Case: Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. Rokita

1:18-cv-01904 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Filed Date: June 21, 2018

Closed Date: Oct. 21, 2022

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This is a case challenging Indiana laws regulating abortion. On June 21, 2018, a group of abortion providers and nonprofit organizations filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiffs, represented by The Lawyering Project and a private firm, sued Indiana under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking injunctive and declaratory relief and attorney's fees. They claimed Indiana’s abortion laws violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment and the due p…

Prior to this lawsuit, on August 11, 2017, plaintiff Whole Woman’s Health Alliance applied to the Indiana State Department of Health for a license to open an abortion clinic in South Bend, Indiana. The Indiana State Department of Health denied the application and subsequent appeals because the plaintiff’s application allegedly contained inaccuracies as a result of failing to disclose several abortion providers in its list of known affiliates. Following the application’s denial, the plaintiffs filed the complaint in this case, challenging a wide variety of the abortion regulations enacted in Indiana from 1973 to 2018. The challenged abortion restrictions included strict licensure requirements for institutions providing abortion services, restrictions on the use of telemedicine for counseling and prescribing medication to patients seeking abortions, and a requirement that patients receive an ultrasound as part of the informed-consent process at least 18 hours before receiving an abortion.

The case was assigned to Judge Sarah Evans Barker and Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. On August 22, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. However, Judge Barker denied the motion on March 28, 2019, holding that the plaintiffs had standing to bring their claims and that the Indiana Attorney General was a proper defendant. 377 F. Supp. 3d 924. Following the denial of their motion, on May 1, 2019, the defendants filed an answer to the complaint.

Meanwhile, on March 27, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction so that Whole Woman’s Health Alliance could open the South Bend abortion clinic without first procuring a license. Judge Barker granted the preliminary injunction two months later, on May 31, enjoining Indiana from enforcing the licensure requirements against the South Bend clinic. 388 F. Supp. 3d. 1010. Judge Barker held that the licensure requirements violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by placing an undue burden on patients who, in the absence of the new clinic, would have to travel long distances to procure an abortion. Additionally, Judge Barker held that the licensure laws violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the laws required medical clinics that administered a drug for medical abortions to apply for a license but did not require licensing for medical clinics administering the same drug for treatment of miscarriages.

The defendants filed an appeal of the preliminary injunction in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on June 2, 2019. On the same day, in District Court, the defendants also filed a motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal, which Judge Barker denied a few days later, on June 7. 2019 WL 10886888.

Later that month, on June 21, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of the defendants’ motion to stay but also modified the preliminary injunction to apply only to the South Bend clinic pending oral argument. A month later, on July 11, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments. On August 22 of the same year, Chief Judge Diane P. Wood wrote for the Seventh Circuit, affirming its modified preliminary injunction and ordering Indiana to either provisionally license the South Bend clinic, or treat it as if they had. 937 F.3d 864. The Seventh Circuit held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that the licensure provisions created an undue burden for patients seeking abortion services, but the court did not reach the equal protection claim.

On December 9, 2019, the defendants asked the Supreme Court to review the preliminary injunction, but it denied their petition on July 2 of the following year. 141 S.Ct. 189.

Meanwhile, back in District Court, on September 27, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of a defendant class consisting of “all State of Indiana prosecuting attorneys with authority to prosecute misdemeanor and felony offenses, and thus with authority to prosecute violations of certain of the laws challenged.” A year later, on September 24, Judge Barker denied the motion. She held that the plaintiffs failed to show that every county in Indiana had an interest in the litigation based on potential legal action against an abortion clinic within its boundaries, and that adding the defendant class would complicate and slow the proceedings unnecessarily.

On November 8, 2019, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Judge Barker granted the motion in part and denied it in part on October 9 of the following year. 493 F. Supp. 3d 694. Judge Barker held that none of the abortion laws were unconstitutionally vague and that many of the restrictions, including the ultrasound requirement and the parental-consent requirement, did not constitute an undue burden to patients’ right to access abortion services and should be dismissed. However, Judge Barker also held that many of the laws, including the mandatory disclosure provision requiring physicians to tell patients that fetuses can feel pain, that life begins at conception, and that abortion can result in psychological harm to the patient, presented a genuine issue of material fact to be determined at trial.

