Lencioni et al v. Meridian Security Insurance Company
| Oreste Lencioni and Lori Love |
| Meridian Security Insurance Company and State Auto Insurance Company |
| 3:2022cv01569 |
| July 19, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Barbara M G Lynn |
| Contract: Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 24
ORDER granting #23 Motion to Stay. This case is STAYED until 60 days after the appraisals of Plaintiffs' respective properties are completed. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close this case for statistical purposes. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 9/1/2022) (ykp)
|
| Civil Case Terminated per #24 Order Staying Case. (ykp) |
| Filing 23 Unopposed MOTION to Stay filed by Meridian Security Insurance Company (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Kao, Sheryl) |
| Filing 22 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Meridian Security Insurance Company. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Kao, Sheryl) |
| Filing 21 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to State Auto Insurance Company ; served on 8/23/2022. (Voyles, Adam) |
| Filing 20 ANSWER to #10 Amended Complaint with Jury Demand filed by Meridian Security Insurance Company. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Kao, Sheryl) Modified text on 8/22/2022 (ygl). |
| Filing 19 Summons Issued as to State Auto Insurance Company. (ndt) |
| Filing 18 Request for Clerk to issue Summons filed by Oreste Lencioni, Lori Love. (Voyles, Adam) |
|
Filing 17
SCHEDULING ORDER: Jury Trial set for 8/28/2023 09:00 AM before Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. Joinder of Parties due by 10/10/2022. Motions due by 4/10/2023. Discovery due by 2/15/2023. Settlement Status Report due by 12/8/2022. Pretrial Materials due by 8/7/2023. Pretrial Conference set for 8/25/2023 09:00 AM before Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 8/17/2022) (frw)
|
| Filing 16 Joint STATUS REPORT filed by Oreste Lencioni, Lori Love. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) 1) (Voyles, Adam) |
| Filing 15 RESPONSE filed by Oreste Lencioni, Lori Love re: #14 Order to Show Cause/Order to Answer,, (Attachments: #1 Exhibit(s) 1, #2 Exhibit(s) 2, #3 Exhibit(s) 3) (Voyles, Adam) |
|
Filing 14
Order: On 7/20/2022, the Court ordered Plaintiffs' counsel McKenna Harper to either become admitted to practice in this District or move the Court to be admitted Pro Hac Vice. No later than five days from the date of this Order, McKenna Harper will show cause regarding her failure to comply with the Court's 7/20/2022, Order. If McKenna Harper fails to comply, she will be automatically terminated as counsel for Plaintiffs. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 8/10/2022) (ykp)
|
|
Filing 13
ORDER denying #3 Motion to Dismiss. In light of the First Amended Complaint, which does not refer to or incorporate Plaintiffs' earlier pleading, the Court determines that the Motion to Dismiss should be, and is, DENIED as moot. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 8/10/2022) (ykp)
|
| Filing 12 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Oreste Lencioni, Lori Love re #11 Response/Objection (Voyles, Adam) |
| Filing 11 RESPONSE filed by Oreste Lencioni, Lori Love re: #3 MOTION to Dismiss (Voyles, Adam) |
| Filing 10 AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against Meridian Security Insurance Company filed by Lori Love, Oreste Lencioni. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Voyles, Adam) |
|
Filing 9
ORDER REQUIRING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE AND REPORT FOR CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING ORDER: Joint Report due by 8/10/2022. (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 7/20/2022) (ndt)
|
| Filing 8 Designation of lead counsel Adam Q Voyles for Plaintiffs Oreste Lencioni, Lori Love. (Voyles, Adam) |
|
Filing 6
ELECTRONIC ORDER: According to the docket in this case, Plaintiffs' counsel does not reside or maintain a principal office in the Northern District of Texas. Within 14 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file the entry of appearance of local counsel satisfying the requirements of Local Rule 83.10(a). (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 7/20/2022) (chmb)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC ORDER: It has come to the Court's attention that Plaintiff's counsel McKenna Harper is not admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Within 14 days from the date of this Order, McKenna Harper must either become admitted to practice in this District (see Local Rule 83.7) or move the Court to be admitted Pro Hac Vice (see Local Rule 83.9(b)). (Ordered by Chief Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn on 7/20/2022) (chmb)
|
| Filing 7 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Rutherford). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt) |
| Filing 4 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Meridian Security Insurance Company re #3 MOTION to Dismiss (Kao, Sheryl) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Meridian Security Insurance Company with Brief/Memorandum in Support. (Kao, Sheryl) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Meridian Security Insurance Company. (Clerk QC note: Affiliate entry indicated). (Kao, Sheryl) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL WITH JURY DEMAND filed by Meridian Security Insurance Company. (Filing fee $402; receipt number 0539-12973662) In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet, #2 Cover Sheet Supplement, #3 Exhibit(s) A, #4 Exhibit(s) B, #5 Exhibit(s) C, #6 Exhibit(s) D, #7 Exhibit(s) E, #8 Exhibit(s) F, #9 Exhibit(s) G, #10 Exhibit(s) H, #11 Exhibit(s) H-1, #12 Exhibit(s) H-2, #13 Exhibit(s) I, #14 Exhibit(s) J, #15 Exhibit(s) K) (Kao, Sheryl) |
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 Texas 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.
