Roe 1818 v. Bishop of Charleston, The et al
| Mary Roe 1818 |
| Bishop of Charleston, The |
| 2:2021cv00020 |
| January 5, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Richard M Gergel |
| P.I.: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER: The Bishop of the Diocese of Charleston, in his Official Capacity's motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 9) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/3/21.(ltap, ) Modified on 3/3/2021 to edit docket text "Signed by", remove "Entered at the Direction of"(sshe, ).
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Dioceses motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 3/1/21.(ltap, ) Modified on 3/1/2021 to edit docket text, remove "TEXT" and "Entered at the Direction of" from ORDER (sshe, ).
|
|
Filing 11
REPLY to Response to Motion re #9 MOTION to Dismiss , #8 MOTION to Dismiss Response filed by Bishop of Charleston, The(in His Official Capacity), Bishop of Charleston, The(a Corporation Sole). (Rudd, Megan)
|
|
Filing 10
RESPONSE in Opposition re #9 MOTION to Dismiss , #8 MOTION to Dismiss Response filed by Mary Roe 1818.Reply to Response to Motion due by 2/16/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Motions to Dismiss in Doe and Roe (page 1), #2 Exhibit Orders denying Motions to Dismiss in Doe and Roe, #3 Exhibit Complaint in 2014-CP-10-1283, #4 Exhibit Diocese Defs' Omnibus Motion for Summary Judgment, #5 Exhibit Limited Warranty Deed, #6 Exhibit Settlement Agreement in Class Action case, #7 Exhibit Transcript of Record 7.17.19, #8 Exhibit Order denying Defs' motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Doe), #9 Exhibit Order denying Defs' motion for partial summary judgment (Roe))(Richter, Lawrence)
|
|
Filing 9
MOTION to Dismiss by Bishop of Charleston, The(a Corporation Sole). Response to Motion due by 2/9/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support)No proposed order.(Dukes, Richard)
|
|
Filing 8
MOTION to Dismiss by Bishop of Charleston, The(in His Official Capacity). Response to Motion due by 2/9/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support to Dismiss Bishop of Charleston, in his Official Capacity)No proposed order.(Dukes, Richard)
|
|
Filing 7
Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Mary Roe 1818.(Richter, Lawrence)
|
|
Filing 6
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Mary Roe 1818. Bishop of Charleston, The(in His Official Capacity) served on 1/5/2021, answer due 1/26/2021.(Richter, Lawrence) Filing corrected for event type with corrected signature document as provided by filing user (sshe, )
|
|
Filing 5
SUMMONS Returned Executed by Mary Roe 1818. Bishop of Charleston, The(a Corporation Sole) served on 1/5/2021, answer due 1/26/2021.(Richter, Lawrence) Filing corrected for event type with corrected signature document as provided by filing user (sshe, )
|
|
Filing 4
NOTICE of Appearance by Megan Rudd on behalf of Bishop of Charleston, The(in His Official Capacity), Bishop of Charleston, The(a Corporation Sole) (Rudd, Megan)
|
|
Filing 2
Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Bishop of Charleston, The(in His Official Capacity), Bishop of Charleston, The(a Corporation Sole).(sshe, )
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Charleston County Court of Common Pleas, case number 21-CP-10-00011. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0420-9566263), filed by Bishop of Charleston, The(in His Official Capacity), Bishop of Charleston, The(a Corporation Sole). (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents, #2 Exhibit Declaration of Richard S. Dukes)(sshe, ) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/14/2021: #3 Exhibit A to Complaint filed in State Court, #4 Exhibit B to Complaint filed in State Court, #5 Exhibit Verification of plaintiff) (sshe, ). Modified on 1/14/2021 to add additional documents inadvertently not filed as requested and provided by filing user(sshe, ).
|
Access additional case information on PACER
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 South Carolina 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
| Search for this case: Roe 1818 v. Bishop of Charleston, The et al | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mary Roe 1818 | |
| Represented By: | Anna Elizabeth Richter |
| Represented By: | Lawrence Edward Richter, Jr |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Bishop of Charleston, The | |
| Represented By: | Richard S Dukes, Jr |
| Represented By: | Megan Rudd |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
