BABCHUK et al v. INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC. et al
| WILLIAM I. BABCHUK, M.D. and WILLIAM I. BABCHUK, M.D., P.C. |
| DIANNA ANDREWS, KEVIN W. CONDICT, MICHAEL L. HARLOWE, MICHAEL E. HARPER, INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH TIPTON HOSPITAL, INC., INDIANA UNIVERSITY HEALTH, INC., CARL M. PAFFORD, JOELLEN SCOTT and RICHARD J. YOUNG |
| 1:2013cv01376 |
| August 29, 2013 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Indianapolis Office |
| Debra McVicker Lynch |
| Jane Magnus-Stinson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
138
ORDER. The Court GRANTS Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 64], to the extent that it finds as a matter of law that Plaintiffs did not have a constitutionally protected interest that would support their Fourteenth Amendment due process claims. Additionally, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, [Filing No. 100], and DENIES Plaintiffs' Request for Oral Argument, [Filing No. 103]. Because the resolution of Defendants' motion resolves all federal claims brought by Plaintiffs, final judgment consistent with this entry shall issue. SEE ORDER. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 3/20/2015. (BGT)
|
|
Filing
96
ORDER denying 82 Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Production of Documents. Plaintiffs' response to the defendants' motion for summary judgment must be filed within 30 days of the date of the entry of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch on 12/17/2014. (PG)
|
|
Filing
88
ORDER re 72 Plaintiff's Objections - For the reasons herein, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs' Objections to Order Denying Leave to Amend. ***SEE ORDER***. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 10/17/2014. (JKS)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER - The Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [Filing No. 22 .] Because the parties' briefs afford the Court an adequate basis on which to rule without the assistance of oral argument , Plaintiffs' Request for Oral Argument is DENIED. [Filing No. 32 .] Finally, because the evidence attached to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss did not factor in the Court's decision, Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike that evidence i s DENIED as moot. [Filing No. 33 .] The Court notes that the instant ruling is not one on the merits of Defendants' state action challenge. Given the evidence and argument that was submitted in the briefing of the instant motion, the issue may best be resolved by way of a motion for summary judgment. The Court requests that the magistrate judge conduct an initial pre-trial conference and specifically address with the parties the most efficient process to develop the case. Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 4/30/2014. (JKS)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Indiana Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
