Case: Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson

1:21-cv-00616 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas

Filed Date: July 13, 2021

Closed Date: July 5, 2023

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the challenge of SB 8, a Texas law that allowed private citizens to enforce a ban on abortion as early as six weeks in pregnancy. On July 13, 2021, several abortion providers, funds, and individuals who provided counsel to patients seeking abortions, filed this defendant class action in United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued a putative class of state court judges and clerks, a private individual deputized to enforce SB 8, and sta…

This is a case about the challenge of SB 8, a Texas law that allowed private citizens to enforce a ban on abortion as early as six weeks in pregnancy. On July 13, 2021, several abortion providers, funds, and individuals who provided counsel to patients seeking abortions, filed this defendant class action in United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiffs sued a putative class of state court judges and clerks, a private individual deputized to enforce SB 8, and state officials under 42 USC § 1983. Represented by private and public interest counsel, the plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as certification of their two classes of defendants. They claimed that the new law violated their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and was federally preempted. 

The case was assigned to Judge Robert Lee Pitman and Magistrate Judge Hightower. The case was originally randomly assigned to Judge Yeakel, but this assignment was voided due to clerical error. 

The Texas law banned abortion if a fetal heartbeat could be detected, approximately any time after six weeks into pregnancy, and barred government defendants from directly enforcing the law's terms. The Act gave private citizens the power to enforce the law and allowed them to bring a civil suit against anyone who provided an abortion in violation of the act, aided or abetted an abortion, or intended to do any of the above. Plaintiffs alleged that Texas wrote the law so that government officials couldn't be sued for an injunction to block the law before it took effect. The law also stated that attorneys fees couldn't be recovered against the person who brought a civil suit, so even if abortion providers won suits brought against them they would be unable to recover the costs of litigation.

Section 3 of SB 8 detailed the six-week ban and enforcement actions and section 4 detailed the fee-shifting provision to deter all challenges to Texas abortion restrictions. 

Plaintiffs' complaint contained seven separate claims against SB 8, the first 5 against §3 and the last two against §4. 

  1. Fourteenth Amendment violation against the substantive due process right to abortion: plaintiffs alleged that the act prohibited pre-viability abortions which patients had a substantive due process right to seek. 
  2. Fourteenth Amendment violation against the Equal Protection Clause: plaintiffs alleged that SB 8 singled out abortion providers and people who "aid or abet" abortions and treated this category of people differently from all other civil litigation defendants in Texas, by altering the defenses and procedural rules that applied to them. 
  3. Fourteenth Amendment violation due to vagueness: the act failed to inform regulated parties of prohibited conduct by authorizing arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The act deputized private individuals to enforce state law without the usual legal and practical checks that normally restrained government officials from arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The plaintiffs argued that the only way for people to ensure that they would not violate the statute was to refuse to perform or assist with an abortion which rendered the law unconstitutionally vague. 
  4. First and Fourteenth Amendment violations against the rights to freedom of speech and right to petition: SB 8's broad prohibition on aiding and abetting abortions allegedly burdened plaintiffs' speech and ability to petition the courts in abortion-related cases. 
  5. Federal Preemption: SB 8 allegedly conflicted with existing Supreme Court precedent that held that states could not prohibit pre-viability abortions. 
  6. § 1988 Preemption: SB 8's fee shifting scheme allegedly directly contradicted the regulations in 42 USC § 1988 that detailed eligibility in order to recover fees in suits brought under 42 USC § 1983. 
  7. First and Fourteenth Amendment violations against the right to freedom of speech and right to petition: plaintiffs alleged that the legal services and litigation covered under SB 8 qualified as political expression. SB 8 punished those who sought to block the enforcement of laws that restricted abortion, but not those who sought to uphold such laws. Plaintiffs argued that SB 8 restricted both viewpoint and content-based speech by affecting plaintiffs' abortion-related advocacy. By imposing massive liability costs on plaintiffs if they chose to bring abortion-restricted related litigation, SB 8 would chill plaintiffs' exercise of rights to free speech and petition. 

On July 13, 2021 the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on all of their claims. The plaintiffs argued that because of prior Supreme Court precedent, SB 8 § 3 violated a woman's right to an abortion before viability. They alleged that both parts of §3 (the six-week ban and the enforcement provisions) were independently unconstitutional. Federal law preempted the six-week ban and the enforcement provisions violated the Equal Protection Clause by singling out those who provided or assisted with abortions. Plaintiffs also argued that §4 violated the First Amendment right to petition the courts by blocking defendants from recovering attorneys fees and automatically conferring attorneys fees on those who challenged abortion restrictions and lost. Plaintiffs also argued that §4 violated freedom of speech and was federally preempted. 

On July 16, 2021 the plaintiffs filed a motion to certify both of their defendant classes. The Judicial Defendant Class was defined as "all non-federal judges in the state of Texas with jurisdiction over civil actions and the authority to enforce SB 8" and the Clerk Defendant Class was defined as "all clerks in the state of Texas for non-federal courts with jurisdiction over civil actions and the authority to enforce SB 8."

On July 27, 2021 the defendants filed an opposed motion to stay summary judgment and class certification proceedings. The defendants argued in their responsive pleadings that they intended to raise arguments that the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and that plaintiffs' claims were barred by sovereign immunity.  The defendants asked the court to stay proceedings until they could submit their responsive pleadings. 

On August 4, 2021 the court denied the defendants' motion to stay the summary judgment and class certification proceedings. The court said that because SB 8 would go into effect on September 1, 2021, it would not stay the proceedings because plaintiffs needed expedited consideration for their pending motions. 

