Griffiths v. Lloyd's of London et al
| Plaintiff: |
Joseph Griffiths |
| Defendant: |
Lloyd's of London and Stokes, Croton, and Wilson |
| Case Number: |
1:2008cv00507 |
| Filed: |
December 10, 2008 |
| Court: |
US District Court for the District of New Hampshire |
| Office: |
Insurance Office |
| County: |
XX US, Outside State |
| Presiding Judge: |
Joseph N. Laplante |
| Presiding Judge: |
James R. Muirhead |
| Nature of Suit: |
None |
| Cause of Action: |
Diversity |
| Jury Demanded By: |
28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Date Filed |
Document Text |
| July 1, 2010 |
Filing
77
ORDER denying 64 Motion to Amend Caption; denying 65 Motion requiring "Certain Underwriters" at Lloyd's London to Explain Who These "Certain Underwriters" in Fact are, and if the "Certain underw riters" are not human beings, who their Principals in fact are so their name and/or Personages, and Principals can be properly docketed and captioned; denying 66 Motion to Have Transcripts or Recordings Provided at Government Expense; denying 67 Motion to Have Pacer Account Provided at Government Expense; denying 68 Motion to Reopen this Case; denying 70 Motion to Bring Forth New Evidence, Specifically Annulment of Alleged False Charges, to be Considered by the Courts, But Ex Parte to the Jury; denying 72 Motion for Court Disclosure; denying 73 Motion for Entire Case to be Reviewed by Magistrate Judge; denying 74 Motion to Vacate 45 Judgment; denying 75 Motion for Continuance as Author of Prior Proceedings Will be Making Revisions; denying 76 Motion for Reconsideration re 53 Order on Motion for Reconsideration. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. (jb)
|
| May 14, 2010 |
Filing
53
ORDER denying 46 Motion for Reconsideration re 45 Judgment, 44 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 47 Motion for Continuance; denying as moot 48 Motion for Reconsideration; denying 50 Motion for a D ecision of Unconstitutionality in Regards to the Practice of Giving Summary Judgment in Civil Cases; denying 51 Motion for Decision of Unconstitutionality in Regards to Law on Annullment in the State of New Hampshire in Regards to Nol Prossed and Not Guilty Parties; denying as moot 52 Motion for Questions to be Presented to Jurors to Prove my Argument Why I Should be Entitled to Jury Trial in this Matter. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. (jb)
|
| April 13, 2010 |
Filing
44
///ORDER granting 18 Motion for Summary Judgment. Allowing the motion for summary judgment moots all of the defendants' motions in limine 24 , 25 and their motion to bifurcate 23 , as well as, Griffith's motions to extend the deadline for his pretrial filings 41 , to amend his complaint 36 and "to bring this matter and trial before the magistrate judge" 38 . Griffith's motion to compel 40 is denied as moot. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. (jb)
|
| May 28, 2009 |
Filing
12
ORDER approving 10 Discovery Plan (with changes). Length of Trial 3 days. Case Track: Standard. So Ordered by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. Summary Judgment Motions due by 12/15/2009. (cmp)
|
| May 14, 2009 |
Filing
11
PROCEDURAL ORDER as to Pretrial Conference set for May 26, 2009 at 10:00am. Signed by Judge Joseph N. Laplante. (cmp)
|
| March 3, 2009 |
Filing
3
ORDER Directing Clerk and US Marshal to Make Service. Signed by Magistrate Judge James R. Muirhead. (cmp)
|
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 New Hampshire District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
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?