Bell v. Ramirez et al
| Renzer Bell |
| Stalin Ramirez, Jane Doe and Kevin Marshall |
| 1:2013cv07916 |
| November 5, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| Queens |
| P. Kevin Castel |
| Henry B. Pitman |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 oc Diversity-Other Contract |
| Plaintiff |
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
204
ORDER: If either plaintiff's summary judgment motion or plaintiff's proposed voir dire, verdict sheet and request to charge are not filed by September 18, 2020, the action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Motions due by 9/18/2020.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 9/8/2020) (nb) Transmission to Docket Assistant Clerk for processing.
|
|
Filing
193
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 161 Report and Recommendations. For the foregoing reasons, the Court adopts the R&R in its entirety. (Dkt. 161). The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment against defendant Marshall in accord ance with the R&R. This Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal from this Order would not be taken in good faith and in forma pauperis status is denied for purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 44345 (1962). (As further set forth in this Order.) (Signed by Judge P. Kevin Castel on 4/19/2018) Copies Mailed By Chambers (cf)
|
|
Filing
165
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: 155 MOTION to Compel Stalin Ramirez, Jane Doe, and Kevin Marshall to to Compel Discovery; MOTION for Sanctions, filed by Renzer Bell. Plaintiff's motion seeks production of an agreement by defendant Ma rshall to indemnify defendant Ramirez. Ramirez's counsel has represented that the agreement was made orally and that there is no written indemnity agreement. There is no evidence in the record to the contrary. Accordingly, there is nothing to be ordered produced. Plaintiff does not cite any document request that sought or order directing the production of the indemnity agreement. Rather, plaintiff appears to assume that its production was required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) even witho ut a request. Plaintiff's assumption is incorrect. Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iv) requires the production of "any insurance agreement under which an insurance business may be liable to satisfy all or part of a possible judgment in the action or to in demnify or reimburse for payments made to satisfy the judgment." (Emphasis added). The Rule is limited to the production of "insurance agreements" that create an obligation on the part of ''an insurance business." 1970 A dvisory Committee Notes to Amendments to Rule 26 ("The provision applies only to persons 'carrying on an insurance business' and thus covers insurance companies and not the ordinary business concern that enters into a contract of inde mnification."). Because there is no claim and no evidence that Marshall is "carrying on an insurance business," the mandatory disclosure provisions of Rule 26 do not apply to him. Plaintiff also suggests that Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 required disclosure of the indemnity agreement. Nothing in Rule 16 required the disclosure of any document. Accordingly, for all the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to compel discovery and for sanctions is denied. The Clerk of the Court is requested to mark Docket Item 155 closed, and as further set forth herein. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Henry B. Pitman on 9/26/2017) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (ras)
|
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 York Southern 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.