On August 4 and 5, 2021 several defendants filed motions to dismiss.

The state agency defendants argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction on two grounds: (1) the claims were barred because of sovereign immunity, and (2) the plaintiffs did not have standing. First the defendants claimed that because they did not have the power to enforce SB 8, sovereign immunity barred the suit because it was against the state. Next, the defendants argued that plaintiffs had not alleged any actual or imminent injury, or proved organizational standing, and therefore the suit should be dismissed. 

The defendant judge also alleged the same two arguments. First, that sovereign immunity barred the suit. And second, that no case or controversy existed between the judge and plaintiffs because of well-established precedent that held that no case or controversy existed between a plaintiff challenging a state law and a judge in charge of enforcing such law.

In his motion to dismiss, defendant Mark Lee Dickson, the private individual deputized to enforce SB 8, also argued a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendant alleged ten different arguments.

  1. The provisions of SB 8 were severable, and since the plaintiffs had not restricted their suit against defendant Mark Lee Dickson to the provisions directly applicable to him, the court should dismiss the claim in its entirety and require plaintiffs to resubmit their claim in a manner that only alleged violations applicable to defendant Mark Lee Dickson. 
  2. The plaintiffs lacked standing to sue defendant Dickson because he had no intention of suing them. Defendant Dickson alleged that he did not intend to sue the plaintiffs under section 3 of SB 8, because he possessed no assumptions that they would violate the law when it went into effect. 
  3. Enjoining Defendant Dickson from suing the plaintiffs under SB 8 would not redress the plaintiffs' injury, because any other private citizen could sue the plaintiffs under SB 8 and receive the $10,000 authorized under the statute. 
  4. The plaintiffs lacked standing to sue defendant Dickson over §4 of SB 8, because defendant Dickson did not intend to sue the plaintiffs under that provision. Dickson alleged that he had no standing to sue the plaintiffs under that provision, because he had not prevailed in a lawsuit brought to prevent enforcement of an abortion restriction, a prerequisite in order to proceed under §4. 
  5. The claims brought against defendant judge and clerk should be dismissed because of a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant Dickson argued that because of precedent, a plaintiff could not sue a state court judge or court clerk to prevent them from adjudicating cases brought under an allegedly unconstitutional law. 
  6. The claims against defendant judge and court clerk were barred because of sovereign immunity. Dickson alleged that the defendant judge and clerk, in order to be sued, needed to have violated the law, and simply waiting for an SB 8 case to be brought forward did not make them guilty of this. For this reason, the case against them was barred by sovereign immunity. 
  7. The plaintiffs lacked standing against the defendant judge and court clerk because they had failed to allege that defendant Dickson or any other litigant would sue them in the 114th District Court or in Smith County, which was where the defendant judge and court clerk worked. 
  8. The plaintiffs lacked standing to sue defendant judge and clerk because any injury would result from the independent actions of a third party not before the court. Mr. Dickson argued that because he could not legally sue the plaintiffs in Smith County, the plaintiffs claim was contingent on a third-party suing them in Smith County, and therefore was faulty because an alleged injury could not be based on the actions of a third-party. 
  9. The court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider a request for relief that would protect non-parties to the lawsuit. The defendant argued that the plaintiffs sought to prevent him from suing anyone under §3 or §4 of SB 8, even if they were not a party to the case and that the court lacked the jurisdiction to grant this relief. 
  10. The court had no jurisdiction to "block," "invalidate," or "enjoin" SB 8 and its relief could only prevent the named defendants from enforcing the law after it took effect on September 1, 2021. The defendant argued that a court could only block defendants from enforcing a statute, and not from the statute taking effect. 

Lastly, the defendant clerk filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and brought forward four arguments. 

  1. The court lacked jurisdiction over the claims against the clerk because there was no case or controversy between the plaintiffs and the clerk. Court precedent had determined that clerks could not be sued where they were acting in their official capacity. Here, the clerk had no personal stake in the litigation so she were acting in her official capacity. 
  2. The plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the clerk, because the plaintiffs had not suffered from an imminent injury-in-fact and lacked standing to sue the clerk under the prudential standing doctrine. This doctrine counsels that courts should not find standing where plaintiffs asked them to commandeer an entire state judiciary to prevent private parties from suing a plaintiff under a state-law cause of action. 
  3. The court could not grant the relief that plaintiffs asked for against the defendant clerk because a clerk did not have the authority to reject petitions brought to the court. The clerk could not be enjoined from doing something that they did not have the authority to do anyway. 
  4. Sovereign immunity barred the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant clerk. The defendant alleged that because she was a state actor, sovereign immunity applied. 

On August 7, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order, alleging that if the law were to take effect, it would cause irreparable harm through a chilling of abortions state-wide. 

On August 25, 2021 the court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. 

State Agency Defendants:

  1. Sovereign Immunity: The court agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the state agency defendants fell under the exception to sovereign immunity because they could enforce SB 8 against the plaintiffs through §4 by seeking legal fees from the plaintiffs. The state agency defendants could also enforce other state laws that could be triggered by a violation of SB 8. 
  2. Standing: The court found that there was a cognizable injury to the plaintiffs, because once SB 8 took effect, they would have to choose between providing healthcare necessary to their patients or violate SB 8 and risk disciplinary action. §4 would also have a chilling effect on their ability to provide abortions due to fear of fees. 

