Case: Jonathan R. v. Justice

3:19-cv-00710 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia

Filed Date: Sept. 30, 2019

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case about the administration of child welfare. On September 30, 2019, twelve named plaintiffs, all children in the custody of West Virginia's Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR), brought a class action complaint against the Governor of West Virginia Jim Justice, as well as the Cabinet Secretary for the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the Deputy Secretary for the West Virginia DHHS, and the Commissioner for Bureau of Children and Families (BCF) Linda Watts, and West Virginia DHHS. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia the plaintiffs sued under 42 U.S.C. § 670 et seq. (Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 (CWA)), 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)), and 29 U.S.C. § 701 (Rehabilitation Act). The complaint alleged failure to provide reasonable care and protect from harm the foster children in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment due process protections. It further deniedfurther, denying the right of familial association and protection from psychological harm in violation of their First Amendment right of association, Ninth Amendment reservation of rights to the people, and Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process protections, the failure to provide a written case plan for the benefit of the foster children and parents in violation of the CWA, and failure to provide adequate services to disabled children in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief against the systematic deficiencies they alleged. The case was assigned to Judge Robert C. Chambers, then reassigned to Chief Judge Thomas E. Johnston.

In the complaint, plaintiffs alleged they faced repeated maltreatment due to a lack of protection while in state custody, faced discrimination due to disability, and failure to be placed in the least restrictive environment that has resulted in emotional and physical harms. Children in DHHR custody were moved between foster homes repeatedly and in short timespans and provided with inadequate mental and emotional health support. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief that DHHR complete a needs assessment and care plan for children placed in their custody to determine if the child has disabilities and how to meet their needs, ensure adequate DHHR staffing and training of support staff, place disabled children in the most integrated setting and provide therapeutic services, and continue to meet the needs of children approaching adulthood in DHHR custody.

On September 2, 2020, plaintiffs sought class certification of one class and three subclasses, including the Kinship Subclass, the ADA Subclass, and the Aging Out Subclass. The general class included all West Virginia foster children. The Kinship Subclass included children who "are or will be in kinship placements, or who were in kinship placements that unnecessarily disrupted...case management and other services, and permanency planning"; the ADA subclass included children who "have physical, intellectual, cognitive, or mental health disabilities"; and the Aging Out Subclass included children who "are or will be fourteen years or older, who are eligible to receive age-appropriate transition planning...".

Throughout the litigation, each of the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The defendants argued that the six plaintiffs' claims were moot and that they should be removed from the action. Defendants also argued that under Younger (a case which expanded the Middlesex factors to noncriminal proceedings involving important state interests), abstention was appropriate. The plaintiffs, in response, argued that their claims fell into the exception of mootness for a controversy that is capable of repetition yet evading review, arguing that the challenged action was too short in duration to be fully litigated before cessation but there was a reasonable likelihood that the same party would be subjected to the same action again.

On July 28, 2021, the court removed six of the named plaintiffs from the action and granted the motion to dismiss. 2021 WL 3195020. Regarding mootness, Chief Judge Johnston held that the claims of six of the named plaintiffs were moot, as each plaintiff was no longer in Defendants' legal or physical custody, and therefore they had no legally cognizable interest in the outcome of the litigation. Further, there was no evidence to meet the burden of establishing the mootness exception for claims evading review yet capable of repetition, and the nature of the case being a class action did not change the analysis as to the six named plaintiffs who were no longer in custody. Next, the court found that abstention under Younger applied, as the case involved "state-initiated abuse and neglect proceedings," as well as a request for the court to issue an injunction aimed at preventing events that could take place in future abuse and neglect proceedings; thus an analysis of the Middlesex factors was necessary to determine if abstention was appropriate. Chief Judge Johnston found that under all three Middlesex factors were satisfied, finding that (1) the relief sought by plaintiffs would "interfere extensively with ongoing state court proceedings for each of the named Plaintiffs"; (2) "the protection fo abused and neglected children is a vital and important state interest"; and (3) the plaintiffs had not proved that the circuit courts lacked jurisdiction or ability to adjudicate the claims during periodic review proceedings as a part of the plaintiff's ongoing abuse and neglect proceedings. Finally, Chief Judge Johnston found that no exceptions toYounger applied, and thus review of the case was inappropriate and the court was barred from considering it.

