HAINES et al v. STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY
PAUL C. HAINES, KELLY HAINES and RYAN HAINES |
STATE AUTO PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY |
5:2008cv05715 |
December 8, 2008 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Insurance Office |
Lancaster |
THOMAS M. GOLDEN |
None |
Diversity |
28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 39 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED AND DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AS TO ALL COUNTS OF PLAINTIFFS& #039; AMENDED COMPLAINT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANT AND AGAINST PLAINTIFFS AS TO DEFENDANT'S COUNTERCLAIM FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO CLOSE THIS MATTER FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 3/24/10. 3/25/10 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(la, ) |
Filing 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND THEIR COMPLAINT IS GRANTED. PLAINTIFFS SHALL FILE THEIR AMENDED COMPLAINT, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THEIR MOTION AT EXHIBIT "A" WITHIN 5 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THIS ORDER. DEFENDANT SHALL FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF BEING SERVED WITH THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE THOMAS M. GOLDEN ON 6/18/09. 6/22/09 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED.(ky, ) |
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 Pennsylvania Eastern 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.