Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Clancy & Theys Construction Company
Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company |
Clancy & Theys Construction Company |
5:2012cv00636 |
September 28, 2012 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
Western Division Office |
WAKE |
Terrence W. Boyle |
Insurance |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
Both |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 245 ORDER denying 221 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Senior Judge W. Earl Britt on 11/12/2015. (Marsh, K) |
Filing 240 ORDER denying 220 Motion for Bill of Costs and denying 225 Motion to disallow costs, or in the alternative, reduce costs awarded. Signed by Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court on 10/26/2015. (Marsh, K) |
Filing 238 AMENDED JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: (1) Clancy shall have and recover of Westchester the amount of $1,746,963.83. (2) The sum in Paragraph 1 shall bear interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 17 June 2013 until the date of entry of judgment. (3) The sum in Paragraph 1 shall bear interest at the legal rate from the date of entry of judgment until paid. Signed by Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court on 10/22/2015. (Marsh, K) |
Filing 219 JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that: 1. Clancy shall have and recover of Westchester the amount of $1,746,963.83. 2. The sum in Paragraph 1 shall bear interest at rate of 8% per annum from 28 September 2012 until the date of entry of judgment. 3. The sum in Paragraph 1 shall bear interest at the legal rate from the date of entry of judgment until paid. This case is closed. Signed by Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court on 6/18/2015. (Marsh, K) |
Filing 153 ORDER: Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment [DE 88] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART and defendant's motion for summary judgment [DE 96] is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion to strike or exclude defendant's expert witnesses [D E 93] is DENIED and defendant's motion to strike testimony of plaintiff's expert [DE 95] is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant's motion for leave to file supplemental reply [DE 120] is further DENIED AS MOOT and defendant's motion to stri ke plaintiffs response to this Court's order [DE 149] is DENIED. The clerk is DIRECTED to refer this matter to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge for pretrial conference. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 5/23/2014. (Sawyer, D.) |
Filing 109 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 71 Motion to Compel. Signed by US Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 11/15/2013. (Sawyer, D.) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Search for this case: Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company v. Clancy & Theys Construction Company | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Plaintiff: Westchester Surplus Lines Insurance Company | |
Represented By: | Gregory Wenzl Brown |
Represented By: | Jessica Cobaugh Tyndall |
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: Clancy & Theys Construction 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.