On August 4, 2021, plaintiffs appealed the motion to dismiss to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A panel of the Fourth Circuit, including Circuit Judges Harris, Rushing, and Floyd heard argument on March 9, 2022 and issued its opinion affirming in part and denying in part on July 20, 2022. The Fourth Circuit held that named plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot; exception to mootness that allowed certification of class to relate back to filing of complaint if named plaintiffs' claims were rendered moot applied; Younger abstention did not apply; and Rooker-Feldman abstention did not apply. Beginning with mootness, the Fourth Circuit agreed with plaintiffs' argument that where a named plaintiff's individual claim becomes moot before the district court has an opportunity to certify the class, the certification may "relate back" to the filing of the complaint if other class members will continue to be subject to the challenged conduct and claims raised were inherently transitory (relying on Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975)). In particular, the Fourth Circuit focused on the unpredictability of foster-care placements and the danger of devastating entire childhoods. 41 F.4th 316.

On the application of Younger abstention, the Fourth Circuit disagreed with the district court's holding that this case fell within federal abstention because state circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over the setting in which children are placed. The Fourth Circuit held that quarterly state court hearings were not entitled to Younger treatment (they aren't criminal trials, nor do they fit within the type of civil enforcement or judicial process proceedings to which Younger would apply) and would not further any federalism interests in comity. In addition, the Fourth Circuit thought it was premature to dismiss the case before the court has an opportunity to consider what relief could properly constitute. The Fourth Circuit rejected defendants' arguments for applying Rooker-Feldman abstention for similar reasons and because plaintiffs did not object to a state court decision but to a state Department, which does not fall within the doctrine. 41 F.4th 316.

Defendants filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the Fourth Circuit opinion. The Supreme Court denied cert on October 11, 2022, notifying the Fourth Circuit in a letter.

The parties proceeded with discovery and defendants submitted status reports. On September 20, 2022, defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and stay discovering pending the motion to dismiss. The court granted a two week stay on September 28, 2022, to allow parties to engage in discussions. On December 19, 2022, defendants filed a motion for a protective order, which the court granted on January 10, 2023. The court granted and denied in part defendants' motion to dismiss on January 13, 2023. The court analyzed each of plaintiffs' five claims under their proposed classes: the general class (all children who are or will be in West Virginia foster care); kinship subclass (children who are, will be, or have been placed in kinship placements); the ADA subclass (children who have or will have physical, intellectual, cognitive, or mental health disabilities) and the Aging Out subclass. Plaintiffs' substantive due process claims were dismissed as to all proposed classes, with the court emphasizing the difference between what West Virginia should do versus what is legally required. Plaintiffs' second claim, the right to familial association, also did not pass the court's muster. The court noted that plaintiffs failed to allege a violation of their right to familial association with their parents, that the Constitution's protection of sibling relationships does not apply in the foster care context, and that the grandparent-grandchild relationship claim was foreclosed by Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Plaintiffs' § 1983 claim under the Adoption Assistance and child Welfare Act was similarly denied. The court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act relying on Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999).

The parties entered into settlement negotiations and the court consequently stayed discovery on February 16, 2023.

Judge Johnston recused himself from the case on April 3, 2023. Judge Johnston's recusal came after emails and documents obtained through a public records request showed regular communication between Johnston, state lawmakers, and government staffers. More information on Judge Johnston's recusal may be found here.

The case was reassigned to District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin, with discovery matters referred to Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert. Judge Eifert later retired, and on September 3, 2024, discovery supervision transferred to Magistrate Judge Joseph K. Reeder.

On August 17, 2023, Judge Goodwin granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, allowing the case to proceed on behalf of a General Class of all children in West Virginia foster care and an ADA Subclass of foster children with disabilities. Other requested subclasses, including the kinship and aging-out groups, were not certified. The court appointed class counsel and set deadlines for discovery and expert disclosures.

During late 2023 and early 2024, the parties engaged in extensive discovery and motion practice. On March 28, 2024, the court granted in part plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions under Federal Rule 37(e) for the state’s failure to preserve electronically stored information. Judge Goodwin barred defendants from arguing that the missing data would have disproved deliberate indifference and ordered them to reimburse plaintiffs’ reasonable fees and costs for litigating the issue.

The next day, the court authorized additional Rule 30(b)(6) depositions and extended deposition hours, and on April 1, 2024, issued an amended scheduling order setting expert-disclosure and dispositive-motion deadlines and scheduling a bench trial for November 5, 2024. In the months that followed, the parties conducted numerous depositions of Department of Health and Human Resources staff and third-party witnesses.

