Reported / Citable
Background
Amit Punalekar filed suit against Allstate Indemnity Company in the Western District of Texas. As part of ordinary case management procedures, the parties submitted a joint Proposed Scheduling Order on July 6, 2026 (Document 9). The proposed order, however, omitted several deadlines that are required under Judge Robert Pitman’s standard Proposed Agreed Scheduling Order form, which is publicly posted on the court’s website and incorporates Western District of Texas Local Rule CV-16(a).
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Susan Hightower issued an order requiring the parties to comply with local rules. The court directed the parties to consult Judge Pitman’s form scheduling order (available on the court’s website under the “Judges’ Info” tab, “Standing Orders,” and “Austin Division”) and to file a joint proposed scheduling order following that form.
The parties were given until July 17, 2026 to submit the corrected scheduling order. This order was issued to ensure compliance with W.D. TEX. LOC. R. CV-16(a) and the judge’s standing orders.
Key Takeaways
- Parties must use Judge Pitman’s prescribed scheduling order form when filing in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas.
- Proposed scheduling orders that omit required deadlines will be rejected and must be resubmitted.
- Practitioners should consult the court’s website and judges’ standing orders before submitting key documents.
Why It Matters
This order underscores the importance of strict compliance with local rules and standing orders in federal litigation. Procedural defects, even in ministerial documents like scheduling orders, can cause delays and require resubmission. Attorneys practicing in the Western District of Texas should ensure they are using the current prescribed forms available on the court’s website to avoid unnecessary orders to show cause or delays in case progression.