In response, on December 9, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss without prejudice several of the claims that Judge Barker dismissed at summary judgment, particularly the claims that some of the abortion laws were unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Judge Barker denied the motion on September 11, 2020, holding that a motion to dismiss would only be proper if the plaintiffs wanted to dismiss the entire complaint, and that the plaintiffs must file a motion to amend the complaint if they wish to dismiss individual claims. 2020 WL 6106273. The plaintiffs did not file a motion to amend.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial was bifurcated into two phases, with the first phase occurring on March 15, 2021, and the second phase occurring on June 23, 2021. On August 10, 2021, Judge Barker granted the plaintiffs a permanent injunction. 553 F. Supp. 3d 500. She held that some of the abortion restrictions were constitutional because the state’s interest in protecting the health of the pregnant parent and the life of the fetus outweighed the burdens imposed. The constitutional provisions included the ultrasound requirement, the parental-consent requirement, the 18-hour delay requirement, the admitting-privileges requirement, some of the facility requirements, the requirement that physicians perform aspiration abortions, the requirement that physicians conduct pre-abortion counseling, the required disclosures regarding the disposal of fetal tissue and physical health risks, and the criminal penalties for violations of abortion laws. However, Judge Barker enjoined Indiana from enforcing the in-person counseling requirement, the in-person examination requirement, the requirement that physicians prescribe first-trimester abortion medication, the requirement that second-trimester abortions be performed in a hospital, most of the facility requirements, and the required disclosures regarding fetal pain, the beginning of life, and psychological harm. Judge Barker held that the required-disclosure law violated the due process clause as well as physicians’ free speech rights under the First Amendment, and that the other laws violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The defendants appealed the permanent injunction in the Seventh Circuit on August 11, 2021, and filed a motion in the District Court to stay the injunction pending appeal on the same day. Judge Barker denied the motion to stay on August 19, 2021. 2021 WL 3673785.

On September 8, 2021, the Seventh Circuit stayed the injunction pending appeal, holding that a stay would preserve the status quo and that the defendants were likely to prevail on appeal. 13 F.4th 595. Chief Judge Wood dissented from the opinion.

Meanwhile, on September 3, 2021, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the preliminary injunction to enjoin the abortion law requiring patients to receive an ultrasound 18 hours before an abortion. The plaintiffs alleged that Judge Barker dismissed the claim at summary judgment because the constitutionality of the ultrasound requirement was considered alone instead of in conjunction with the 18-hour-delay requirement. Judge Barker denied the motion, because the plaintiffs failed to give notice of the claim. 2021 WL 5415188.

The Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments for the appeal of the permanent injunction on January 12, 2022. However, the case was held in abeyance pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which was argued on December 1, 2021.

On February 21, 2022, both parties asked the court to vacate the preliminary injunction from May 2019, later narrowed by the Seventh Circuit, that had required Indiana to provisionally license the South Bend clinic, or treat it as if they had. Indiana licensed the clinic for medication abortions, so the injunction had become moot. The court vacated the injunction a few days later, on February 25.

On June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Dobbs, which overturned Roe v. Wade and held that the Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to an abortion. A few weeks later, on July 11, the Seventh Circuit vacated the appealed portions of the District Court's decision and sent the case back to the lower court to determine how it was affected by Dobbs. The court noted that even the First Amendment arguments were affected by whether abortion was considered a fundamental right. 2022 WL 2663208.

A month later, on August 4, both parties asked the District Court to stay the case because the state legislature could pass an abortion law that would moot some claims in the case. Judge Barker granted the stay the next day. On the same day, August 5, Indiana's governor signed a near-total abortion ban.

On October 13, 2022, the state Department of Health changed their disclosure requirements to remove claims about the psychological harm of abortions.

A week later, on October 20, the parties informed the court that they had settled. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice, meaning they had the option to bring them again in a different lawsuit. Indiana agreed not to reinstate the requirement about psychological harm disclosures. The next day, on October 21, Judge Barker dismissed the case.