In April and May 2024, the court resolved a separate sanctions dispute and approved the parties’ stipulated withdrawal of plaintiffs’ application for attorneys’ fees and expenses, which had been filed under the March 28 sanctions order.

On July 8, 2024, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The parties submitted extensive briefing and exhibits through September, during which the court entered several orders on sealing and redaction to protect identifying information.

In early September 2024, both sides filed motions to exclude or limit expert testimony under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, addressing multiple expert witnesses on class-wide foster-care practices and disability services. Oppositions were filed by late September 2024.

Starting in fall 2024, the parties continued pretrial filings (including sealing/redactions, Rule 26 disclosures, objections, and multiple motions in limine). On October 15, 2024, the court reset the schedule, ultimately moving the pretrial conference to April 10, 2025, and a bench trial to May 6, 2025. In early 2025 the parties exchanged additional witness/exhibit disclosures and litigated calendar issues.

On February 28, 2025, the district court sua sponte dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction and entered judgment with prejudice, directing that the published opinion be posted on the court’s website. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on March 10, 2025 (4th Cir. No. 25-1232). Defendants filed a conditional cross-appeal on March 12, 2025 (No. 25-1239), and on March 13, 2025 the Fourth Circuit consolidated the matters, designating No. 25-1232 as the lead appeal. The case is now pending before the Fourth Circuit.


22-00240	U.S. Supreme Court Docket Supreme Court of the United States	Oct. 11, 2022	Oct. 11, 2022 Docket
1 3:19-cv-00710	Class Action Complaint	Sept. 30, 2019	Sept. 30, 2019 Complaint
18 3:19-cv-00710	Memorandum In Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss	Nov. 26, 2019	Nov. 26, 2019 Internal memorandum
130 3:19-cv-00710	Motion / Application / Petition to Certify Class	Sept. 2, 2020	Sept. 2, 2020 Pleading / Motion / Brief
131 3:19-cv-00710	Memorandum In Support of Motion for Class Certification	Sept. 2, 2020	Sept. 2, 2020 Internal memorandum
258 3:19-cv-00710	Memorandum Opinion and Order	July 28, 2021	July 28, 2021 Order/Opinion
22-00240	Petition for a Writ of Certiorari Jim Justice, et al. v. Jonathan R., Minor, By Next Friend Sarah Dixon, et al. Supreme Court of the United States	Sept. 12, 2022	Sept. 12, 2022 Pleading / Motion / Brief
22-00240	Petition	Sept. 12, 2022	Sept. 12, 2022
22-00240	Appendix	Sept. 12, 2022	Sept. 12, 2022
273 3:19-cv-00710	Re: Jim Justice, Governor of West Virginia, et al. v. Jonathan R., Minor, By Next Friend Sarah Dixon, et al. No. 22-240 (Your No. 21-1868) Justice v. Jonathan R. Supreme Court of the United States	Sept. 16, 2022	Sept. 16, 2022 Correspondence

