ORDER denying 13 Opposed Motion for Temporary Abatement. Because the plaintiffs proposed solution reasonably addresses the UT Austin Defendants concerns, the Court finds¶

Stewart v. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center et al, No. 5:23-cv-00007-H (N.D. Tex.) · Dkt. 18 · 2023-04-11 · 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 18

Filed 04/11/23

Page 1 of 2

PageID 142

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
Before the Court is the University of Texas at Austin, Jay Hartzell, Claudia
Lucchinetti, Steve Smith, and Joel Daboub’s (collectively, the UT Austin Defendants)
Opposed Motion for Temporary Abatement. Dkt. No. 13. The UT Austin Defendants seek
to temporarily abate these proceedings because the Office of the Attorney General has
postponed a decision on their representation request while two related Equal Protection
cases remain pending before the Supreme Court. Id. at 2–4.
The plaintiff opposes abating these proceedings, explaining that he “cannot rule out
the possibility” that he may wish to amend his complaint or move for a preliminary
injunction. Dkt. No. 17 at 2. He does not, however, oppose “additional extensions of the
answer deadline if the [UT Austin Defendants] are unable to retain counsel by May 12,
2023,” or if the UT Austin Defendants’ counsel “decide that they want to wait for the
[Supreme Court] rulings before filing their answer.” Id.
Because the plaintiff’s proposed solution reasonably addresses the UT Austin
Defendants’ concerns, the Court finds that the more drastic alternative of abatement is not
justified under these circumstances. Should the UT Austin Defendants be unable to retain

Case 5:23-cv-00007-H

Document 18

Filed 04/11/23

Page 2 of 2

PageID 143

counsel by May 12, 2023, or should their counsel seek to wait for the resolution of pending
litigation to file an answer, the Court will entertain further motions to extend the answer
deadline as appropriate. The Motion for Temporary Abatement is denied.
So ordered on April 11, 2023.

JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

–2–