	Document
1 1:18-cv-01904	Complaint Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. Hill	June 21, 2018	June 21, 2018 Complaint
81 1:18-cv-01904	Order on Motion to Dismiss Whole Women's Health Alliance v. Hill	March 28, 2019	March 28, 2019 Order/Opinion 377 F.Supp.3d 924
116 1:18-cv-01904	Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (DKT. 76) Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. Hill	May 31, 2019	May 31, 2019 Order/Opinion 388 F.Supp.3d 1010
1:18-cv-01904	Order on Defendants' Motion to Stay Whole Women's Health Alliance v. Hill	June 7, 2019	June 7, 2019 Order/Opinion 2019 WL 10886888
38 1:18-cv-01904 19-02051	Opinion Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. Hill U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	Aug. 22, 2019	Aug. 22, 2019 Order/Opinion 937 F.3d 864
173 1:18-cv-01904	Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Certification of a Defendant Class Whole Women's Health Alliance v. Hill	Sept. 24, 2019	Sept. 24, 2019 Order/Opinion
297 1:18-cv-01904	Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. Hill	Oct. 9, 2020	Oct. 9, 2020 Order/Opinion 493 F.Supp.3d 694
425 1:18-cv-01904	Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law Whole Women's Health Alliance v. Rokita	Aug. 10, 2021	Aug. 10, 2021 Order/Opinion 553 F.Supp.3d 500
437 1:18-cv-01904	Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Appeal Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. Hill	Aug. 19, 2021	Aug. 19, 2021 Order/Opinion 2021 WL 3673785
35 1:18-cv-01904 21-02480 21-02573	Opinion Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. Rokita U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit	Sept. 8, 2021	Sept. 8, 2021 Order/Opinion 13 F.4th 595

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
Whole Woman’s Health Alliance v. Rokita (Indiana) The Lawyering Project	The lawsuit seeks to improve abortion access in Indiana and enable people to exercise their constitutional right to abortion without sacrificing their dignity or well-being.	March 11, 2021	March 11, 2021 https://lawyeringproject.org/...
Application of the Comstock Act to the Mailing of Prescription Drugs That Can Be Used for Abortions	The Justice Department issued a legal slip opinion saying, "Section 1461 of title 18 of the U.S. Code does not prohibit the mailing of certain drugs that can be used to perform abortions where the se…	Dec. 23, 2022	Dec. 23, 2022 https://www.justice.gov/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT (Payment Receipt 0756-4937256) against All Defendants, filed by All Plaintiffs. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Proposed Summons)(Jack, Kathrine) (Entered: 06/21/2018) 1 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER 2 Proposed Summons View on PACER	June 21, 2018	June 21, 2018 Clearinghouse
2	NOTICE of Appearance by Kathrine D. Jack on behalf of Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Jack, Kathrine) (Entered: 06/21/2018)	June 21, 2018	June 21, 2018 PACER
3	MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (HET) (Entered: 06/22/2018)	June 22, 2018	June 22, 2018 PACER
4	Corporate Disclosure Statement by ALL-OPTIONS, INC.. (Jack, Kathrine) (Entered: 06/22/2018)	June 22, 2018	June 22, 2018 PACER
5	Corporate Disclosure Statement by WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Jack, Kathrine) (Entered: 06/22/2018)	June 22, 2018	June 22, 2018 PACER
11	MOTION for Attorney(s) Paul M. Eckles to Appear pro hac vice (Filing fee $100.00, receipt number IP061050), filed by Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope). (MAC) (Entered: 07/02/2018)	June 27, 2018	June 27, 2018 PACER
12	MOTION for Attorney(s) Erin A. Simmons to Appear pro hac vice (Filing fee $100.00, receipt number IP061050), filed by Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope). (MAC) (Entered: 07/02/2018)	June 27, 2018	June 27, 2018 PACER
13	MOTION for Attorney(s) Bradley E. Honigman to Appear pro hac vice (Filing fee $100.00, receipt number IP061050), filed by Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope). (MAC) (Entered: 07/02/2018)	June 27, 2018	June 27, 2018 PACER
14	MOTION for Attorney(s) Michael M. Powell to Appear pro hac vice (Filing fee $100.00, receipt number IP061050), filed by Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Cover Letter, # 3 Envelope). (MAC) (Entered: 07/02/2018)	June 27, 2018	June 27, 2018 PACER
6	Summons Issued as to KRISTINA BOX, KENNETH P. COTTER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR, JOHN STROBEL. (REO) (Entered: 06/28/2018)	June 28, 2018	June 28, 2018 PACER
7	NOTICE of Appearance by Dipti Singh on behalf of Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Singh, Dipti) (Entered: 06/28/2018)	June 28, 2018	June 28, 2018 PACER
8	MOTION for Attorney(s) Juanluis Rodriguez to Appear pro hac vice (Filing fee $100.00, receipt number IP061054), filed by Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Envelope). (MAC) (Entered: 07/02/2018)	June 29, 2018	June 29, 2018 PACER
9	MOTION for Attorney(s) Amanda Lauren Allen to Appear pro hac vice (Filing fee $100.00., receipt number IP061055), filed by Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Envelope). (MAC) (Entered: 07/02/2018)	June 29, 2018	June 29, 2018 PACER
10	MOTION for Attorney(s) David Patrick Brown to Appear pro hac vice (Filing fee $100.00., receipt number IP061056), filed by Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Envelope). (MAC) (Entered: 07/02/2018)	June 29, 2018	June 29, 2018 PACER
15	ORDER granting 8 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Attorney Juanluis Rodriguez for ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER and WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE added. If not already registered with the Court's Electronic Filing System, Juanluis Rodriguez is ordered to register within ten (10) days of the entry of this order. Copy to Juanluis Rodriguez via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/3/2018. (SWM) (Entered: 07/03/2018)	July 3, 2018	July 3, 2018 PACER
16	ORDER granting 9 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Attorney Amanda Lauren Allen for ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER and WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE added. If not already registered with the Court's Electronic Filing System, Amanda Lauren Allen is ordered to register within ten (10) days of the entry of this order. Copy to Amanda Lauren Allen via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/3/2018. (SWM) (Entered: 07/03/2018)	July 3, 2018	July 3, 2018 PACER
17	ORDER granting 10 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Attorney David Patrick Brown for ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER and WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE added. If not already registered with the Court's Electronic Filing System, David Patrick Brown is ordered to register within ten (10) days of the entry of this order. Copy to David Patrick Brown via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/3/2018. (SWM) (Entered: 07/03/2018)	July 3, 2018	July 3, 2018 PACER
18	ORDER granting 11 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Attorney Paul M. Eckles for ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER and WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE added. If not already registered with the Court's Electronic Filing System, Paul M. Eckles is ordered to register within ten (10) days of the entry of this order. Copy to Paul M. Eckles via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/3/2018. (SWM) (Entered: 07/03/2018)	July 3, 2018	July 3, 2018 PACER
19	ORDER granting 12 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Attorney Erin A. Simmons for ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER and for WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE added. If not already registered with the Court's Electronic Filing System, Erin A. Simmons is ordered to register within ten (10) days of the entry of this order. Copy to Erin A. Simmons via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/3/2018. (SWM) (Entered: 07/03/2018)	July 3, 2018	July 3, 2018 PACER
20	ORDER granting 13 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Attorney Bradley H. Honigman for ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER and WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE added. If not already registered with the Court's Electronic Filing System, Bradley H. Honigman is ordered to register within ten (10) days of the entry of this order. Copy to Bradley H. Honigman via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/3/2018. (SWM) (Entered: 07/03/2018)	July 3, 2018	July 3, 2018 PACER
