Voge v. Essentia Insurance Company
| Perri Voge |
| Markel Insurance Company and Essentia Insurance Company |
| 4:2020cv00168 |
| April 23, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma |
| Jodi F Jayne |
| Terence Kern |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 5, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk , directing Essentia Insurance Company to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to FRCvP 7.1 within seven (7) days of this order, if they have not already done so. The parties shall use the form entitled Corporate Disclosure Statement available on the Courts website (please do not refile if already filed on non-court form unless directed to do so). If you have already filed your Corporate Disclosure Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Corporate Disclosure Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires. (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (dlg, Dpty Clk) |
| Filing 12 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT (identifying: Corporate Parent Markel Corporation for Essentia Insurance Company) by Essentia Insurance Company (Butler, Roger) |
| Filing 11 ANSWER (Re: #2 Complaint ) by Essentia Insurance Company (Butler, Roger) |
Filing 10
ORDER by Judge Terence Kern for Joint Status Report, directing parties to file joint status report ( Status Report due by 7/1/2020) (lmc, Chambers)
|
| Filing 9 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk , directing Markel Insurance Company to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to FRCvP 7.1 within seven (7) days of this order, if they have not already done so. The parties shall use the form entitled Corporate Disclosure Statement available on the Courts website (please do not refile if already filed on non-court form unless directed to do so). If you have already filed your Corporate Disclosure Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Corporate Disclosure Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires. (This entry is the Official Order of the Court. No document is attached.) (dlg, Dpty Clk) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER by Judge Terence Kern ; adding party Essentia Insurance Company terminating party Markel Insurance Company (a Foreign For-Profit Insurance Corporation) ; granting #7 Motion to Substitute Party (lmc, Chambers)
|
| Filing 7 Joint MOTION to Substitute Party by Markel Insurance Company (Smith, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 6 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Nathaniel Thomas Smith on behalf of Markel Insurance Company [Note: Attorney Nathaniel Thomas Smith added to party Markel Insurance Company(pty:dft).] (Smith, Nathaniel) |
| Filing 5 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Roger Neal Butler, Jr on behalf of Markel Insurance Company [Note: Attorney Roger Neal Butler, Jr added to party Markel Insurance Company(pty:dft).] (Butler, Roger) |
| Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Markel Insurance Company (Re: #2 Complaint ) by Perri Voge (Smolen, Donald) |
| Filing 3 SUMMONS Issued by Court Clerk as to Markel Insurance Company (alg, Dpty Clk) |
| Filing 2 COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Markel Insurance Company (paid $400 filing fee; receipt number AOKNDC-2199312) by Perri Voge (Smolen, Donald) |
| Filing 1 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Perri Voge (Smolen, Donald) |
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 Oklahoma Northern 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.
