Federal Judges

Service of Process on Texas Bar and Continuances Before Judge Alfred H. Bennett

Attorney Rich Robins has e-mailed different lawyers at the Texas Bar re Service of Process, but he has not received any response from them.

Bennett v. State Bar of Texas

(4:21-cv-02829)

District Court, S.D. Texas

DEC 7, 2021 | REPUBLISHED BY LIT: DEC 8, 2021

60 day Continuance Granted by Bennett re Bennett and Nachael Foster (fighting foreclosure) v Texas Bar

MOTION FOR A CONTINUANCE REGARDING THE NOVEMBER 5TH, 2021 PRETRIAL & SCHEDULING CONFERENCE

1. Come now the Plaintiffs through legal counsel Rich Robins and represent as follows:

2. There is an (apparently auto-generated) pretrial & scheduling conference scheduled in this case for Friday, November 5th, 2021.

3. Plaintiffs’ counsel Robins requests that it be postponed, please and shows as follows.

4. After months of cordial interaction with Texas’ Office of the Attorney General (OAG), it has recently become sufficiently apparent (and understandably so) that they are not particularly interested in accepting service of our lawsuit or in representing the Texas Bar in this case.

Our lawsuit is, after all, pursued against the same Texas Bar regarding which the OAG filed a pair of (fabulous) amicus briefs in the McDonald v. Longley litigation which the Texas Bar ultimately lost at the federal appellate level on July 2nd, 2021.

See McDonald v. Longley, 4 F.4th 229 (5th Cir. 2021). Our class action lawsuit is based, in part, on the OAG’s truly outstanding work.

5. Meanwhile at least 75% of Texas Bar workers are reportedly doing so remotely due to COVID 19. It is therefore not easy serving any of them.

6. Compounding matters, Texas’ Secretary of State reportedly does not include the Texas Bar in its database. It is consequently not altogether clear whom we could serve so as to sufficiently bind an organization that clings so much to purported sovereign immunity.

We continue researching the matter diligently but it is worth noting that the Texas Bar is not an ordinary government agency, either. Instead it is a public corporation and an administrative agency of the Texas judiciary.

TEX. GOV’T CODE §81.011. Their website apparently does not say who may accept service of a lawsuit.

7. The McDonald v. Longley plaintiffs and their very impressive legal counsel apparently sued dozens of insiders of the Texas Bar. Subsequently they received authorization from the Defendants not to have to keep serving new and incoming board of directors members. We would prefer to serve a sufficient quantity of parties without serving more than necessary.

If the Texas Bar Defendants might be interested in contacting Attorney Robins directly, this would of course be highly welcome as well as efficiency-maximizing. His contact data is located below and he sincerely prides himself on being as charming as is feasibly possible whenever dealing with honest, well-meaning people.

8. During the past two months, Attorney Robins has e-mailed different lawyers at the Texas Bar in search of relevant cooperation, but he has not received any response from them. Hopefully they have all survived the COVID 19 hazards though.

9. Encouragingly, the Texas Bar’s website has our class action prominently uploaded to it, and has for over two months. One can confirm this by searching for the word “Bennett” in its “Mandatory Dues” section which is linked from the front page of TexasBar.com.

https://www.texasbar.com/Content/NavigationMenu/McDonald_et_al_v_Longley_et_al1/default.htm

Possession of a lawsuit apparently does not constitute sufficient service, though.

10. The federal court’s law library here in Houston is poised to reopen to the public sometime later this month after having been closed to the public for nearly 2 years. Attorney Robins looks forward to resuming with seeking (always much- appreciated) enlightenment there.

11. Incidentally, we know we will modify the petition soon, in accordance with evolving facts and jurisprudence. It would seemingly be inconsiderate of us to serve a lawsuit on the Defendant(s) only to swiftly file another and make them have to read a subsequent one, too. We prefer to be more considerate than that.

12. Attorney Robins is certainly willing to attend this Friday’s pretrial & scheduling conference hearing but he wants to avoid ex parte communications so it seems best to reschedule it, please.

ARGUMENT & AUTHORITIES

13. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and other authorities allow the Court to extend deadlines for good cause. We submit that the abovementioned facts show that good cause exists.

CONCLUSION & PRAYER

14. Plaintiffs’ counsel Robins respectfully requests that this Friday’s pretrial & scheduling conference (set for November 5th, 2021) please be postponed. It seems ideal to reschedule it after the Defendants have been successfully served.

DATED: November 3rd, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

Rich Robins
Robins Legal Services, LLC
Federal registration #: 00789589
Texas state bar #: 00789589
2450 Louisiana St. #400-155
Houston, TX 77006
(832) 350-1030 Tel.
Rich@TexasBarSunset.com
www.TexasBarSunset.com

By:
Rich Robins Attorney-In-Charge

OCC Real Estate Invesments LLC Sued PT-Patriot Title For Breach of Lease then Changed its Mind

OCC’s lawsuit was filed by debt collector Bob Kruckemeyer of 244 Malone St, and OCC returns results that he is a member of OCC.

A Legal Cowboy and the Stallones in Harris County District Court Complainin’ About a Chain Saw Operator

Debt Collectin’ lawyer Robert Kruckemeyer files suit on behalf of Jeff and Pam Stallones complaining about the felling of pine and oak trees.

The Stallones and Greystone Custom Builders Cross-Sue Each Other in Travis County

US Gov. Wingman and Cowboy Robert Kruckemeyer is counsel in both cases for the Stallones and Stallones Holdings Inc.

Service of Process on Texas Bar and Continuances Before Judge Alfred H. Bennett
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top