Phoenix Insurance Company v. Otak Inc et al
| The Phoenix Insurance Company and Phoenix Insurance Company |
| Otak, Inc., The City of Ridgefield, Roger Sinclair, Otak Inc and City of Ridgefield |
| 3:2023cv05125 |
| February 15, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Washington |
| John H Chun |
| Insurance |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgment |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 13, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 17
ORDER REGARDING INITIAL DISCLOSURES AND JOINT STATUS REPORT by Judge John H. Chun. Joint Status Report due by 5/8/2023, FRCP 26(f) Conference Deadline is 4/17/2023, Initial Disclosure Deadline is 5/1/2023. (AD)
|
| Filing 16 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, by Roger Sinclair.(Callahan, Shaun) |
| Filing 15 ANSWER to #1 Complaint, by Otak Inc.(Guse, James) |
| Filing 14 Clerk's ENTRY OF DEFAULT as to Defendant City of Ridgefield. (AD) |
| Filing 13 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT identifying Corporate Parent HanmiGlobal Co,. Ltd. for Otak Inc. Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1(a)(1). Filed by Otak Inc. (Guse, James) |
| Filing 12 DECLARATION of N. Chance Laboda filed by Plaintiff Phoenix Insurance Company re #11 MOTION for Default against The City of Ridefield, (Lether, Thomas) |
| Filing 11 MOTION for Default against The City of Ridgefield, filed by Plaintiff Phoenix Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) Noting Date 3/24/2023 (Lether, Thomas) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney James Lee Guse on behalf of Defendant Otak Inc. (Guse, James) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE OF WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: Attorney Christopher M Kranda for Plaintiff Phoenix Insurance Company. (Lether, Thomas) |
| Attorney John Louis Acken added for Roger Sinclair, per the filing of Defendant's #8 Notice of Appearance. (SB) |
| Filing 8 NOTICE of Appearance by attorney Shaun O Callahan on behalf of Defendant Roger Sinclair. (Callahan, Shaun) |
| Filing 7 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Otak, Inc. on 2/27/2023, filed by Plaintiff Phoenix Insurance Company. (Lether, Thomas) |
| Filing 6 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on Roger Sinclair on 2/24/2023, filed by Plaintiff Phoenix Insurance Company. (Lether, Thomas) |
| Filing 5 AFFIDAVIT of Service of Summons and Complaint on The City of Ridgefield on 2/24/2023, filed by Plaintiff Phoenix Insurance Company. (Lether, Thomas) |
| Filing 4 STATEMENT of Rule 7.1 Disclosure by Plaintiff Phoenix Insurance Company (Lether, Thomas) |
| Filing 3 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT identifying Corporate Parent Travelers Companies, Inc. for Phoenix Insurance Company. Filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1. Filed by Phoenix Insurance Company (Lether, Thomas) |
| Filing 2 Summonses Electronically Issued as to defendants City of Ridgefield, Otak Inc, Roger Sinclair. (Attachments: #1 Summons - City of Ridgefield, #2 Summons - Sinclair)(AMD) |
| Judge John H. Chun added. (AMD) |
| NOTICE Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P 7.1, Plaintiff must file a Corporate Disclosure Statement by 2/23/2023. (AMD) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory Relief against All Defendants (Receipt # AWAWDC-7891250) Attorney Thomas Lether added to party The Phoenix Insurance Company(pty:pla), filed by The Phoenix Insurance Company. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons to Otak, Inc., #3 Summons to The City of Ridgefield, #4 Summons to Roger Sinclair)(Lether, Thomas) |
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 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.