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	Nov. 4, 2016	SHORT FORM COMPLAINT. Filing Fee $400.00. Receipt # 0425-5064817. (Attachment: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (klc) (Entered: 11/07/2016)	Clearinghouse
2	Nov. 7, 2016	TRANSMITTED PRETRIAL ORDER # 151 (ORDER TO ADMINISTER SETTLEMENTS RESOLVING CASES AND CLAIMS OF SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC PLAINTIFFS) entered on 09/07/2016 in MDL 2326 to attorneys in member case. (jk)	RECAP
3	Dec. 2, 2016	NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE AND COUNSEL CONTACT INFORMATION FORM by Jon A. Strongman on behalf of Boston Scientific Corporation. (Strongman, Jon)	RECAP
4	Dec. 2, 2016	WAIVER OF SERVICE EXECUTED. Waiver signed by Jon A. Strongman on 11/30/2016. Boston Scientific Corporation waiver mailed on 11/27/2016, answer due 1/26/2017. (Strongman, Jon)	RECAP
5	Dec. 19, 2016	NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE AND COUNSEL CONTACT INFORMATION FORM by Michael Bonasso on behalf of Boston Scientific Corporation. (Bonasso, Michael)	RECAP
6	June 11, 2017	PLAINTIFF PROFILE FORM filed by Kathy Townsend. (Mostyn, J.)	RECAP
7	Nov. 7, 2017	INACTIVE DOCKET ORDER: The court has been advised that the plaintiff(s) and Boston Scientific Corporation have reached a settlement with regard to BSC. All discovery deadlines are continued until further order of the court. The Clerk is directed to retire this case from the active docket. Plaintiff(s) and BSC may submit an agreed order of dismissal with prejudice on or before 3/31/2018; if settlements are not finalized and dismissal orders are not submitted by then the Court will have a hearing to determine the appropriate action pertaining to any remaining cases on the inactive docket. Counsel for plaintiffs and defendant(s) are directed to provide quarterly reports as to their progress in dismissing cases on the inactive docket. The court will reinstate the case to the active docket if one of the parties shows good cause for such reinstatement. This Order is related to the Proposed Inactive Docket Order filed at ECF No. 4513 in MDL Case No. 2326 Boston. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 11/7/2017. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mks)	RECAP
8	March 23, 2018	ORDER The deadline to submit joint motions of dismissal is extended to 8/31/2018 for all cases in MDL 2326 currently on an inactive docket. All remaining provisions of Inactive Docket Orders entered in MDL 2326 and individual cases remain in effect. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 3/16/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (REF: MDL 2326; Cases on inactive docket) (pma)	RECAP
9	May 4, 2018	ORDER (CHANGE TO CHARACTERIZATION BY CLERK'S OFFICE OF CASES ON INACTIVE DOCKET) It is directed that in all cases with an inactive docket order which resulted in "Closed" and "MDL Boston Inactive" flags on the docket sheet, the Clerk is directed to update the docket by removing the "Closed" flag from the docket sheet and leaving the "MDL Boston Inactive" flag, for reasons set forth herein. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 4/26/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (REF: MDL 2326; Member Cases Flagged "Closed" and "MDL Boston Inactive") (brn) (ADI)	RECAP
10	Aug. 15, 2018	ORDER The deadline to submit joint motions of dismissal is extended to 10/31/2018 for all cases in MDL 2326 currently on an inactive docket. All remaining provisions of Inactive Docket Orders entered in MDL 2326 and individual cases remain in effect. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 8/15/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (REF: MDL 2326; Cases on inactive docket) (mek) (ADI) (Entered: 08/25/2018)	RECAP
11	Feb. 4, 2019	PRETRIAL ORDER # 202 (Docket Control Order - Boston Scientific Corporation Wave 6 Cases) The cases on Exhibit A are: 1. removed from the pending inactive docket; and 2. placed on the active docket. As to the cases on Exhibits A and B: 1. The cases are no longer eligible for return to the inactive docket nor may notices of settlement be filed to relieve the parties from scheduling deadlines; 2. To the extent other defendants, in addition to Boston Scientific Corporation, are named in the cases on Exhibits A and B, the deadlines below also apply to them; 3. The Clerk will file this Docket Control Order in the main MDL and, as of the time of that filing in the main MDL, every case listed on Exhibits A and B (hereinafter referred to as "Wave 6 cases") becomes subject to the deadlines in this Docket Control Order.; and 4. The following deadlines immediately apply in all BSC Wave 6 cases with one important exception. If any of the cases on any exhibit were previously on a docket control order and dispositive and Daubert deadlines had passed before such cases became inactive, the parties may not file or refile dispositive or Daubert motions without first seeking leave of court for good cause shown. A. SCHEDULING DEADLINES.. The following deadlines shall apply in all Ethicon Wave 6 cases: Plaintiff Fact Sheets due 02/15/2019; Defendant Fact Sheets due 02/22/2019; Deadline for written discovery requests due 03/25/2019; Expert disclosures served by plaintiffs due 05/24/2019; Expert disclosure served by defendants due 06/24/2019; Expert disclosure served for rebuttal due 07/01/2019; Deposition deadline and close of discovery due 08/01/2019; Filing of dispositive motions due 08/14/2019; Response to dispositive motions due 08/28/2019; Reply to response to dispositive motions due 09/04/2019; Filing of Daubert motions due 08/14/2019; Responses to Daubert motions due 08/29/2019; Reply to response to Daubert motions due 09/05/2019. B. MOTION PRACTICE. 