Dobish v. Rain and Hail, LLC
Plaintiff: Lee Dobish
Defendant: Rain and Hail, LLC
Case Number: 8:2011cv00041
Filed: February 7, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Nebraska
Office: 8 Omaha Office
Presiding Judge: Joseph F. Bataillon
Presiding Judge: Thomas D. Thalken
Nature of Suit: Agriculture Acts
Cause of Action: 09 U.S.C. ยง 1 U.S. Arbitration Act
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
August 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 72 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Filing No. 62 ) is denied. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (Filing No. 57 ) is granted. The award of the arbitrator entered on June 4, 2010, is confirmed. A separate judgment will be entered this date. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (GJG)
January 23, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 54 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - The Order, Filing No. 49 , is affirmed in its entirety. The objections of the plaintiff, Filing No. 50 , are overruled. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (AOA)
January 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER regarding OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER regarding Order on Motion to Compel 49 50 filed by Lee Dobish. Ten days after the ruling on the objection (Filing No. 50 ), the plaintiff shall initiate a telephone conference with the undersigned magistrate judge and opposing counsel in order to schedule this matter to trial. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (JAB)
December 29, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 49 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 42 Motion to Compel Deposition by Written Questions. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)
November 4, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 39 ORDER granting 34 motion to amend and granting 31 motion for leave to depose the arbitrator by written interrogatory as set forth herein. The plaintiff shall have until November 10, 2011, to file the Amended Complaint. The court will hold a te lephone conference on November 28, 2011, at 10:00 a.m. C.S.T., for the purpose of reviewing the preparation of the case to date and scheduling the case to trial. Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the conference with the undersigned magistrate judge and participating counsel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (TRL)
September 26, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 30 ORDER - IT IS ORDERED: The Clerk of Court shall return the original documents produced by Richard Schwartsbeck, in response to the plaintiff's subpoena, to the address provided on the envelope. The Clerk of Court shall maintain the electronic v ersion of the documents under seal, accessible only to the court, pursuant to NECivR 7.5. The court will hold a telephone conference on October 14, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. for the purpose of reviewing the preparation of the case to date and scheduling the case to trial. Plaintiff's counsel shall initiate the conference with the undersigned magistrate judge and participating counsel. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (Documents mailed as directed)(TCL )
August 2, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 27 ORDER - The plaintiff's motion seeking permission to issue a subpoena to a non-party arbitrator (Filing No. 19 ) is granted to the extent that the plaintiff may serve a subpoena on the arbitrator for documents limited to the issues of whether t he defendant withdrew its denial of the plaintiff's insurance claim based on the premise that the amount of crop loss suffered could not be determined and the defendant accepted the amount of loss reported by the plaintiff as contained in the Cl aim Information and Deferral Form as to each of the plaintiff's farm parcels and would not be contesting that matter in the Arbitration. The plaintiff's motion is denied in all other respects. The plaintiff may issue a subpoena for documen ts from Dr. Schwartzbeck and the AAA limited to the issues of whether the defendant withdrew its denial of the plaintiff's insurance claim based on the premise that the amount of crop loss suffered could not be determined and the defendant acce pted the amount of loss reported by the plaintiff as contained in the Claim Information and Deferral Form as to each of the plaintiff's farm parcels and would not be contesting that matter in the Arbitration. Since it is argued that such a conce ssion was referenced at various times during the arbitration, the notes in their entirety shall be produced. The subpoena shall direct Dr. Schwartzbeck to mail or deliver a copy of such notes, marked "For In Camera Review" with the above caption and case number, to the Clerk of Court at the Roman L. Hruska U.S. Courthouse, 111 South 18th Plaza, Suite 2271, Omaha, Nebraska, 68102. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Thomas D. Thalken. (GJG)
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: Dobish v. Rain and Hail, LLC
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Lee Dobish
Represented By: BRAUER LAW OFFICE
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: Rain and Hail, LLC
Represented By: Cathy S. Trent-Vilim
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?