Kingsberry v. Chicago Title Insurance
District Court, W.D. Washington
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL
RONALD B. LEIGHTON, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel [Dkt. #79] production of documents concerning Defendant Chicago Title Company’s operations in Oregon, Tennessee and Michigan. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs Motion is *669GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.
Introduction
Plaintiff alleges Defendant systematically overcharged classes of consumers in Washington, Oregon, Tennessee, and Michigan (hereafter “Class States”) through a pattern of “reissue” rate abuse. Specifically,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Amchem Products, Inc. v. WindsorSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Dolores DONINGER Et Al., Appellants, v. PACIFIC NORTHWEST BELL, INC., AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1977
- Bonnie Mantolete v. William G. Bolger, in His Capacity as Postmaster General, United States Postal ServiceCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1985
- In re Lilco Securities LitigationDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1986
- In Re Buspirone Patent LitigationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2002
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Barrus v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.District Court, W.D. New York · 2010
- Benson v. Double Down Interactive, LLCDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 2020