3. Confidential Documents. Any consolidated motion to seal is due on or before 6/27/2019, and any response is due by 7/11/2019. Any reply is due by 7/18/2019. The court expects full compliance with Local Rule of Civil Procedure 26.4(c). C. CASES READY FOR TRANSFER, REMAND OR TRIAL 1. Venue Recommendations. By no later than 7/8/2019, the parties shall meet and confer concerning the appropriate venue for each of the cases, and the parties are ORDERED to submit joint venue recommendations to the court by 7/15/2019. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/4/2019. (cc: Clerk of the JPMDL; attys; any unrepresented party) (REF: MDL 2326; BSC Wave 6 cases identified on Exhibits A and B) (brn) (ADI) (Entered: 02/06/2019)	RECAP
12	March 6, 2019	ORDER (Dismissing Cases With Prejudice) granting the Joint Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice filed in MDL 2326 by plaintiffs, identified on the attached Exhibit A and Boston Scientific Corporation, seeking dismissal of these actions with prejudice because all claims have been compromised and settled; the actions listed on the attached Exhibit A are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the docket and any motions pending in the individual cases at the time of this dismissal are DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 3/6/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (REF: MDL 2326; Cases Listed on Exhibit A) (ts) (ADI)	RECAP
1	Sept. 30, 2019	CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT. Filing Fee $400.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7399173. (Attachment: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (jsa) (Entered: 10/01/2019) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on RECAP	Clearinghouse
	Sept. 30, 2019	Case Assigned
	Sept. 30, 2019	CASE assigned to Judge Robert C. Chambers. (klc)
2	Oct. 1, 2019	ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED as to Bill Crouch, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, re: 1 Complaint. Summons returnable 21 days. Instructions to Counsel: This is your electronic summons. Please print as many copies of the Summons and Complaint as are necessary to effectuate service under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. See Proof of Service page of this Summons form for filing a return of service if required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). (Attachments: # 1 summons as to Bill Crouch, # 2 summons as to Jeremiah Samples, # 3 summons as to Linda Watts, # 4 summons as to West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources) (jsa)	RECAP
3	Oct. 1, 2019	STANDING ORDER IN RE: ASSIGNMENT AND REFERRAL OF CIVIL ACTIONS AND MATTERS TO MAGISTRATE JUDGES ENTERED JANUARY 4, 2016. Discovery referred to Magistrate Judge Eifert. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa) (Modified on 9/3/2024 to note referral of discovery disputes to Magistrate Judge Reeder pursuant to 576 Clerk's Order) (mk).	RECAP
	Oct. 1, 2019	Case Assigned
4	Oct. 2, 2019	ORDER directing this case transferred to Rory L. Perry II, Clerk of Court, for reassignment to another judge within this district. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 10/2/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)	RECAP
5	Oct. 2, 2019	CLERK'S ORDER REASSIGNING CASE. For reasons appearing to the court, this action is reassigned from Judge Robert C. Chambers to Chief Judge Thomas E. Johnston. Signed by Clerk of Court Rory L. Perry II on 10/2/2019.(cc: Judge Chambers; Judge Johnston; counsel of record; unrepresented parties) (klc)	RECAP
6	Oct. 7, 2019	NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Lori (Peters) Waller on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Waller, Lori) (Modified on 10/8/2019 to replace blank image and on 10/10/2019 to replace unsigned image and to add party filers)(ts).	RECAP
7	Oct. 21, 2019	NOTICE OF ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Douglas Buffington, Steven Ray Compton on behalf of Bill Crouch, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources. (Compton, Steven)	RECAP
8	Oct. 22, 2019	STATEMENT OF VISITING ATTORNEY from Philip J. Peisch on behalf of Linda Watts, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bill Crouch. Local counsel: Steven R. Compton. Fee $50.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7421656. (Compton, Steven)	RECAP
9	Oct. 22, 2019	STATEMENT OF VISITING ATTORNEY from Caroline M. Brown on behalf of Linda Watts, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bill Crouch. Local counsel: Steven R. Compton. Fee $50.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7421687. (Compton, Steven)	RECAP
