Patterson v. Williams et al
| Jacalyn Patterson |
| Ben Williams, Christopher Williams, Kristine C. Williams, John Doe Williams, Jane Doe Williams, John Does 1-10, Jane Does 1-10, White Partnerships and Black Corporation |
| 5:2010cv04094 |
| August 18, 2010 |
| US District Court for the District of Kansas |
| Topeka Office |
| Shawnee |
| Carlos Murguia |
| Gerald L. Rushfelt |
| Other Contract |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| 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
94
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 86 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 1/18/2012. Mailed to pro se party Jaclyn Patterson, PO Box 2215, Topeka, KS 66601 by regular mail. (jw)
|
|
Filing
84
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 63 Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's claims against John Doe Williams and Jane Doe Williams, husband and wife; John Does I-X; Jane Does I-X; White Partnerships I-X; and Black Corporation I-X are dismissed. See Memorandum and Order for further details. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 10/28/2011. Mailed to pro se party Jacalyn Patterson, PO Box 2215, Topeka, KS 66601 by regular mail. (jw)
|
|
Filing
79
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 47 Defendants' Motion for Sanctions; denying 58 Defendants' Second Motion for Sanctions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff must meaningfully respond to all of defendants' previously served interroga tories, document requests, and requests for admissions by October 18, 2011. Plaintiff is put on notice that failure to comply with this deadline is likely to result in dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff's claims. See Memorandum and Order for further details. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 10/7/2011. Mailed to pro se party Jacalyn Patterson, PO Box 2215, Topeka, KS 66601 by regular mail. (jw)
|
|
Filing
60
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 36 Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint; denying 48 Motion to Strike; and denying as moot 50 Motion for Leave to File Amended Answer. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 6/29/2011. Order sent by regular United States Mail to pro se plaintiff on 6/29/11. (mh)
|
|
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 44 Defendants' Second Motion to Compel Discovery Against Plaintiff. Plaintiff shall produce, without objection, all documents responsive to Defendants' First Requests for Production of Documents within fourt een (14) days of the date of this Order. It is further ordered that within twenty (20) days from the date of this order Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, why the Court should not order payment of Defendants' reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a)(5)(A). Within fourteen (14) days thereafter Defendants may respond thereto, and Plaintiff may then reply within fourteen (14) days of service of the response. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald L. Rushfelt on 6/20/2011. (Mailed to pro se plaintiff by regular mail on 6/20/2011.) (byk)
|
|
Filing
49
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER denying 19 Defendants Ben Williams, Christopher Williams, and K.C. Williams's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by District Judge Carlos Murguia on 5/24/2011. Mailed to pro se party Jaclyn Patterson, PO Box 2215, Topeka, KS 66601 by regular mail. (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (jw)
|
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 Kansas 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.
