Diamond Real Estate et al v. American Brokers Conduit et al

Filing 53

ORDER by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. GRANTING 50 EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE DECLARATION. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2016)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
DIAMOND REAL ESTATE, et al.,

7

Case No. 16-cv-03937-HSG

Plaintiffs,
8

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE DECLARATION

v.
9
AMERICAN BROKERS CONDUIT, et al.,

10

Re: Dkt. No. 50

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
On November 17, 2016, the Court ordered corporate Plaintiff Diamond Real Estate

12
13

(“Diamond”) to file a declaration stating that it had hired counsel no later than December 16,

14

2016. Dkt. No. 47; see also U.S. v. High Country Broad. Co., Inc., 3 F.3d 1244, 1245 (9th Cir.

15

1993) (“A corporation may appear in federal court only through licensed counsel.”); Civil L.R. 3-

16

9(b) (“A corporation, unincorporated association, partnership or other such entity may appear only

17

through a member of the bar of this Court.”). On December 16, 2016, Diamond filed a motion for

18

a twenty-day extension of time to file the declaration stating that it has hired counsel. Dkt. No. 50.

19

The Court hereby GRANTS the motion for extension of time.1 Diamond must file the declaration

20

no later than January 5, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: 12/28/2016
______________________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
1

27
28

The Court notes, however, that Diamond’s motion did not fully comply with the Local Rules.
See Civil L.R. 6-3(a)(2)-(3) (listing two of the requirements for the form and content of a motion
to change time, which were not satisfied by Diamond). The Court urges Diamond to review the
Local Rules more closely with relation to future filings.