Wilson v. Leigh Law Group, P.C, (LLG) et al

Filing 41

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION REQUESTING PLAINTIFF BE DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. The Court grants plaintiff a further extension, to October 9, 2020, to file opposition to Mt. Diablo's Motion Requesting Plaintiff Be Deemed a Vexatious Litigant. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 10, 2020. (mmcalc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2020)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 MICHAEL GEARY WILSON, Plaintiff, 8 9 v. ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION REQUESTING PLAINTIFF BE DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT LEIGH LAW GROUP, P.C, (LLG), et al., 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 Case No. 20-cv-03045-MMC Defendants. 12 On June 23, 2020, defendant Mount Diablo Unified School District (“Mt. Diablo”) 13 filed a “Motion Requesting Plaintiff Be Deemed a Vexatious Litigant.” On July 23, 2020, 14 no opposition having been filed, the Court deemed the matter submitted on the moving 15 papers. Later that same date, plaintiff Michael Geary Wilson (“Wilson”) filed a request for 16 an extension of the deadline to submit opposition to Mt. Diablo’s motion, and the Court, 17 by order filed July 29, 2020, extended said deadline to August 10, 2020. On August 17, 18 2020, no opposition having been filed, Mt. Diablo filed a Reply, in which it noted Wilson’s 19 failure to respond and asked the Court to consider as evidence of vexatiousness various 20 other cases in which Wilson is a party. 21 Now before the Court is Wilson’s “Second Notice of Opposition to [Mt.] Diablo’s 22 Motion Requesting Plaintiff be Deemed a Vexatious Litigant and Ordered to Post Security 23 and Request for Extension of Time to Respond” (“Second Notice”), filed August 17, 2020, 24 whereby Wilson asserts the Court, in light of its dismissal of the above-titled action on 25 July 14, 2020, “lost jurisdiction” to hear Mt. Diablo’s motion; in addition, Wilson seeks, if 26 the Court “regains jurisdiction in the future,” an extension of twenty-eight days thereafter 27 to respond to said motion. (See Second Notice at 2:20-21.) Having considered Wilson’s 28 Second Notice, the Court hereby rules as follows. 1 At the outset, the Court notes it has not lost jurisdiction to hear Mt. Diablo’s 2 motion. See Ringgold-Lockhart v. Cty. of Los Angeles, 761 F.3d 1057, 1062 n.2 (9th Cir. 3 2014) (rejecting plaintiffs’ contention that “filing a notice of appeal divested the district 4 court of jurisdiction to issue the vexatious litigant order”); see also Kallok v. Boardman 5 Local Sch. District Bd. of Educ., 24 F. App'x 496, 498 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding “district 6 court retains jurisdiction to resolve collateral matters . . . even after the underlying action 7 has been appealed”). Further, to the extent Wilson is relying on his “hav[ing] been 8 extremely busy with other tasks, including seven other appeals/petitions” (see Second 9 Notice at 2:12-13), the Court finds such additional legal matters do not relieve him of the 10 obligation to comply with the deadlines set on the instant motion. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Nevertheless, the Court will afford Wilson one further opportunity to oppose said 12 motion and hereby EXTENDS to October 9, 2020 the deadline to file his opposition. In 13 that regard, Wilson is advised that, in addition to the recent rulings and other events 14 called to the Court’s attention by Mt. Diablo in its Reply, the Court will be considering the 15 recent dismissals entered in Wilson v. Cty. of Contra Costa, et al., No. 20-cv-4160-WHA 16 (see Order, filed August 20, 2020), and Wilson v. Mt. Diablo, et al., No. 20-cv-3368-MMC 17 (see Order, filed August 25, 2020). 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 Dated: September 10, 2020 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?