Ferrer-Rodriguez et al v. Gonzlez-Droz, et al
| Waleska Ferrer-Rodriguez and Ray Rivera-Montalvo |
| Efrain Gonzalez-Droz and Conjugal Partnership Gonzalez-Doe |
| 3:2012cv01841 |
| October 5, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Puerto Rico |
| San Juan Office |
| San Juan |
| Jose A Fuste |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice |
| 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
93
OPINION AND ORDER in support of the court's denial of 49 MOTION to Dismiss filed by SIMED Insurance Company. Signed by Judge Jose A. Fuste on 01/09/2014.(mrj)
|
|
Filing
37
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART 27 MOTION to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction as to All Plaintiffs filed by Efrain Gonzalez-Droz, Conjugal Partnership Gonzalez-Doe. Plaintiffs will be allowed to name Gonzalez as a nominal defendant for the limited purpose of pursuing their claims against SIMED, on the condition that Plaintiffs indemnify Gonzalez for any expenses he incurs defending against this action, excluding discovery costs. At our previously-scheduled c onference set for June 20, 2013, at 1:30 P.M., we will hold an evidentiary hearing on the question of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs must be prepared to show that diversity jurisdiction exists here. Signed by Judge Jose A Fuste on 6/13/2013.(mrj)
|
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 Puerto Rico 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.
