Doe v. University of Texas Health Science Center At San Antonio et al

Western District of Texas, txwd-5:2019-cv-00248

Opposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to [8] MOTION to Dismiss by JANE UTHSCSA-AS DOE.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION JANE UTHSCSA-AS DOE § Plaintiff § § vs. § § C.A. No. 5:19-cv-00248-DAE THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS § HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER § AT SAN ANTONIO and § MARCEL NOUJEIM § Defendants ________________________________________________________________________ PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE DATE COMES NOW, Plaintiff "JANE UTHSCSA-AS DOE" to file this "PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE DATE" ("Motion") as follows: 1. Pending before this Court is the following motion filed by Defendants THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO and MARCEL NOUJEIM: "DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS" (Dkt.# 8) (hereafter, "MTDismiss"). 1. Defendants' MTDismiss was filed on August 27, 2019, creating a deadline of September 10, 20191 for Plaintiff to file a response ("Response"). 1 Local Rule CV-7(e)(2), requiring a response to be filed within 14 days. 1 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE DATE Glaw 2019.09.14 2. Plaintiff now respectfully requests that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a Response be extended to September 30, 2019. 3. Defendants' MTDismiss is extensive and seeks to dismiss the entirety of Plaintiff's claims. 4. The essential thrust of Defendants' MTDismiss asserts that Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because (a) of a prior filing in Texas state court by Plaintiff which Defendants incorrectly assert creates a res judicata bar against Plaintiff's claims; and (b) an assertion that Defendant THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO was unaware of the Title IV violations asserted by Plaintiff. Both assertions are false, and Plaintiff can counter such Motion to Dismiss with a properly prepared Response. 5. Since the filing of Defendants' MTDismiss, counsel for Plaintiff has been actively engaged in numerous other federal court matters in Austin, Houston, Corpus Christi, and San Antonio, including oral argument at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on September 3, 2019. 6. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are not frivolous and have caused significant harm to Plaintiff. 7. Plaintiff wishes to pursue Plaintiff's claims against Defendant without delay. 2 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE DATE Glaw 2019.09.14 8. This is the first extension requested by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff's request is being made not for delay, but so that justice may be done. 9. Defendants object to the foregoing request. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant this request for an extension and enter an order extending the deadline for Plaintiff to file Plaintiff's Response to Defendants' MTDismiss to September 30, 2019. Respectfully submitted, Gorman Law Firm, pllc By: Terry P Gorman, Esq. Texas Bar No. 08218200 tgorman@school-law.co 901 Mopac Expressway South, Suite 300 Austin, Texas 78746 Telephone: (512) 980-4556 (direct) Telecopier: (512) 597-1455 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF JANE UTHSCSA-AS DOE 3 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE DATE Glaw 2019.09.14 CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify that I have discussed the foregoing request with lead counsel for Defendants, and Defendants oppose such request. By: Terry P Gorman, Esq. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the preceding document was served via the Court's CM/ECF system on September 14, 2019 on: Texas Attorney General MATTHEW A. DEAL Assistant Attorney General General Litigation Division P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 475-1969 | FAX: (512) 320-0667 matthew.deal@oag.texas.gov ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS Terry P. Gorman 4 PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND RESPONSE DATE Glaw 2019.09.14