Cases 1 - 10 of 11
Hitchman Fiduciaries et al v. Dominion Insurance Services et al
as 2:2022cv00580
Plaintiff:
Hitchman Fiduciaries, Bruce Hitchman and Lee Ann Hitchman
Defendant:
Dominion Insurance Services, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and Lawrence D Hilton
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal-Breach of Contract- Insurance
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London et al v. Destination Shuttle Services NTI-CA et al
as 2:2021cv00417
Plaintiff:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London and Prime Insurance
Defendant:
Destination Shuttle Services NTI-CA doing business as Desination Shuttle Services, Alcocer doing business as NTI-CA, Shuttle Smart and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Cornetta v. Pods Enterprises et al
as 2:2020cv00575
Defendant:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, XN Financial Services, Pods Enterprises and others
Plaintiff:
Joseph Cornetta
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. NOIT45282018 v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations et al
as 2:2020cv00272
Plaintiff:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. NOIT45282018 and A
Defendant:
Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, Daimler Trucks North America and California Truck Centers
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, Subscribing to Policy No. BDL-0000028-02 v. Allegis Investment Services
as 2:2017cv01260
Plaintiff:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds London, Subscribing to Policy No. BDL-0000028-02
Defendant:
Allegis Investment Services
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Allegis Investment Advisors et al v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London
as 2:2017cv01048
Plaintiff:
Allegis Investment Advisors , Heath Bowen and Peter Klaass
Defendant:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London
Counter_claimant:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London
Counter_defendant:
Allegis Investment Advisors , Heath Bowen and Peter Klaass
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. MM00693A13 v. Bradford Soap Works
as 2:2017cv00227
Defendant:
Bradford Soap Works
Plaintiff:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London Subscribing to Policy No. MM00693A13
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1446 Notice of Removal
SEC v. Merrill Scott Ltd, et al
as 2:2002cv00039
Plaintiff:
Securities and Exchange Commission
Defendant:
Merrill Scott & Associates LTD, Merrill Scott & Associates , Phoenix Overseas Advisers and others
Receiver:
David K. Broadbent
Movant:
The Scott K. Canepa Charitable Supporting Organization and Scott K. Canepa
Thirdparty_defendant:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, England and James P. Landis
Consol_plaintiff:
Curt Woods , Kathy Woods , Curt & Kathy Woods Charitable Supporting Foundation and others
Intervenor_plaintiff:
Charles Cozean
Intervenor_defendant:
Merrill Scott & Associates LTD, Merrill Scott & Associates , Phoenix Overseas Advisers and others
Consol_defendant:
David K. Broadbent, T Shelton Powers , Advantage Software, Inc. and others
Claimant:
Val Eylands and Jana Eylands
Consol_counter_claimant:
Jeremy Thorne
Counter_claimant:
Jeremy Thorne and Singularity Software
Counter_defendant:
David K. Broadbent
Intervenor:
USA
Cause Of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 0077 Securities Fraud
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London & London Market Insurance Companies v. Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage
as 2:2008cv00822
Plaintiff:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London & London Market Insurance Companies and Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London & London Market Insurance Companies
Defendant:
Taylor Bean & Whitaker Mortgage
Cause Of Action: Diversity
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, England v. SLM Corporation
as 2:2007cv00744
Plaintiff:
Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, England and Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London, England
Defendant:
SLM Corporation
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Other Contract
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.