Judicial defendants (judge defendant and clerk defendant):

  1. Case or Controversy: The court found the defendants' argument that they had no personal stake in the litigation irrelevant, because the plaintiffs could not sue any other government officials for enforcement of the law. The court agreed with the plaintiffs' argument that the judicial defendants demonstrated a personal stake because they could not open or resolve SB 8 actions without violating the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. 
  2. Sovereign Immunity: The court held that plaintiffs' claims were not barred by sovereign immunity because the judicial defendants were sued in their official capacity that made them enforcers of an allegedly unconstitutional law. 
  3. Standing: The plaintiffs had proved (1) an injury-in-fact through the threat of enforcement of SB 8, (2) causation through the judicial defendants' power over the plaintiffs in enforcement of SB 8 suits, and (3) redressability because declaratory relief would obstruct the alleged harm. The court dismissed the defendants' prudential standing argument, because declaratory relief would not impede the function of state courts, but would rather define their constitutional duties with regards to SB 8. 

Defendant Dickson:

  1. Severability: Defendant Dickson argued that plaintiffs had to allege an injury from him applying to every part of the law due to severability and that they only had standing in regards to §3 and §4. The court disagreed because severability and standing were not to be analyzed together, and severability was only to be determined after a legal violation had been established. 
  2. Standing: The court disagreed with Dickson's argument that plaintiffs needed to specifically allege their intent to violate SB 8 in order to have standing, because they had proved a credible threat of enforcement by the defendant. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that plaintiffs sought to seek relief for those not named in the suit.

556 F.Supp.3d 595. 

On August 25, 2021, the defendants appealed the district court's denial of the motions to dismiss and claim of sovereign immunity. The next day the defendants filed an opposed motion to stay the case and vacate the preliminary injunction hearing as a result of their appeal. On August 27, 2021, the court granted the motion as applied to all of the defendants except for defendant Dickson. Defendant Dickson was a private individual and had not asserted sovereign immunity, and so could not appeal the denial of the motion to dismiss. 

On August 27, 2021 the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordered a temporary administrative stay of the district court proceedings and two days later denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for an injunction pending appeal and emergency motion to vacate the court's administrative stay. 

On August 28, 2021 the plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the defendants' appeal.

On August 29, 2021 the plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction pending appeal that the Fifth Circuit denied on the same day. On September 10, 2021, the court issued its opinion and reasoned that SB 8 precluded enforcement by any state, local, or regional officials, and therefore the state defendants lacked an enforcement connection to SB 8 and could not be sued. 13 F.4th 434. 

On August 30, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion for injunctive relief to vacate the stay with the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied the application on the same day because of the novel procedural questions that the application raised. The Court held that the plaintiffs had not carried their burden of showing that the named defendants would seek to enforce SB 8 in a manner that permitted intervention by the Court. 595 U.S. 30 (2021). 

On September 10, 2021, the Fifth Circuit denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the appeal. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss Defendant Dickson's appeal and granted Dickson's motion to stay district court proceedings pending the appeal. The court concluded that the jurisdictional issues presented in Dickson's case related to the issues present in the case of the other defendants, and therefore divested the district court of jurisdiction over Dickson along with the rest of the defendants. Lastly, the court expedited the appeal to the next available oral argument panel. 13 F.4th 434.

On September 23, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari before judgment with the United States Supreme Court. On the same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion to expedite consideration of their petition. The Court granted this motion on October 18, 2021. 142 S.Ct. 415. The Court granted the plaintiffs' petition on October 22, 2021. 142 S.Ct. 415. 

On October 22, 2021, the Fifth Circuit suspended briefing and cancelled the scheduled oral argument in light of the US Supreme Court granting the petition for writ of certiorari. 

On November 2, 2021 the Court heard oral argument. On December 10, 2021 the Court issued an opinion that affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court and remanded back to them. The Court held that the defendant judge and clerk could not be sued because they were not state executive officials enforcing a law. The Court also reasoned that there was no case or controversy because the parties who enacted SB 8 were adverse to the plaintiffs, but those who docketed and decided the cases were not. The Court also rejected the argument to enjoin the Texas attorney general, submitted in a reply brief, because the attorney general also lacked enforcement power under SB 8. The Court allowed the claims to remain against the executive licensing officials named on the complaint. Since those were state agency officials tasked with enforcing the Texas Health and Safety Code against violators, including SB 8, plaintiffs could bring suit against them. Lastly, the Court dismissed the claims against Defendant Dickson because of testimony on the record that he had no intention of enforcing SB 8 against the plaintiffs and therefore the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue him. 595 U.S. 30. 

On December 27, 2021, the Fifth Circuit scheduled oral argument for January 7, 2022. 

On January 3, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a writ of mandamus and a motion to expedite consideration of the petition. The plaintiffs presented the question of whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing the court of appeals to remand the case to the district court without delay. The plaintiffs argued that the Fifth Circuit had no issues left to resolve on the appeal and no authority to retain jurisdiction. 

On January 17, 2022, the Fifth Circuit filed a non-dispositive published opinion holding that certification to the Texas Supreme Court was warranted. The court reasoned that the scope of the enforcement authority of the state agency officials had not been determined by the US Supreme Court.  23 F.4th 380. 

The US Supreme Court denied the petition on January 20, 2022. 142 S.Ct. 701. 

On March 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of Texas issued an opinion that addressed a certified question from the Fifth Circuit of whether Texas Law authorized certain state officials to directly or indirectly enforce SB 8. The court held that it did not. 642 S.W.3d 569. 

