Doe v. Coastal Carolina University

Doe v. Coastal Carolina University

Plaintiff:	John Doe
Defendant:	Coastal Carolina University
Case Number:	4:2018cv00268
Filed:	January 31, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office:	Florence Office
County:	Horry
Presiding Judge:	R Bryan Harwell
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights: Education
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1343
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
March 1, 2021	Filing 127 ORDER: While most of Plaintiff's evidence is legally insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact, the questions surrounding the review process on appeal narrowly create a genuine dispute for trial. The Court finds that Plaintiff has put forward evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to doubt the outcome of his disciplinary proceedings and find a causal connection between the erroneous outcome and gender bias. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 94 , is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Sherri A Lydon on 3/1/2021. (mcot, )
January 9, 2019	Filing 13 ORDER: The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6 ], granting it with respect to the state law claims but denying it with respect to the Title IX and gender discrimination claims. Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the state law claims, the Court dismisses those claims without prejudice. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 1/9/2019. (hcic, )

Date Filed

Document Text

March 1, 2021

Filing 127 ORDER: While most of Plaintiff's evidence is legally insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact, the questions surrounding the review process on appeal narrowly create a genuine dispute for trial. The Court finds that Plaintiff has put forward evidence that would allow a reasonable jury to doubt the outcome of his disciplinary proceedings and find a causal connection between the erroneous outcome and gender bias. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 94 , is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Sherri A Lydon on 3/1/2021. (mcot, )

January 9, 2019

Filing 13 ORDER: The Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to dismiss [ECF No. 6 ], granting it with respect to the state law claims but denying it with respect to the Title IX and gender discrimination claims. Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the state law claims, the Court dismisses those claims without prejudice. Signed by the Honorable R Bryan Harwell on 1/9/2019. (hcic, )

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 this case: Doe v. Coastal Carolina University
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: John Doe
Represented By:	Clarence Davis
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: Coastal Carolina University
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.

Why Is My Information Online?