Yare v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

The same docket event appears twice in the record for Yare v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, No. 25-cv-01894.

Both entries are dated April 20, 2026, and both reflect an order on a motion to amend, correct, or modify. The duplication is a clerical artifact — one court order generating two docket entries — not a sign of separate proceedings.

The underlying dispute is a first-party auto insurance case. Plaintiff Yare is suing State Farm, their own insurer, over what the case caption and key issues suggest is a coverage dispute under an automobile policy. Whether that means a denied claim, a disputed payout amount, or a policy interpretation fight is not confirmed by the available record.

The motion to amend at docket entry 31 is the only substantive event captured here. Entry 31 means the case has been active long enough to generate real filings, even though the original filing date is not in the record.

A motion to amend at that stage typically means a party wants to change the operative pleadings — adding or dropping claims, correcting a legal theory, or responding to something that came out in discovery. Whether the court granted or denied that motion is not reflected in the available summary.

No judge has been assigned, or the assignment has not been captured in this record. That gap matters. Without a named judge, there is no scheduling order on record and no trial date.

The case may be further along than the docket snapshot suggests, or it may be sitting in a procedural gap.

The duplication itself is not a legal event. It does not change what is at stake or what the parties owe each other. It is a data problem, not a case development.