On April 26, 2022, the Fifth Circuit remanded the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss all challenges to the private enforcement provisions of the statute, and to consider whether the plaintiffs had standing to challenge §4 of SB 8. 

Pursuant to the U.S. Supreme Court’s December 10, 2021 decision and the Fifth Circuit’s April 26, 2022 order, the District Court, on June 24, 2022, dismissed claims 1 through 7 as to the defendant judge, clerk, and Dickson. On July 28, 2022, in light of the dismissal, the district court mooted the motions for summary judgment, class certification, preliminary injunction, and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. 

On May 15, 2023, the court ordered the plaintiff to file a motion for fees or costs, as it had been over a year since the first seven claims of the complaint had been dismissed. The court also ordered the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint if it wish to continue its remanded claims concerning standing. 

On June 15, 2023, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to dismiss their remaining claims in the case without prejudice. On July 5, 2023, the court granted the voluntary dismissal and the case was closed.

Summary Authors

Rhea Sharma (1/3/2023)

Jerry Lan (10/29/2023)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60053919/parties/whole-womans-health-v-jackson/


Judge(s)
Attorney for Plaintiff

Amiri, Brigitte Andrienne (Texas)

Attorney, Stephanie Toti,

Attorney, Brigitte Adrienne

Chaiten, Lorie (Texas)

Attorney for Defendant

Daniels, Halie (Texas)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document
1

1:21-cv-00616

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - Class Action

Whole Women's Health v. Jackson

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

Complaint
82

1:21-cv-00616

Order

Whole Women's Health v. Jackson

Aug. 25, 2021

Aug. 25, 2021

Order/Opinion

21-00024

Opinion

Whole Women's Health v. Jackson

Supreme Court of the United States

Sept. 1, 2021

Sept. 1, 2021

Order/Opinion
95

1:21-cv-00616

21-50792

USCA Opinion and Order

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Sept. 10, 2021

Sept. 10, 2021

Order/Opinion

21-00463

Opinion of the Court

Whole Women's Health v. Jackson

Supreme Court of the United States

Dec. 10, 2021

Dec. 10, 2021

Order/Opinion
115

1:21-cv-00616

Order Dismissing Case

July 5, 2023

July 5, 2023

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60053919/whole-womans-health-v-jackson/

Last updated Nov. 5, 2023, 5:40 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - Class Action ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0542-15003772). No Summons requested at this time, filed by Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Erika Forbes, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Fund Texas Choice, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Daniel Kanter, Whole Woman's Health, Jane's Due Process, Marva Sadler, Frontera Fund, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Whole Women's Health Alliance, The Afiya Center, Bhavik Kumar, North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Lilith Fund, Inc., Brookside Women's Health Center and Austin Women's Health Center. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

1 Exhibit 1

View on RECAP

2 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

Clearinghouse
2

REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Health Center and Austin Women's Health Center, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Main Document 2 replaced on 7/13/2021 to flatten image) (dl). (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
3

RULE 7 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT filed by Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Health Center and Austin Women's Health Center, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
4

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert for Brigitte Amiri ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15004770) by on behalf of Houston Women's Clinic. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER

Case assigned to Judge Robert Pitman. CM WILL NOW REFLECT THE JUDGE INITIALS AS PART OF THE CASE NUMBER. PLEASE APPEND THESE JUDGE INITIALS TO THE CASE NUMBER ON EACH DOCUMENT THAT YOU FILE IN THIS CASE. (dl)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER

If ordered by the court, all referrals and consents in this case will be assigned to Magistrate Judge Hightower. (dl)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
5

Summons Issued as to Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Stephen Brint Carlton, Penny Clarkston, Mark Lee Dickson, Austin Reeve Jackson, Ken Paxton, Katherine A. Thomas, Cecile Erwin Young. (dl) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
6

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Molly Duane, 199 Water Street, New York, NY 10038 ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15005458) by on behalf of Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Daniel Kanter, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
7

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Chelsea G. Tejada, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15005618) by on behalf of Houston Women's Clinic. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
8

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Lorie Chaiten, 1640 North Sedgwick, Chicago, IL ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15005691) by on behalf of Houston Women's Clinic. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
9

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of J. Alexander Lawrence, 250 W. 55th Street, New York, NY ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15005722) by on behalf of Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Allison Gilbert, Daniel Kanter, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
10

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Richard Muniz, 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15005784) by on behalf of Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services. (Hebert, Christen) (Main Document 10 replaced on 7/13/2021 to flatten image) (jv2). (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
11

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Julia Kaye, 125 Broad Street, New York, NY ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15005817) by on behalf of Houston Women's Clinic. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
12

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Jamie A. Levitt, 250 W. 55th Street, New York, NY ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15005922) by on behalf of Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Daniel Kanter, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
13

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Kirby Tyrrell, 199 Water Street, New York, NY ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15006015) by on behalf of Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Allison Gilbert, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
14

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Marc Hearron, 1634 Eye Street NW, Washington, DC ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15006036) by on behalf of Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Daniel Kanter, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
15

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Melanie Fontes, 199 Water Street, New York NY ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15006052) by on behalf of Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Daniel Kanter, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
16

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Christen Mason Hebert on behalf of Julie Murray, 1110 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15006066) by on behalf of Bhavik Kumar, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services. (Hebert, Christen) (Main Document 16 replaced on 7/13/2021 to flatten image) (jv2). (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
17

REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS by Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
18

MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation for Summary Judgment Motion by Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

