Navos,et al v. Mental Health Risk Retention Group
Plaintiff: Navos
Defendant: Mental Health Risk Retention Group
Case Number: 2:2011cv00262
Filed: February 15, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Washington
Office: Seattle Office
County: King
Presiding Judge: Thomas S. Zilly
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 6, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER by Judge Thomas S. Zilly. The Court GRANTS plaintiff Navos' motion for partial summary judgment, docket no. 12 , and DENIES Defendant's motion for summary judgment. (CL)
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 Washington Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Navos,et al v. Mental Health Risk Retention Group
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Navos
Represented By: Anthony Todaro
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Mental Health Risk Retention Group
Represented By: David Stephen Cottnair
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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.


Why Is My Information Online?