Argawal et al v. Oregon Mutual Insurance Company
| Arvind Agarwal and Alka Agarwal |
| Oregon Mutual Insurance Company |
| 2:2011cv01384 |
| August 26, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Las Vegas Office |
| Carl W. Hoffman |
| Gloria M. Navarro |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
| 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
99
ORDER Granting 95 Motion for Magistrate Judge to Reconsider 94 Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/30/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER Denying 80 Affidavit of Expenses, Including Attorney Fees, Incurred by Defendant Oregon Mutual in Opposing Plaintiffs Omnibus Discovery Motion,. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 10/2/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
|
|
Filing
85
THE COURT HEREBY DIRECTS that the Magistrate Judge conduct a settlement conference. THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that 52 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED without predjudice. Signed by Judge Lloyd D. George on 3/7/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DXS)
|
|
Filing
79
ORDER Denying 63 Motion to Compel. Denying 71 Motion for Sanctions. Affidavit due by 1/25/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/18/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)
|
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 Nevada 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.