RECAP
19

MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support by Alamo Women's Reproductive Services, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A. Gilbert Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B. Kumar Declaration, # 3 Exhibit C. Ferrigno Declaration, # 4 Exhibit D. Klier Declaration, # 5 Exhibit E. Lambrecht Declaration, # 6 Exhibit F. Linton Declaration, # 7 Exhibit G. Hagstrom Miller Declaration, # 8 Exhibit H. Braid Declaration, # 9 Exhibit I. Rosenfeld Declaration, # 10 Exhibit J. Barraza Declaration, # 11 Exhibit K. Sadler Declarationb, # 12 Exhibit L. Zamora Declaration, # 13 Exhibit M. Jones Declaration, # 14 Exhibit N. Rupani Declaration, # 15 Exhibit O. Connor Declaration, # 16 Exhibit P. Williams Declaration, # 17 Exhibit Q. Kanter Declaration, # 18 Exhibit R. Forbes Declaration, # 19 Exhibit S. Mariappuram Declaration)(Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

1 Exhibit A. Gilbert Declaration

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B. Kumar Declaration

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C. Ferrigno Declaration

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D. Klier Declaration

View on PACER

5 Exhibit E. Lambrecht Declaration

View on PACER

6 Exhibit F. Linton Declaration

View on PACER

7 Exhibit G. Hagstrom Miller Declaration

View on RECAP

8 Exhibit H. Braid Declaration

View on PACER

9 Exhibit I. Rosenfeld Declaration

View on PACER

10 Exhibit J. Barraza Declaration

View on PACER

11 Exhibit K. Sadler Declarationb

View on PACER

12 Exhibit L. Zamora Declaration

View on PACER

13 Exhibit M. Jones Declaration

View on PACER

14 Exhibit N. Rupani Declaration

View on PACER

15 Exhibit O. Connor Declaration

View on PACER

16 Exhibit P. Williams Declaration

View on PACER

17 Exhibit Q. Kanter Declaration

View on PACER

18 Exhibit R. Forbes Declaration

View on PACER

19 Exhibit S. Mariappuram Declaration

View on PACER

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

RECAP

Notice of Correction: re 18 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation for Summary Judgment Motion, 19 MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Support. As of 7/28/2020 when filing a motion for leave to exceed page limitations in the Austin Division, the document that exceeds the page limit should now be attached to the motion along with a proposed order, and should no longer be filed as a separate docket event. No further action is needed at this time. Please note this information for future filing purposes. (jv2)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
20

Summons Issued as to Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Stephen Brint Carlton, Penny Clarkston, Mark Lee Dickson, Austin Reeve Jackson, Ken Paxton, Katherine A. Thomas, Cecile Erwin Young. (jv2) (Entered: 07/13/2021)

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER

Case Assigned/Reassigned

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER

To be Referred to AU Mag Judge

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER

Notice of Correction

July 13, 2021

July 13, 2021

PACER
21

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by David A. Donatti on behalf of Houston Women's Clinic. Attorney David A. Donatti added to party Houston Women's Clinic(pty:pla) (Donatti, David) (Entered: 07/14/2021)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER
22

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Adriana Cecilia Pinon on behalf of Houston Women's Clinic. Attorney Adriana Cecilia Pinon added to party Houston Women's Clinic(pty:pla) (Pinon, Adriana) (Entered: 07/14/2021)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER
23

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Adriana Cecilia Pinon for Andre Segura ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15010153) by on behalf of Houston Women's Clinic. (Pinon, Adriana) (Entered: 07/14/2021)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Brigitte Amiri. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 6 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Molly Duane. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Chelsea G. Tejada. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Lorie Chaiten. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 9 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney J. Alexander Lawrence. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 10 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Richard Muniz. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 11 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Julia Kaye. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 12 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Jamie A. Levitt. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 13 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Kirby Tyrrell. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 14 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Marc Hearron. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 15 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Melanie Fontes. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 16 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Julie Murray. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 23 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Andre Segura. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

July 14, 2021

July 14, 2021

PACER
24

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Stephanie Toti on behalf of Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Jane's Due Process, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, The Afiya Center. Attorney Stephanie Toti added to party Frontera Fund(pty:pla), Attorney Stephanie Toti added to party Fund Texas Choice(pty:pla), Attorney Stephanie Toti added to party Jane's Due Process(pty:pla), Attorney Stephanie Toti added to party Lilith Fund, Inc.(pty:pla), Attorney Stephanie Toti added to party North Texas Equal Access Fund(pty:pla), Attorney Stephanie Toti added to party The Afiya Center(pty:pla) (Toti, Stephanie) (Entered: 07/15/2021)

July 15, 2021

July 15, 2021

RECAP
25

MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Stephanie Toti On Behalf of Rupali Sharma ( Filing fee $ 100 receipt number 0542-15018179) by on behalf of Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Jane's Due Process, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, The Afiya Center. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Toti, Stephanie) (Entered: 07/15/2021)

July 15, 2021

July 15, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 25 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by attorney Rupali Sharma. Pursuant to our Administrative Policies and Procedures for Electronic Filing, the attorney hereby granted to practice pro hac vice in this case must register for electronic filing with our court within 10 days of this order. entered by Judge Robert Pitman. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (jg)

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

PACER
26

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Erika Forbes, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Fund Texas Choice, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Daniel Kanter, Whole Woman's Health, Jane's Due Process, Marva Sadler, Frontera Fund, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Whole Women's Health Alliance, The Afiya Center, Bhavik Kumar, North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Lilith Fund, Inc., Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center. Stephen Brint Carlton served on 7/14/2021, answer due 8/4/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Lawrence, J.) (Entered: 07/16/2021)

