Winston v. BayMark Health Services Inc
Plaintiff: Michael Lydell Winston, II and Michael Winston, II
Defendant: BayMark Health Services, Inc. and BayMark Health Services Inc
Case Number: 3:2021cv00224
Filed: February 1, 2021
Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Presiding Judge: Brantley Starr
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. § 1681
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 27, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 27, 2021 Civil Case Terminated per #19 Stipulation of Dismissal. (axm)
September 27, 2021 Filing 19 Joint STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL re #18 Order, by Michael Winston, II. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order Dismissal of Defendant with Prejudice) (Adkins, Micah)
August 16, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 18 60-DAY DISMISSAL ORDER re: #17 Notice of Settlement. The Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE all claims by all parties subject to the parties right to reopen the litigation within those 60 days if the settlement is not consummated. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 8/16/2021) (mla)
August 13, 2021 Filing 17 NOTICE of Settlement with Defendant BayMark Health Services, Inc. filed by Michael Winston, II (Adkins, Micah)
June 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER REQUIRING ATTORNEY CONFERENCE AND PROPOSAL FOR CONTENTS OF SCHEDULING AND DISCOVERY ORDER: Proposed Scheduling Order due by 8/15/2021. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 6/22/2021) (ygl)
May 10, 2021 Filing 15 AMENDED ANSWER to #1 Complaint filed by BayMark Health Services Inc. (Miller, Michelle)
May 10, 2021 Filing 14 Unopposed Designation of Local Counsel and Response to Order to Show Cause Michelle Mishoe Miller for Defendant BayMark Health Services Inc. (Miller, Michelle) Modified text on 5/11/2021 (mjr).
May 10, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 13 ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court notes that the defendant has not yet found local counsel, in direct contravention of the Court's prior order and Local Rule 83.10. Therefore, the Court ORDERS the defendant to SHOW CAUSE for its failure to acquire local counsel by May 14, 2021. Moreover, the Court recognizes that the plaintiff also lacks local counsel, and ORDERS the plaintiff to find local counsel within 30 days of this order. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 5/10/2021) (chmb)
April 30, 2021 Filing 12 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by BayMark Health Services Inc. (Miller, Michelle)
April 30, 2021 Filing 11 ANSWER to #1 Complaint filed by BayMark Health Services Inc. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms and Instructions found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Miller, Michelle)
March 4, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ELECTRONIC ORDER: Having considered the plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed Without Local Counsel #8 , the Court hereby GRANTS the motion. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 3/4/2021) (chmb)
March 4, 2021 Opinion or Order ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court hereby GRANTS the defendant's #9 Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer. The defendant's answer is due by May 1, 2021. The Court further ORDERS the defendant to find local counsel, in compliance with Local Rule 83.10, within 14 days of this order. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 3/4/2021) (chmb)
March 1, 2021 Filing 9 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer filed by BayMark Health Services Inc (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order proposed Order)Attorney Michelle Mishoe Miller added to party BayMark Health Services Inc(pty:dft) (Miller, Michelle)
February 24, 2021 Filing 8 MOTION for Leave to Appear Without Local Counsel filed by Michael Winston, II (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order) (Adkins, Micah) Modified text and linkage on 2/25/2021 (jmg).
February 24, 2021 Filing 7 SUMMONS Returned Executed as to BayMark Health Services Inc; served on 2/8/2021. (Adkins, Micah)
February 8, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ELECTRONIC ORDER: The Court has noticed that the plaintiff lacks local counsel as required by Local Rule 83.10. The Court therefore ORDERS the plaintiff to find local counsel within 30 days. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 2/8/2021) (chmb)
February 2, 2021 Filing 5 Summons Issued as to BayMark Health Services Inc. (jmg)
February 1, 2021 Filing 4 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (jmg)
February 1, 2021 Filing 3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Michael Winston, II identifying Corporate Parent/Affiliate BayMark Health Services Inc. (Adkins, Micah) Modified text on 2/2/2021 (jmg).
February 1, 2021 Filing 2 Request for Clerk to issue Summons to Defendant BayMark Health Services Inc filed by Michael Winston, II. (Attachments: #1 Summons to Defendant) (Adkins, Micah)
February 1, 2021 Filing 1 COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND against BayMark Health Services Inc filed by Michael Winston, II. (Filing fee $402; Receipt number 0539-11569316) Plaintiff will submit summons(es) for issuance. In each Notice of Electronic Filing, the judge assignment is indicated, and a link to the # Judges Copy Requirements and # Judge Specific Requirements is provided. The court reminds the filer that any required copy of this and future documents must be delivered to the judge, in the manner prescribed, within three business days of filing. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (Attachments: #1 Cover Sheet) (Adkins, Micah)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Winston v. BayMark Health Services Inc
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: BayMark Health Services, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: BayMark Health Services Inc
Represented By: Michelle Mishoe Miller
Represented By: Sara Harris
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Lydell Winston, II
Represented By: Micah Stephen Adkins
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Winston, II
Represented By: Micah Stephen Adkins
Represented By: Micah S. Adkins
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?