Legal Opinion

Cincinnati Insurance Company v. Jeffrey Tazelaar, et al.

District Court, D. Arizona

Decided September 25, 2026No. 2:26-cv-01738Unknown

1Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Cincinnati Insurance Company, No. CV-26-01738-PHX-SMB 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. 12 Jeffrey Tazelaar, et al., 13 Defendants. 14 15 The Court now considers Gurdip Singh Malhi and Charanjit Kaur’s Motion to 16 Intervene (“Mahli”) (“Proposed Intervenors). (Doc. 19, Exhibit 1.) For the reasons noted 17 below, the Court grants the Proposed Intervenors’ Motion. I. BACKGROUND 18 Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment “to determine the rights and 19 obligations” it has toward Defendants. (Doc. 1, at 2, ¶…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. United States v. Alisal Water Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004
  2. Donnelly v. GlickmanCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1998
  3. Perry v. Proposition 8 Official ProponentsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009
  4. Kristin Perry v. Arnold SchwarzeneggerCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2011
  5. Gonzalez v. ArizonaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API