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

PACER
27

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Erika Forbes, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Fund Texas Choice, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Daniel Kanter, Whole Woman's Health, Jane's Due Process, Marva Sadler, Frontera Fund, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Whole Women's Health Alliance, The Afiya Center, Bhavik Kumar, North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Lilith Fund, Inc., Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center. Allison Vordenbaumen Benz served on 7/14/2021, answer due 8/4/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Lawrence, J.) (Entered: 07/16/2021)

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

PACER
28

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Erika Forbes, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Fund Texas Choice, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Daniel Kanter, Whole Woman's Health, Jane's Due Process, Marva Sadler, Frontera Fund, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Whole Women's Health Alliance, The Afiya Center, Bhavik Kumar, North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Lilith Fund, Inc., Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center. Katherine A. Thomas served on 7/14/2021, answer due 8/4/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Lawrence, J.) Modified on 7/16/2021 to correct name of defendant served(lt). (Entered: 07/16/2021)

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

PACER
29

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Erika Forbes, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Fund Texas Choice, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Daniel Kanter, Whole Woman's Health, Jane's Due Process, Marva Sadler, Frontera Fund, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Whole Women's Health Alliance, The Afiya Center, Bhavik Kumar, North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Lilith Fund, Inc., Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center. Austin Reeve Jackson served on 7/14/2021, answer due 8/4/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Lawrence, J.) (Entered: 07/16/2021)

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

PACER
30

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Erika Forbes, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Fund Texas Choice, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Daniel Kanter, Whole Woman's Health, Jane's Due Process, Marva Sadler, Frontera Fund, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Whole Women's Health Alliance, The Afiya Center, Bhavik Kumar, North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Lilith Fund, Inc., Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center. Penny Clarkston served on 7/14/2021, answer due 8/4/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Lawrence, J.) (Entered: 07/16/2021)

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

PACER
31

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Erika Forbes, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Fund Texas Choice, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Daniel Kanter, Whole Woman's Health, Jane's Due Process, Marva Sadler, Frontera Fund, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Whole Women's Health Alliance, The Afiya Center, Bhavik Kumar, North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Lilith Fund, Inc., Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center. Cecile Erwin Young served on 7/15/2021, answer due 8/5/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Lawrence, J.) (Entered: 07/16/2021)

1 Summons

View on PACER

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

PACER
32

MOTION to Certify Class of a Defendant Class of Judges and a Defendant Class of Clerks by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Lawrence, J.) (Entered: 07/16/2021)

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

RECAP
33

SUMMONS Returned Executed by Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, Erika Forbes, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Fund Texas Choice, Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Daniel Kanter, Whole Woman's Health, Jane's Due Process, Marva Sadler, Frontera Fund, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Whole Women's Health Alliance, The Afiya Center, Bhavik Kumar, North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Lilith Fund, Inc., Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center. Ken Paxton served on 7/14/2021, answer due 8/4/2021. (Attachments: # 1 Summons)(Lawrence, J.) (Entered: 07/16/2021)

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

July 16, 2021

July 16, 2021

PACER
34

MOTION for Expedited Status Conference - partially unopposed by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Hebert, Christen) (Entered: 07/23/2021)

July 23, 2021

July 23, 2021

PACER
35

NOTICE of Filing Affidavit of Service of Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Defendant Class of Judges and Clerks; and Plaintiffs' partially Unopposed Motion for Expedited Status Conference upon The Honorable Austin Reeve Jackson by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance (Lawrence, J.) (Entered: 07/26/2021)

July 26, 2021

July 26, 2021

PACER
36

NOTICE of Filing Affidavit of Service of Plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of a Defendant Class of Judges and Clerks; and Plaintiffs' Partially Unopposed Motion for Expedited Status Conference upon Penny Clarkston by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance (Lawrence, J.) (Entered: 07/26/2021)

July 26, 2021

July 26, 2021

PACER
37

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Jonathan F. Mitchell on behalf of Mark Lee Dickson. Attorney Jonathan F. Mitchell added to party Mark Lee Dickson(pty:dft) (Mitchell, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/27/2021)

July 27, 2021

July 27, 2021

RECAP
38

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andrew Bowman Stephens on behalf of Penny Clarkston. Attorney Andrew Bowman Stephens added to party Penny Clarkston(pty:dft) (Stephens, Andrew) (Entered: 07/27/2021)

July 27, 2021

July 27, 2021

PACER
39

Opposed MOTION to Stay Summary Judgment and Class Certification Proceedings by Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Stephen Brint Carlton, Penny Clarkston, Mark Lee Dickson, Austin Reeve Jackson, Ken Paxton, Katherine A. Thomas, Cecile Erwin Young. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order Granting Defendants' Opposed Motion to Stay Summary Judgement and Class Certification Proceedings)(Walton, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/27/2021)

1 Proposed Order Order Granting Defendants' Opposed Motion to Stay Summary Ju

View on RECAP

July 27, 2021

July 27, 2021

RECAP
40

ORDER, ( Telephone Conference set for 8/4/2021 at 09:00 AM before Judge Robert Pitman,). Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 07/28/2021)

