Evanston Insurance Company v. Lexington Insurance Company
Plaintiff: Evanston Insurance Company
Defendant: Lexington Insurance Company
Case Number: 4:2009cv03011
Filed: January 20, 2009
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: Insurance Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: Warren K. Urbom
Presiding Judge: David L. Piester
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Diversity
Jury Demanded By: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 73 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL with prejudice granting 72 Joint Stipulation for Dismissal. The above-captioned matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to pay their own costs, and complete record waived. Ordered by Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. (JAB)
February 11, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 71 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Cancelling the telephonic conference set for 2/15/2011. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (CRZ)
August 6, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 62 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER regarding 57 Motion to Compel and 59 Motion to Extend Deadlines. As to the Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Continue Deposition and For Award of Attorney Fees, (filing no. 57 ): a. On or before August 20, 2010, t he parties shall confer and attempt to resolve the plaintiffs' motion to compel. b. On or before August 27, 2010, the parties shall either jointly advise the court that the motion to compel is resolved and the terms of that resolution. The plain tiffs' unopposed Motion to Extend Progression Deadlines, (filing no. 59 ), is granted. Discovery and deposition deadline is October 30, 2010. Jury Trial continued to 4/11/2011 at 09:00 AM in Courtroom 4, Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall North, Lincoln, NE before Senior Judge Warren K. Urbom. Pretrial Conference continued to 3/24/2011 at 11:00 AM in Chambers before Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (JAB)
May 10, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 51 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that a jury trial is set to commence on January 10, 2011 before Judge Urbom; no more than three (3) days are allocated to the trial of this case and counsel shall plan accordingly; this case is subject to the prior trial of crimi nal cases and such other civil cases as may be scheduled for trial before this one; the pretrial conference will be held before the undersigned magistrate judge on December 16, 2010 at 10:00 a.m.; one-half hour is allocated to this conference; counse l shall email a draft pretrial conference order to zwart@ned.uscourts.gov, in either MS Word or WordPerfect format, by 5:00 p.m. on December 15, 2010, and the draft order shall conform to the requirements of the local rules; as to the issue of l iability, the discovery and deposition deadline is July 30, 2010; motions to compel discovery must be filed at least 15 days prior to the discovery and deposition deadline; if the parties believe the case can be resolved by cross-motions for summary judgment, they shall file their summary judgment motions, along with their stipulation of facts and affidavits, on or before September 1, 2010; absent an agreement by the parties to submit this case on cross motions forsummary judgment, the deadline for filing motions to dismiss, motions forsummary judgment or motions to exclude expert testimony on Daubert and related grounds is September 7, 2010; the deposition deadline set forth in paragraph "c" does not apply to proving plaintiff� 39;s damages at trial; if this case is not resolved by summary judgment in favor of the defendant, the parties will be allowed to depose witnesses on the issue of damages for the purpose of securing trial testimony. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (CJP)
February 18, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 46 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - A telephonic hearing was held today on the defendant's motion to quash, (filing no. 44 ), and its motion to extend the progression schedule, (filing no. 45 ). The plaintiff's rule 30(b)(6) notice of deposition serve d on February 10, 2010 (see filing no. 43 ), is deemed withdrawn, and defendant's motion to quash, (filing no. 44 ), is denied as moot. On or before February 26, 2010, the defendant shall serve copies of all documents described in defendant&# 039;s mandatory disclosures. On or before March 12, 2010, the parties shall file a joint statement explaining the current status of preparing a joint stipulation of facts. Defendants motion for a ninety-day continuance, (filing no. 45 ), is denied. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (JAB)
January 21, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 42 ORDER. It is ordered that: (1)The following matter previously scheduled before the undersigned is herewith referred to Judge Zwart, to wit,(A)Nature of hearing:Pretrial conference.(B)Date and time of hearing: Thursday, June 24, 2010, at 10:00 a.m.(C) Place of hearing: Judge Zwart's chambers, Room 566, United States Courthouse and Federal Building, 100 Centennial Mall, North, Lincoln, Nebraska.(2)Judge Zwart will issue a report and recommendation or order as is appropriate. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (KLL, )
July 21, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 32 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The defendant's motion for planning conference, filing no. 27 , is granted. A telephonic planning conference to discuss the final progression schedule for this case will held before the undersigned district judge on July 28, 2009 at 11:00 a.m. Counsel for the defendant shall place the call. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf in the absence of Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (JAB)
July 1, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 25 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - With the agreement of Judge Piester, the Chief Judge and the other district judges, Judge Kopf has begun handling all magistrate matters previously handled by Judge Piester. As to those cases listed, unless a party files a moti on to request a telephonic planning conference on or before July 10, 2009, no planning conference will be held to discuss the scheduling of the case to trial, and a final progression order will be entered based on the representations set forth in the parties' Rule 26(f) Report. Ordered by Judge Richard G. Kopf. (LKH)
April 1, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 21 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 17 Defendant's Motion to Change Place of Trial. Because the docket in Lincoln moves more quickly than the docket in Omaha, a Lincoln trial would serve the interests of the parties to this case as well as those in the underlying case. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (JAB)
March 30, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER granting 18 Motion of P. Shawn McCann to Withdraw as Attorney for defendant. Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Piester. (JAB)
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 Nebraska District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Evanston Insurance Company v. Lexington 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: Evanston Insurance Company
Represented By: Bruce A. Smith
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: Lexington Insurance Company
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.


Why Is My Information Online?