City of Charleston West Virginia et al v. The Joint Commission et al
| City of Charleston, West Virginia, City of Huntington, West Virginia, City of Kenova, West Virginia and Town of Ceredo, West Virginia |
| The Joint Commission and Joint Commission Resources, Inc. |
| 2:2017cv04267 |
| November 2, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Charleston Office |
| Kanawha |
| John T. Copenhaver |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 21 U.S.C. ยง 801 |
| 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
53
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The 50 Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply is GRANTED and the sur-reply is deemed filed; the 43 Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint is DENIED; and the 44 Motion to Vacate the Judgment is DENIED, as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 9/20/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (kew)
|
|
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the 19 MOTION by The Joint Commission to Dismiss 1 Complaint, or in the alternative, to Strike Class Action Allegations is granted; the 21 MOTION by Joint Commission Resources, Inc. to Dismiss 1 Co mplaint is granted and the 35 MOTION by Joint Commission Resources, Inc., The Joint Commission for Scheduling Order for Submission of Amicus Curiae Briefs is denied as moot, as more fully set forth herein. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/20/2020. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (kew)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- 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.