July 28, 2021

July 28, 2021

RECAP
41

Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance, re 39 Opposed MOTION to Stay Summary Judgment and Class Certification Proceedings filed by Defendant Mark Lee Dickson, Defendant Ken Paxton, Defendant Stephen Brint Carlton, Defendant Austin Reeve Jackson, Defendant Penny Clarkston, Defendant Cecile Erwin Young, Defendant Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Defendant Katherine A. Thomas (Hearron, Marc) (Entered: 07/28/2021)

July 28, 2021

July 28, 2021

RECAP
42

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply by Penny Clarkston. (Stephens, Andrew) (Entered: 07/30/2021)

July 30, 2021

July 30, 2021

PACER
43

REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Stephen Brint Carlton, Penny Clarkston, Mark Lee Dickson, Austin Reeve Jackson, Ken Paxton, Katherine A. Thomas, Cecile Erwin Young, re 39 Opposed MOTION to Stay Summary Judgment and Class Certification Proceedings filed by Defendant Mark Lee Dickson, Defendant Ken Paxton, Defendant Stephen Brint Carlton, Defendant Austin Reeve Jackson, Defendant Penny Clarkston, Defendant Cecile Erwin Young, Defendant Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Defendant Katherine A. Thomas (Walton, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/30/2021)

July 30, 2021

July 30, 2021

RECAP
44

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance, re 42 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Defendant Penny Clarkston (Hearron, Marc) (Entered: 08/03/2021)

Aug. 3, 2021

Aug. 3, 2021

RECAP
45

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by M. Shane McGuire on behalf of Austin Reeve Jackson. Attorney M. Shane McGuire added to party Austin Reeve Jackson(pty:dft) (McGuire, M.) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

RECAP
46

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Robert Pitman: Telephone Conference held on 8/4/2021 (Minute entry documents are not available electronically.). (Court Reporter LilyReznik.)(dm) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 18 Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. 19) is limited to no more than 50 pages. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (fw)

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

PACER

Text Order MOOTING 34 Motion for Expedited Status Conference entered by Judge Robert Pitman. In light of the status conference held on August 4, 2021, (Dkt. 46), this motion is MOOT. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (fw)

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

PACER
47

SCHEDULING ORDER:( Motions to Dismiss due by 8/6/2021 at 5:00pm,), ORDER DENYING 42 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply filed by Penny Clarkston, DENYING 39 Opposed MOTION to Stay Summary Judgment and Class Certification Proceedings filed by Mark Lee Dickson, Ken Paxton, Stephen Brint Carlton, Austin Reeve Jackson, Penny Clarkston, Cecile Erwin Young, Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Katherine A. Thomas. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

RECAP
48

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Stephen Brint Carlton, Ken Paxton, Katherine A. Thomas, Cecile Erwin Young. (Walton, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

RECAP
49

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Austin Reeve Jackson. (Walton, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/04/2021)

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

RECAP

Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

Aug. 4, 2021

Aug. 4, 2021

PACER
50

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Mark Lee Dickson. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Affidavit)(Mitchell, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

1 Affidavit

View on PACER

2 Affidavit

View on PACER

Aug. 5, 2021

Aug. 5, 2021

RECAP
51

MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Penny Clarkston. (Stephens, Andrew) (Entered: 08/05/2021)

Aug. 5, 2021

Aug. 5, 2021

RECAP
52

MOTION for Reconsideration re 47 Scheduling Order,, Terminate Motions, by Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Stephen Brint Carlton, Penny Clarkston, Mark Lee Dickson, Austin Reeve Jackson, Ken Paxton, Katherine A. Thomas, Cecile Erwin Young. (Mitchell, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/06/2021)

Aug. 6, 2021

Aug. 6, 2021

RECAP
53

MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 (Lawrence Declaration), # 2 Proposed Order)(Hearron, Marc) (Entered: 08/07/2021)

1 Exhibit 1 (Lawrence Declaration)

View on PACER

2 Proposed Order

View on RECAP

Aug. 7, 2021

Aug. 7, 2021

RECAP
54

MOTION to Expedite Ruling on the Motion for Reconsideration by Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Stephen Brint Carlton, Austin Reeve Jackson, Ken Paxton, Katherine A. Thomas, Cecile Erwin Young. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Fifth Circuit Order)(Hilton, Christopher) (Entered: 08/08/2021)

Aug. 8, 2021

Aug. 8, 2021

PACER
55

Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance, re 52 MOTION for Reconsideration re 47 Scheduling Order,, Terminate Motions, filed by Defendant Mark Lee Dickson, Defendant Ken Paxton, Defendant Stephen Brint Carlton, Defendant Austin Reeve Jackson, Defendant Penny Clarkston, Defendant Cecile Erwin Young, Defendant Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Defendant Katherine A. Thomas (Hearron, Marc) (Entered: 08/08/2021)

Aug. 8, 2021

Aug. 8, 2021

RECAP
56

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance, re 48 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Stephen Brint Carlton, Defendant Ken Paxton, Defendant Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Defendant Cecile Erwin Young, Defendant Katherine A. Thomas (Hearron, Marc) (Entered: 08/11/2021)

Aug. 11, 2021

Aug. 11, 2021

RECAP
57

Memorandum in Opposition to Motion, filed by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance, re 50 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Mark Lee Dickson (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (May 5, 2021, 11:31 AM), # 2 Exhibit 2: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Mar. 29, 2021, 11:15 PM), # 3 Exhibit 3: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (June 11, 2019, 7:58 PM), # 4 Exhibit 4: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Apr. 6, 2019, 8:50 PM), # 5 Exhibit 5: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Mar. 29, 2019, 2:05 PM), # 6 Exhibit 6: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Apr. 6, 2020, 12:26 PM), # 7 Exhibit 7: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Mar. 23, 2020, 4:49 PM), # 8 Exhibit 8: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Nov. 27, 2019, 6 12:02 AM))(Hearron, Marc) (Entered: 08/11/2021)

