Whitney v. Pacific Thomas Corporation

Filing 9

ORDER RE: APPELLANT'S RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE. To the extent appellant seeks an extension of time to amend his response to the Court's order to show cause, the request is denied. To the extent appe llant seeks an extension of time to file his opening brief, the Court finds good cause exists to grant such request; the Court vacates the present briefing schedule and will reset the briefing schedule in the event the order to show cause is discharged. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 5, 2017. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/5/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/5/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

In re:

8

PACIFIC THOMAS CORPORATION,
dba PACIFIC THOMAS CAPITAL, dba
SAFE STORAGE,

9

Case No. 16-cv-06443-MMC

Debtor.

10

ORDER RE: APPELLANT'S
RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE; VACATING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

By order filed December 9, 2016, the Court directed appellant Randall Whitney to

14

show cause why the above-titled appeal should not be dismissed for failure to timely

15

designate the record on appeal. On December 30, 2016, appellant, who proceeds pro

16

se,1 filed his "Response to an Order to Show Cause and Request Leave to Amend."

17

Having read and considered appellant's filing, the Court rules as follows:

18

1. To the extent appellant seeks an extension of time to amend his response to

19

the Court's order to show cause, the request is hereby DENIED; appellant, in his filing of

20

December 30, 2016, has explained the reason for the above-referenced delay. The

21

Court will defer ruling as to the sufficiency of such explanation pending appellees' reply, if

22

any, to appellant's response, and, as set forth in the Court's order of December 9, 2016,

23

said matter will stand submitted as of January 13, 2017.

24

2. To the extent appellant seeks an extension of time to file his opening brief, the

25

Court finds good cause exists to grant such request, in light of appellant's stated effort to

26
27
28

1

The "Substitution of Counsel - Civil," filed December 27, 2016, by which appellant
has substituted himself in place of Paul McCarthy, is hereby APPROVED.

1

retain new counsel to represent him in the instant appeal. Given the pendency of the

2

order to show cause, however, the Court, rather than extend the deadline to file an

3

opening brief to a specified date, hereby VACATES the present briefing schedule. (See

4

Notice of Briefing, filed December 28, 2016.) The Court will reset the briefing schedule in

5

the event the order to show cause is discharged.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: January 5, 2017
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2