas City Office |
| Unknown |
| Fernando J. Gaitan |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Both |
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
190
ORDER granting in part 172 defendants' MOTION to dismiss w/respect to defendants Abby Peery and Cody Peery - Abby Peery and Cody Peery terminated; and denying in part w/respect to defendants Debbie Peery and Peery's Auto Parts. Signed on 7/26/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)
|
|
Filing
178
ORDER granting 156 Defendants' Motion to Amend its Witness List by Substituting a Witness; granting 166 Defendants' Motion to add Exhibit; denying 177 Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants Debbie, Cody, and Abby Peery's Mo tion to Reconsider their Motion to Dismiss and Defendant Perry [sic] Auto, LLC's Motion to Dismiss; and plaintiff is directed to file a response to defendants' motion 172 on or before WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 2012. Signed on 4/25/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)
|
|
Filing
175
ORDER - (1) Defendants' motion 112 isGRANTED; (2) Defendants' motion 113 is GRANTED; (3) Defendants' motion 114 is GRANTED; (4) Defendants' motion 115 is PROVISIONALLYGRANTED, subject to reconsideration after submission of designations from theExamination Under Oath, as detailed on page eight of this Order; (5) Defendants' motion 116 is PROVISIONALLY DENIED, subject to reconsideration after submission of the information detailed on page nine of this Order; (6) D efendants' motion 117 is GRANTED; (7) Defendants' motion 118 is GRANTED; (8) the Court DEFERS ruling on Defendants' motion 119 until the executive summaries and defendants' motion for reconsideration of its motion to dismiss are fully briefed; (9) Defendants' motion 120 is GRANTED; (10) Defendants' motion 121 is GRANTED; (11) Defendants' motion 122 is GRANTED; (12) Defendants' motion 123 is DENIED; (13) Defendants' motion 124 is GRANTED; and (14) Plaintiff's motion 125 is PROVISIONALLY DENIED, subject to reconsideration after submission of the information detailed on page 18 of this Order. Signed on 4/5/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)
|
|
Filing
163
ORDER denying 59 plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting 72 defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. Signed on 3/7/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)
|
|
Filing
161
ORDER denying 69 defendants' MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. Plaintiff's request for sanctions 81 will be DENIED. Plaintiff shall submit its Executive Summary on or before Tuesday, 3/20/12; defendants' joint opposition is due 3/27/12. Signed on 3/2/12 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Enss, Rhonda)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDERED that:(1) Defendants Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 49 )is DENIED; and (2) Defendants Motions to Depose Plaintiffs Expert Randall H. Wilson, C.P.A. (Doc. Nos. 50 and 51 ) are DENIED. Signed on 1/6/2012 by Chief District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr. (Baldwin, Joella)
|
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 Missouri Western 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.
