Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada v. Jackson et al
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada |
Richard E Jackson and Sierra N Jackson |
Sierra N Jackson |
Richard E Jackson |
Sierra N Jackson |
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada |
3:2014cv00041 |
February 6, 2014 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Dayton Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Walter H Rice |
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 |
29 U.S.C. ยง 1001 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 105 DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT SIERRA N. JACKSON'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND PREJUDGMENT INTEREST (DOC. # 83 ); SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT SIERRA N. JACKSON'S S UPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND POST JUDGMENT INTEREST (DOC. # 91 ); SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANT AND COUNTER-CLAIMANT SIERRA N. JACKSON'S SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND POST JUDGMENT INTEREST ( DOC. # 100 ); JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT SIERRA N. JACKSON FOR ATTORNEY FEES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND POST JUDGMENT INTEREST ON ALL AMOUNTS AWARDED. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 9/18/2018. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 79 ENTRY SUSTAINING PLAINTIFF SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA'S MOTION TO STAY EXECUTION OF PAYMENTOBLIGATION PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER DATED AUGUST 5, 2016 (DOC. # 76 ); SUN LIFE'S PAYMENT OBLIGATION TO DEFENDANT SIERRA N. JACKSON AND I TS EQUITABLE REIMBURSEMENT CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT RICHARD E. JACKSON ARE STAYED PENDING EXHAUSTION OF ALL AVENUES OF APPEAL BY SUN LIFE; SUN LIFE SHALL POST SUPERSEDEAS BOND IN THE AMOUNT SET FORTH BELOW UPON FILING NOTICE OF APPEAL; PURSUANT T O RULE 54(b), JUDGMENT SHALL ENTER IN FAVOR OF SIERRA JACKSON AND AGAINST SUN LIFE AND RICHARD JACKSON AS TO SIERRA JACKSON'S CLAIMS FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND RECOVERY OF BENEFITS, SHALL ENTER IN FAVOR OF SUN LIFE AND AGAINST SIERRA JACKSON AS TO SIERRA JACKSON'S CLAIM FOR CIVIL PENALTIES, AND SHALL ENTER IN FAVOR OF SUN LIFE AND AGAINST RICHARD JACKSON AS TO SUN LIFE'S CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; SIERRA JACKSON MAY, WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS OF JUDGMENT BEING ENTERED, MO VE FOR AWARDS OF PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND ATTORNEY FEES; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 1/12/2017. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 66 DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING INPART DEFENDANT SIERRA N. JACKSON'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT(DOC. # 51 ); SUSTAINING IN PART, OVERRULING IN PART AND NOTRULING UPON IN PART SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OFCANADA'S MOTION FOR J UDGMENT (DOC. # 50 ); AND OVERRULINGRICHARD E. JACKSON'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD (DOC. # 53 ), ALL WITH REASONING AND RELIEF ORDERED SET FORTH HEREIN; OVERRULING AS MOOT SIERRA JACKSON'S MOTION TO STRIKE RICHARD J ACKSON'S JANUARY 2, 2016, LETTER WITH ATTACHMENTS (DOC. # 61 ); SUSTAINING SIERRA JACKSON'S MOTION TO DISMISS CROSSCLAIM AGAINST RICHARD JACKSON WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. # 62 ); DIRECTIONS TO PARTIES; JUDGMENT SHALL ULTIMATELY ENTER IN FAVOR OF SIERRA JACKSON AND AGAINST SUN LIFE AND RICHARD JACKSON. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 8/5/2016. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 46 ENTRY SUSTAINING THE MOTION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL OF COUNT Ill OF PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE (DOC. # 41 ) FILED BY PLAINTIFF SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 6/2/2015. (ead)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 45 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Richard E. Jackson's Request for Extension of Time (Doc. No. 42 ) is DENIED.. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 04/07/15. (pb1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 44 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that Mr. Jackson's Request for Extension of Time 42 be denied. Objections to R&R due by 4/6/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/19/2015. (kpf1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 40 DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING THE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OUTSIDE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILED BY SIERRA JACKSON (DOC. #22) AND OVERRULING THE REQUESTS FOR DISCOVERY FILED BY RICHARD E. JACKSON (DOC. # 30 , # 31 , # 33 , # 35 , & # 36 ), CONSTRUED AS MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY OF EVIDENCE OUTSIDE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD; ORDER TO THE PARTIES TO FILE, THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM DATE, SIMULTANEOUS MEMORANDA ADDRESSING THE VIABILITY OF PLAINTIFF'S INTERPLEADER CLAIM, COUNT Ill OF THE COMPLAINT (DOC. # 1 ); SIMULTANEOUS RESPONSIVE MEMORANDA DUE TEN (10) DAYS THEREAFTER; NO REPLY MEMORANDA SHALL BE FILED.. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 02/09/15. (pb1)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 24 ENTRY JOURNALIZING RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY PRETRIAL CONFERENCE OF MAY 21, 2014, WITH UPDATED INFORMATION. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 07/29/14. (pb1) |
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 Ohio 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.