Schram v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.

Filing 8

ORDER GRANTING 5 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Robert Pitman. (jf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
MATTHEW SCHRAM,
Plaintiff,
v.
SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC.,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

1:17-CV-581-RP

ORDER
Before the Court is the above-entitled action, which was removed to federal court by
Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (“Defendant”) on June 15, 2017. (Dkt. 1). Defendant filed
a Motion to Dismiss on June 19, 2017.
Responses to dispositive motions, including motions to dismiss, are due within 14 days of
the filing of the motion in question. W. D. Tex. Local R. CV-7(c)–(e). Here, although 28 days have
passed since Defendant filed its motion, Plaintiff has not filed any responsive documents. 1 The
Local Rules provide that “[i]f there is no response filed within the time period prescribed . . . the
court may grant the motion as unopposed.”
The Court therefore GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as unopposed. Plaintiff
Matthew Schram’s claims against Defendant Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. are hereby
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

On July 14, 2017, Plaintiff filed a Response to the Notice of Removal, in which he alleges that “[t]here is no federal
question to trigger federal jurisdiction.” (Resp., Dkt. 6, ¶ 3). That Response did not reference Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss or the legal arguments contained therein. (See generally id.). While Plaintiff appeared to suggest that the case
should be remanded to state court, “[a] request for a court order must be made by motion.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b)(1). In
any case, the Response was itself filed 25 days after Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.

1

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court mail a copy of this order to Brian
Buster, Plaintiff’s attorney, at the following address:
1301 S. IH 35 #105
Austin, TX 78741

SIGNED on July 17, 2017.

_____________________________________
ROBERT PITMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2