1 Exhibit 1: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (May 5, 2021, 11:31 AM)

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit 2: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Mar. 29, 2021, 11:15 PM)

View on RECAP

3 Exhibit 3: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (June 11, 2019, 7:58 PM)

View on RECAP

4 Exhibit 4: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Apr. 6, 2019, 8:50 PM)

View on RECAP

5 Exhibit 5: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Mar. 29, 2019, 2:05 PM)

View on RECAP

6 Exhibit 6: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Apr. 6, 2020, 12:26 PM)

View on RECAP

7 Exhibit 7: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Mar. 23, 2020, 4:49 PM)

View on RECAP

8 Exhibit 8: Mark Lee Dickson, Facebook (Nov. 27, 2019, 6 12:02 AM)

View on RECAP

Aug. 11, 2021

Aug. 11, 2021

RECAP
58

ADVISORY TO THE COURT by Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Stephen Brint Carlton, Austin Reeve Jackson, Ken Paxton, Katherine A. Thomas, Cecile Erwin Young . (Walton, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/11/2021)

Aug. 11, 2021

Aug. 11, 2021

RECAP
59

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation for Consolidated Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss the Claims Against Defendants Judge Jackson and Penny Clarkson by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Consolidated Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss the Claims Against Defendants Judge Jackson and Penny Clarkson)(Hearron, Marc) (Entered: 08/11/2021)

Aug. 11, 2021

Aug. 11, 2021

PACER
60

ORDER- Amended Briefing Schedule. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jg3) (Entered: 08/11/2021)

Aug. 11, 2021

Aug. 11, 2021

RECAP
61

ORDER Setting Hearing for 53 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order ( Motion Hearing by Video set for 8/30/2021 at 09:00 AM before Judge Robert Pitman,). Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (dm) (Entered: 08/12/2021)

Aug. 12, 2021

Aug. 12, 2021

RECAP

Text Order GRANTING 59 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Opposition to the Motions to Dismiss the Claims Against Defendants Judge Jackson and Penny Clarkston is limited to no more than 36 pages. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (fw)

Aug. 12, 2021

Aug. 12, 2021

PACER
62

Response in Opposition to Motion, filed by Alamo City Surgery Center PLLC, Brookside Women's Medical Center PA, Erika Forbes, Frontera Fund, Fund Texas Choice, Allison Gilbert, Houston Women's Clinic, Houston Women's Reproductive Services, Jane's Due Process, Daniel Kanter, Bhavik Kumar, Lilith Fund, Inc., North Texas Equal Access Fund, Planned Parenthood Center for Choice, Planned Parenthood South Texas Surgical Center, Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas Surgical Health Services, Marva Sadler, Southwestern Women's Surgery Center, The Afiya Center, Whole Woman's Health, Whole Women's Health Alliance, re 49 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Austin Reeve Jackson, 51 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Penny Clarkston. (dm) (Entered: 08/12/2021)

Aug. 12, 2021

Aug. 12, 2021

RECAP

Text Order MOOTING 52 Motion for Reconsideration entered by Judge Robert Pitman. In light of the revised scheduling order, Dkt. 60, and State Defendants' notice, Dkt. 58, that they "intend to follow the revised briefing schedule," IT IS ORDERED that this motion is MOOT. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (sh)

Aug. 12, 2021

Aug. 12, 2021

PACER

Text Order MOOTING 54 Motion to Expedite entered by Judge Robert Pitman. In light of this Court's resolution of Defendants' motion for reconsideration, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to expedite is MOOT. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (sh)

Aug. 12, 2021

Aug. 12, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Aug. 12, 2021

Aug. 12, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion for Reconsideration

Aug. 12, 2021

Aug. 12, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion to Expedite

Aug. 12, 2021

Aug. 12, 2021

PACER
63

RESPONSE in Support, filed by Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Stephen Brint Carlton, Ken Paxton, Katherine A. Thomas, Cecile Erwin Young, re 48 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Stephen Brint Carlton, Defendant Ken Paxton, Defendant Allison Vordenbaumen Benz, Defendant Cecile Erwin Young, Defendant Katherine A. Thomas (Walton, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/13/2021)

Aug. 13, 2021

Aug. 13, 2021

PACER
64

REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Mark Lee Dickson, re 50 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Mark Lee Dickson (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit, # 2 Exhibit)(Mitchell, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/13/2021)

1 Affidavit

View on PACER

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

Aug. 13, 2021

Aug. 13, 2021

PACER
65

Unopposed MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation for Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss by Penny Clarkston. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Brief)(Hacker, Heather) (Entered: 08/13/2021)

Aug. 13, 2021

Aug. 13, 2021

PACER
66

REPLY to Response to Motion, filed by Austin Reeve Jackson, re 49 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Defendant Austin Reeve Jackson (Walton, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/13/2021)

Aug. 13, 2021

Aug. 13, 2021

PACER

Text Order GRANTING 65 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages entered by Judge Robert Pitman. Defendant Clarkston's reply in support of her motion to dismiss is limited to no more than 19 pages. (This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (fw)

Aug. 15, 2021

Aug. 15, 2021

PACER

Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Aug. 15, 2021

Aug. 15, 2021

PACER

Case Details