Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

15-1736 - Corey v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
15-1736 - Corey v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services et al
December 17, 2015
PDF | More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Plaintiff has not provided facts that show he has a colorable procedural or bias claim such that he is entitled to discovery in this ERISA case. See Johnson, 324 Fed. Appx. at 467 ("District courts are well-equipped to evaluate and determine whether and to what extent limited discovery is appropriate in furtherance of a colorable procedural challenge under Wilkins."). Thus, his Motion to Permit Discovery is DENIED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 12/17/15. (LC,S) re 16
February 29, 2016
PDF | More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) is GRANTED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 2/29/16. (LC,S)
June 28, 2016
PDF | More
GRANTED, and Defendant's Motion to Strike (Doc. 46) is GRANTED. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 6/28/16. (LC,S)Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record (Doc. 40) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's motion (Doc. 39) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief (Doc. 45) is
October 26, 2017
PDF | More
Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Because all but the fourth factor favor an award of fees, Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees (Doc. 54) is GRANTED. Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's Notice of Supplemental Authority (Doc. 58) is GRANTED as unopposed. The case that Plaintiff cites in its notice of supplemental authority addresses the amount of attorney fees to be awarded, not the propriety of granting fees, as is at issue here. As such, it is irrelevant. In accordance with this Court's Order of July 5, 2017, Plaintiff must file a supporting brief regarding the amount of fees that he seeks within 14 days of this Order. Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 10/26/17. (LC,S)
January 18, 2018
PDF | More
ng reasons, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to $72,387.00 in fees and $1,176.00 in costs. (LC,S) Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 1/18/18. re 59, 54Memorandum of Opinion and Order: In its Order of October 26, 2017, this Court found that Plaintiff was the prevailing party in this litigation and entitled to fees. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees in the amount of $91,173.00 and costs in the amount of $1,176.00. Defendants oppose Plaintiffs fee request, arguing that a significant portion must be disallowed. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff's request for costs. For the followi