10	Oct. 22, 2019	STATEMENT OF VISITING ATTORNEY from Rebecca E. Smith on behalf of Linda Watts, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, Bill Crouch. Local counsel: Steven R. Compton. Fee $50.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7421714. (Compton, Steven)	RECAP
11	Oct. 24, 2019	STIPULATION EXTENDING TIME for Defendants' to file responsive pleading to 1 complaint to 12/02/2019 by Bill Crouch, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, All Plaintiffs (Smith, Rebecca) (Modified on 10/27/2019 to add link to #1 complaint to add party filers) (ts).	RECAP
12	Oct. 24, 2019	STATEMENT OF VISITING ATTORNEY from Marcia Robinson Lowry on behalf of Jonathan R. Local counsel: James A. Meade. Fee $50.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7426563. (Meade, James)	RECAP
13	Oct. 24, 2019	STATEMENT OF VISITING ATTORNEY from Allison Lynette Mahoney on behalf of Jonathan R. Local counsel: James A. Meade. Fee $50.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7426616. (Meade, James)	RECAP
14	Oct. 31, 2019	ORDER AND NOTICE: Rule 12(b) Motions 11/18/2019. Rule 26(f) Meeting 12/2/2019. Last day to file report of Rule 26(f) Meeting 12/9/2019. Telephonic Scheduling Conference at 10:00 AM on 12/13/2019 in Charleston. Entry of Scheduling Order 12/18/2019. Last Day to make Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures 12/27/2019. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/31/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)	RECAP
15	Nov. 12, 2019	ORDER acknowledging the parties' 11 Stipulation Extending Time for Defendants to file their response to the 1 Complaint and extending the deadline for Defendants to file their response to the complaint to no later than 12/2/2019. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 11/12/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (mkw)	RECAP
16	Nov. 21, 2019	UNOPPOSED MOTION by Bill Crouch, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources to Exceed Page Limit for Memorandum in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Attachment: # 1 Proposed Order)(Peisch, Philip)	RECAP
17	Nov. 26, 2019	MOTION by Bill Crouch, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources to Dismiss 1 Complaint. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Appendix Table of Contents, # 3 Appendix 1, # 4 Appendix 2, # 5 Appendix 3, # 6 Appendix 4)(Peisch, Philip) 1 Proposed Order View on RECAP 2 Appendix Table of Contents View on RECAP 3 Appendix View on PACER 4 Appendix View on PACER 5 Appendix View on RECAP 6 Appendix View on RECAP	RECAP
18	Nov. 26, 2019	MEMORANDUM by Bill Crouch, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources in support of 17 MOTION by Bill Crouch, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources to Dismiss 1 Complaint. (Peisch, Philip)	Clearinghouse
19	Nov. 26, 2019	STATEMENT OF VISITING ATTORNEY from Dawn J. Post on behalf of Jonathan R. Local counsel: James A. Meade. Fee $50.00. Receipt # AWVSDC-7472576. (Meade, James)	RECAP
20	Nov. 27, 2019	JOINT MOTION by All Parties to Extend Time to File Response and a Reply as to 17 MOTION by Bill Crouch, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources to Dismiss 1 Complaint (Attachment: # 1 Proposed Order)(Walters, Richard) (Modified on 12/2/2019 to add party filers) (ts).	RECAP
21	Dec. 2, 2019	ORDER granting Defendants' 16 UNOPPOSED MOTION to Exceed Page Limit; Defendants' Memorandum in Support of Defendants' 17 MOTION to Dismiss shall not exceed forty pages. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/2/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)	RECAP
22	Dec. 3, 2019	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs for First Set of Request for Production of Documents to Department of Health and Human Resources. (Meade, James) (Modified on 12/9/2019 to add party filers) (ts).	RECAP
23	Dec. 5, 2019	ORDER granting the parties' 20 JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to Respond and Reply to Defendants' 17 MOTION to Dismiss 1 Complaint; extending the deadline for Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendants' Motion to no later than 12/23/2019; Defendants may file a reply in support of their motion no later than 1/13/2020. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 12/5/2019. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)	RECAP
24	Dec. 9, 2019	RULE 26(f) REPORT OF PLANNING MEETING by Bill Crouch, Jim Justice, Jeremiah Samples, Linda Watts, West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources, All Plaintiffs. (Attachment: # 1 Scheduling Order Worksheet)(Peisch, Philip) (Modified on 12/9/2019 to add party filers) (ts) 1 Scheduling Order Worksheet View on PACER	RECAP
25	Dec. 9, 2019	UNOPPOSED MOTION by L. Scott Briscoe, Gretchen C., Sarah Dixon, April Flowers, Katherine Huffman, Calvin K., Carolina K., Chris K., Ace L., Anastasia M., Garrett M., Cheryl Ord, Dennis R., Jonathan R., Serena S., Theo S., Isabelle Santillion, Debbie Stone, Karter W. for Extension of Page Limit for Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss (Attachment: # 1 Proposed Order)(Walters, Richard)	RECAP

Case: Jonathan R. v. Justice

3:19-cv-00710 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Docket

Docket for: R. v. Morrisey

Case Details