ORDER RE: 13 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. Because the plaintiff is unopposed to an extension, and for the reasons stated in the motion, the¶

Stewart v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center et al, No. 5:23-cv-00007-H (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 14 · 2023-03-02 · PDF

Text extracted from the PDF; scanned pages were read by OCR. The PDF is the authoritative copy.

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H

Document 14

Filed 03/02/23

Page 1 of 1

PageID 136

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
GEORGE STEWART
Plaintiff,
v.

No. 5:23-CV-007-H

TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY HEALTH
SCIENCES CENTER, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER
The University of Texas at Austin, Jay Hartzell, Claudia Lucchinetti, Steve Smith,
and Joel Daboub (collectively, the UT Austin Defendants) seek a 60-day extension to
respond to the plaintiff’s complaint and—additionally or in the alternative—temporary
abatement of these proceedings pending decisions in two related Equal Protection cases
recently heard by the Supreme Court. Dkt. No. 13.
Because the plaintiff is unopposed to an extension, and for the reasons stated in the
motion, the Court grants the UT Austin Defendants a 60-day extension to respond to the
plaintiff’s complaint. The UT Austin Defendants shall file a response by May 12, 2023.
Any responsive pleading filed by May 12, 2023, shall be deemed timely. Because, however,
the plaintiff opposes the UT Austin Defendants’ request to abate, the Court reserves
determination of that issue until it is fully briefed by the parties.
So ordered on March 2, 2023.

JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE