Alvarado et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association

Filing 11

ORDER DENYING 8 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response; DENYING 9 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs Response to the pending Motion to Dismiss must be filed on or before Friday, December 11, 2015. Signed by Judge Mark Lane. (os)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
NIREZ
ALVARADO,
REBECCA
ALVARADO, SALVADOR ALVARADO,
ARTHUR
ARCURI,
AND
LOUIS
ARCURI,
Plaintiff,
V.
JP MORGAN CHASE BANK NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION,
SUCCESSOR
BY
MERGER TO CHASE HOME FINANCE,
LLC,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

A-15-CV-859-LY-ML

ORDER
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ third Motion for Extension of Time to File Response In
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. # 8] and Motion to Withdraw [Dkt. #9].1
The pending Motion to Dismiss was filed October 1, 2015, shortly after this case was removed to
federal court by Defendant on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs have sought and
received two prior extensions of time to respond to the pending motion. This third extension of
60 days is sought solely for purposes of allowing counsel to withdraw and plaintiffs to seek new
representation. The motion to withdraw indicates counsel for plaintiff seeks to withdraw because
of a dispute over fees.
The Court notes Plaintiffs’ counsel is the attorney who filed Plaintiffs’ state court
complaint and application for temporary injunction, thereby initiating this civil action.

1

The listed nondispositive motions in the above-styled cause have been referred to the
undersigned by United States District Judge, Robert Pitman, 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.
1

Defendant filed its motion to dismiss well before Plaintiffs’ counsel gave the Court notice of any
dispute about fees, and the Court has already granted two extensions of time to respond to this
pending dispositive motion. Under these circumstances, the Court finds the dispute between
Plaintiffs and their counsel over attorney’s fees does not relieve counsel of the obligation to
provide the Court a timely, substantive response to the pending motion to dismiss.
Therefore,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ third Motion for Extension of Time to File Response In
Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. # 8] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Response to the pending Motion to Dismiss
must be filed on or before Friday, December 11, 2015.
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Motion to Withdraw [Dkt. #9] is DENIED without
prejudice to re-urging, if necessary, after a timely response to the pending Motion to Dismiss has
been filed.

SIGNED November 23, 2015
_______________________________
MARK LANE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2