Montoya et al v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. et al

Filing 15

ORDER GRANTING 11 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Signed by Judge Mark Lane. (jk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
RAMIRO MONTOYA
MONTOYA,

and

OFELIA

Plaintiffs,
V.
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST
COMPANY AS TRUSTEE ON BEHALF
OF THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF
MORTGAGE
SECURITIES
CORP.,
MSAC 04-HE7 MORTGAGE PASSTHROUGH CERTIFICATES SERIES
MSAC04-HE7, and SELECT PORTFOLIO
SERVICING, INC.,
Defendants,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

A-14-CV-639-LY-ML

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO WITHDRAW
Before the Court is the unopposed Motion for Withdrawal of Counsel [Dkt # 11] filed by
Plaintiffs’ attorney, Kimberly Nash of Fred E. Walker, P.C. Attorneys in the above-referenced
case. 1 The Court held a hearing on this motion on July 31, 2015 in order to determine whether
there is good cause to grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. Although the Plaintiffs, Ramiro
Montoya and Ofelia Montoya, individually, were directed to appear in person to participate in
the hearing, they failed to appear. Attorney Kimberly Nash advised the Court that her clients had
consistently refused to respond to her attempts to contact them by letter and telephone, and were
not cooperating in her efforts to respond to or propound discovery.

1

All pending and future matters in this case have been referred to the undersigned by United States District
Judge, Lee Yeakel, for resolution pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and
Rule 1(c) of Appendix C of the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, or
for Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72, and
Rule 1(d) of Appendix C of the Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

1

The discovery deadline and dispositive motions deadline in this case are approaching
quickly. The discovery deadline is August 10, 2015, and the dispositive motions deadline is
August 31, 2015. Ordinarily the Court would decline to allow counsel’s withdrawal so close to
these key deadlines, but the Court finds Counsel has no viable means of meeting her professional
obligations in the face of Plaintiffs’ refusal to cooperate. Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw is well
founded. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw [Dkt. #11] is GRANTED. Prior to
finalizing her withdrawal from the case, Attorney Kimberly Nash is personally instructed to
provide a copy of this Order and the Scheduling Order [Dkt. #8] in this matter to Plaintiffs via
Certified Mail, return receipt requested, and to file that return mail receipt with the Clerk of the
Court in this case.
Plaintiffs are instructed that these scheduling order deadlines carry real consequences for
their case. The deadlines are rarely moved. Absent a motion establishing good cause for any
delay in responding to these scheduling order deadlines, Plaintiffs may find themselves subject to
sanctions, up to an including dismissal of their case, based on any further failure to cooperate
with the scheduling order in this case.

SIGNED August 4, 2015,

_______________________________
MARK LANE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2