21	ORDER granting 14 Motion to Appear pro hac vice. Attorney Michael M. Powell for ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER and WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE added. If not already registered with the Court's Electronic Filing System, Michael M. Powell is ordered to register within ten (10) days of the entry of this order. Copy to Michael M. Powell via US Mail. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/3/2018. (SWM) (Entered: 07/03/2018)	July 3, 2018	July 3, 2018 PACER
22	AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action and Complaint served on Attorney General of the State of Indiana by Serving Bob Berry as Authorized Agent on June 29, 2018, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Singh, Dipti) (Entered: 07/06/2018)	July 6, 2018	July 6, 2018 PACER
23	AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action and Complaint served on Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health by Serving Rosa Lee Connely as Authorized Agent on June 29, 2018, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Singh, Dipti) (Entered: 07/06/2018)	July 6, 2018	July 6, 2018 PACER
24	AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action and Complaint served on President of the Medical Licensing Board of Indiana by Serving Bob Berry as Authorized Agent on June 29, 2018, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Singh, Dipti) (Entered: 07/06/2018)	July 6, 2018	July 6, 2018 PACER
25	AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons in a Civil Action and Complaint served on St. Joseph County Prosecutor by serving Barb Zimmerman as Authorized Agent on July 2, 2018, filed by All Plaintiffs. (Singh, Dipti) (Entered: 07/09/2018)	July 9, 2018	July 9, 2018 PACER
26	NOTICE of Appearance by Stephanie Toti on behalf of Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE. (Toti, Stephanie) (Entered: 07/12/2018)	July 12, 2018	July 12, 2018 PACER
27	NOTICE of Appearance by Kelly Suzanne Thompson on behalf of Defendants KRISTINA BOX, KENNETH P. COTTER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR, JOHN STROBEL. (Thompson, Kelly) (Entered: 07/16/2018)	July 16, 2018	July 16, 2018 PACER
28	NOTICE of Appearance by Jennifer Elizabeth Lemmon on behalf of Defendants KRISTINA BOX, KENNETH P. COTTER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR, JOHN STROBEL. (Lemmon, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/16/2018)	July 16, 2018	July 16, 2018 PACER
29	NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendants KRISTINA BOX, KENNETH P. COTTER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR, JOHN STROBEL. (Lemmon, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/16/2018)	July 16, 2018	July 16, 2018 PACER
30	NOTICE of Appearance by Julia Catherine Payne on behalf of Defendants KRISTINA BOX, KENNETH P. COTTER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR, JOHN STROBEL. (Payne, Julia) (Entered: 07/16/2018)	July 16, 2018	July 16, 2018 PACER
31	NOTICE of Appearance by Thomas M. Fisher on behalf of Defendants KRISTINA BOX, KENNETH P. COTTER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR, JOHN STROBEL. (Fisher, Thomas) (Entered: 07/16/2018)	July 16, 2018	July 16, 2018 PACER
32	SCHEDULING ORDER: Initial Pretrial Conference set for 8/24/2018 04:30 PM (Eastern Time) in Telephonic before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. Counsel shall attend the conference by calling the designated telephone number, to be provided by the Court via email generated by the Court's ECF system. The parties shall file a proposed Case Management Plan ("CMP") no fewer than seven days before the pretrial conference. See Order for additional information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 7/23/2018.(SWM) (Entered: 07/23/2018)	July 23, 2018	July 23, 2018 PACER
33	MOTION for Extension of Time to August 31, 2018 to Respond to Complaint 1, filed by Defendants KRISTINA BOX, KENNETH P. COTTER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR, JOHN STROBEL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thompson, Kelly) Modified on 8/3/2018 (CKM). (Entered: 08/02/2018)	Aug. 2, 2018	Aug. 2, 2018 PACER
34	ORDER granting in part and denying in part Defendants' 33 Motion for Extension of Time to File response to complaint. Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Complaint shall be filed on or before August 22, 2018. No further enlargement of this deadline will be granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/6/2018. (SWM) (Entered: 08/06/2018)	Aug. 6, 2018	Aug. 6, 2018 PACER
35	JOINT PROPOSED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN TENDERED, filed by Plaintiffs ALL-OPTIONS, INC., JEFFREY GLAZER, WHOLE WOMAN'S HEALTH ALLIANCE . (Singh, Dipti) (Entered: 08/17/2018)	Aug. 17, 2018	Aug. 17, 2018 Clearinghouse
37	MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM with Prejudice, filed by Defendants KRISTINA BOX, KENNETH P. COTTER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR, JOHN STROBEL. (Thompson, Kelly) (Entered: 08/22/2018)	Aug. 22, 2018	Aug. 22, 2018 PACER
38	BRIEF/MEMORANDUM in Support re 37 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM with Prejudice, filed by Defendants KRISTINA BOX, KENNETH P. COTTER, CURTIS T. HILL, JR, JOHN STROBEL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Thompson, Kelly) (Entered: 08/22/2018)	Aug. 22, 2018	Aug. 22, 2018 Clearinghouse
39	ORDER REGARDING PROTECTIVE ORDERS. See Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/24/2018.(SWM) (Entered: 08/27/2018)	Aug. 24, 2018	Aug. 24, 2018 PACER
40	MINUTE ORDER for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore: Telephonic Initial Pretrial Conference held on 8/24/2018. Approved Case Management Plan, as amended, to be entered by separate order. Telephonic Status Conference set for 11/5/2018 at 11:30 AM (Eastern Time) before Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. SEE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore. (GD) (Entered: 08/28/2018)	Aug. 24, 2018	Aug. 24, 2018 PACER
41	ORDER: CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED AS AMENDED. Dispositive Motions due by 11/8/2019. Discovery due by 10/4/2019. SEE ALL DEADLINES. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 8/24/2018. (GD) (Entered: 08/28/2018)	Aug. 24, 2018	Aug. 24, 2018 PACER

Case: Whole Woman's Health Alliance v. Rokita

1:18-cv-01904 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana

Case Summary

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details