Epstein et al v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING 32 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Extension of Time to Obtain Legal Counsel and Extension of Time to Submit a Proposed Scheduling Order; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 38 Motion for Extension of Time to Obtain Legal Counsel and to Submit a Propsed Scheduling Order. Signed by Judge Mark Lane. (ml)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
STEPHAN B. EPSTEIN; MARILYN
EPSTEIN,
Plaintiffs,
V.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

A-15-CV-00357-LY-ML

ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Extension of Time to
Obtain Legal Counsel and Extension of Time to Submit a Proposed Scheduling Order [Dkt. #32],
filed November 5, 2015; Defendant’s Proposed Scheduling Order [Dkt. #35], filed November 9,
2015; and Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #36] filed November 9, 2015.
Having considered the motions and the case file as a whole, the Magistrate Court enters
the following:
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Extension of Time
to Obtain Legal Counsel and Extension of Time to Submit a Proposed Scheduling Order [Dkt.
#32] is GRANTED. The Clerk of this Court is directed to file Plaintiffs’ Motion for Extension
of Time to Obtain Legal Counsel and Extension of Time to Submit a Proposed Scheduling
Order, attached as Exhibit A to the Motion for Leave.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time to Obtain Legal
Counsel and Extension of Time to Submit a Proposed Scheduling Order is GRANTED in PART
and DENIED in PART. As discussed in the hearing held November 5, 2015, Plaintiffs’ request
for an extension of time to find an attorney is granted until Monday, December 14, 2015; no
further extension is authorized by this Order. The grant of this limited extension does not have
1

the effect of “abating all issues” in this case, as requested in the Motion for Leave [Dkt. #32].
Except for the specific extensions noted below, the case shall proceed unabated while Plaintiffs
seek new counsel and Plaintiffs will be expected to respond pro se to any deadlines that may run
before they obtain counsel. Plaintiffs were advised in open court on November 5, 2015, at the
time they terminated their prior counsel’s representation, that their choice would not delay these
proceedings and they might have to respond to material filings pro se. Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. #36]
will be due on or before Wednesday, December 30, 2015.
IT IS ORDERED that the parties have until Monday, December 21, 2015 to submit a
joint agreed proposed scheduling order.
These deadlines are ordered without regard to whether Plaintiffs are represented by
counsel or continuing pro se.
SIGNED November 12, 2015.
__________________________________
MARK LANE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2