Legal Opinion

Kingsberry v. Chicago Title Insurance

District Court, W.D. Washington

Decided November 12, 2008No. Case C07-5706RBLPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

RONALD B. LEIGHTON, District Judge.

THIS MATTER comes before the above-entitled Court on Defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment [Dkt. # 55] and Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Dkt. # 57]. The Court has reviewed the materials submitted in support of, and in opposition to, each motion. Oral argument is not necessary to resolve the issues before the Court. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Amend Judgment [Dkt. # 55] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint [Dkt. # 57] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED PART.

DIS…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Thorpe v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2008
  2. Blaylock v. First American Title InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2007
  3. Pain Diagnostics & Rehabilitation Associates, P.S. v. BrockmanCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1999
  4. Kingsberry v. Chicago Title InsuranceDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2008

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Hancock v. Chicago Title InsuranceDistrict Court, N.D. Texas · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API