Roe v. Patterson et al
Case Number: 4:2019cv00179
Filed: March 7, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Office: Sherman Office
Nature of Suit: P.I.: Other
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Personal Injury
RSS 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
April 4, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 462 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that Defendant Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Objections to Plaintiff's Defamation Summary Judgment Evidence and Motion to Strike, (Dkt. # 317 ), are OVERRULED as moot, that Defendant Leighton Paige Patterson's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defamation, (Dkt. # 241 ), is GRANTED, and that Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Regarding Plaintiff's Defamation Claim, (Dkt. # 259 ), is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff Jane Roe's defamation claims against Defendant Leighton Paige Patterson and Defendant Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Sean D. Jordan on 04/04/2023. (las, )
March 25, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 454 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. It is ORDERED that the parties' objections to the negligence summary judgment evidence, (Dkt. # 296 , # 315 ), are GRANTED in part. Specifically, with the exception of objections that have been expressly granted b y this memorandum opinion and order, all other objections are DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED that Defendants' negligence summary judgment motions, (Dkt. # 239 , # 257 ), are GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that all of Plaintiff Jane Roe's negligence and gross negligence claims against Defendants Patterson and SWBTS are DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by District Judge Sean D. Jordan on 03/25/2023. (las, )
March 7, 2023 Opinion or Order Filing 418 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. ORDERED that Plaintiff Jane Roe's Motion for Sanctions and Entry of Default Judgment Against Defendant Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, (Dkt. # 356 ), and Plaintiff Jane Roe's Supplemental Motion for Sanctions Against Defendant Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, (Dkt. # 375 ), are DENIED. Signed by District Judge Sean D. Jordan on 3/7/2023. (daj, )
March 31, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 227 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 122 MOTION to Strike Expert Report and Exclude Testimony of Edward F. Dragan filed by Jane Roe; granting 123 MOTION to Strike Expert Report and Exclude Testimony of James McNamara fi led by Jane Roe. It is hereby ORDERED that Dr. Edward Dragan's report is STRICKEN and his testimony will be EXCLUDED, and James McNamara's report is likewise STRICKEN, and his testimony also will be EXCLUDED. Signed by District Judge Sean D. Jordan on 3/31/2022. (daj, )
March 7, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 217 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re 171 First MOTION to Dismiss filed by Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 183 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Leighton Paige Patterson. Defendant Southwestern Bapti st Theological Seminary's Motion to Dismiss, (Dkt. #171), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, and Leighton Paige Patterson's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Dkt. #183), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Signed by District Judge Sean D. Jordan on 3/7/2022. (kls, )
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 Texas Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Roe v. Patterson et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?