GOLON, INC. v. SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST et al
| GOLON, INC. |
| SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST and SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA |
| 2:2017cv00819 |
| June 21, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Allegheny |
| Arthur J. Schwab |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| 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
87
MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 82 Motion for Reconsideration and denying as moot 75 Motion to Maintain in Camera Documents. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 12/14/2017. (lmt)
|
|
Filing
71
MEMORANDUM OPINION re 58 MOTION to Compel Discovery filed by GOLON, INC. and 60 CROSS-MOTION for Protective Order filed by SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE SOUTHEAST. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 12/7/2017. (lmt)
|
|
Filing
27
MEMORANDUM ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 9 Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff's Breach of Fiduciary Duty claim (Count II) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Plaintiff's Breach of Contract claim (Count I) against Defendant Selective Insurance of America is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Defendant Selective Insurance of America's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Bad Faith claim (Count III) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 7/20/2017. (eet)
|
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 Western 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.
