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

Filing 47

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION REQUESTING PLAINTIFF BE DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT. The Court grants plaintiff a final extension, to November 13, 2020, to file opposition to Mt. Diablo's Motion Requesting Plaintiff Be Deemed a Vexatious Litigant. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 14, 2020. (mmcalc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2020)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)

Case 3:20-cv-03045-MMC Document 47 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MICHAEL GEARY WILSON,
Plaintiff,

7
v.

8
9

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER EXTENDING DEADLINE TO
FILE OPPOSITION TO MOTION
REQUESTING PLAINTIFF BE
DEEMED A VEXATIOUS LITIGANT

LEIGH LAW GROUP, P.C, (LLG), et al.,

10

Case No. 20-cv-03045-MMC

On June 23, 2020, defendant Mount Diablo Unified School District (“Mt. Diablo”)

12

filed a “Motion Requesting Plaintiff Be Deemed a Vexatious Litigant,” and, pursuant to the

13

Civil Local Rules of this district, plaintiff Michael Geary Wilson’s (“Wilson”) opposition was

14

due no later than July 7, 2020. See Civil L.R. 7-3(a).

15

On July 23, 2020, no opposition having been filed, the Court took the matter under

16

submission. Later that same date, Wilson filed a request for a 21-day extension of the

17

deadline to submit opposition, and the Court, by order filed July 29, 2020, extended the

18

deadline to August 10, 2020. On August 17, 2020, no opposition having been filed, Mt.

19

Diablo filed a “Reply,” pointing out that fact and providing further argument in support of

20

its motion. Later that same date, Wilson filed a request for a 28-day extension, and the

21

Court, by order filed September 10, 2020, extended the deadline to October 9, 2020.

22

Now before the Court is Wilson’s “Ex Parte Application . . . to Change Deadline for

23

Filing his Response to [Mt.] Diablo’s 6/23/2020 Fraudulent Vexatious Litigant/Security

24

Motion” (“Application”), filed October 7, 2020.1 By said Application, Wilson seeks a

25
26
27
28

1

Two days thereafter, on October 9, 2020, Wilson filed the following documents:
“Incomplete Opposition to [Mt.] Diablo’s 6/23/2020 Fraudulent Motion” and “Incomplete
Declaration in Support of His Incomplete Opposition to [Mt.] Diablo’s 6/23/2020
Fraudulent Motion.”

Case 3:20-cv-03045-MMC Document 47 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 2

1

further extension of “at least 21 days after: a. The resolutions of [his] pending and

2

forthcoming appeals and petitions involving the cases identified as bases for [Mt.]

3

Diablo’s . . . Motion; and b. [Mt.] Diablo states the ‘issues to be decided’ in an Amended

4

M[emorandum of Points and Authorities].” (See Application ¶ 11.)2 The Court, having

5

considered Wilson’s Application, rules as follows.

6

The instant Application, unlike Wilson’s previous requests, is essentially open-

7

ended. Although Wilson contends “several” of the above-referenced “appeals and

8

petitions” will “significantly affect” his opposition to Mt. Diablo’s motion (see id. ¶ 12), he

9

does not specify which “appeals and petitions” would have such effect, nor does he

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

provide any facts bearing on when such appellate matters might be resolved.
Nevertheless, the Court will afford Wilson one final opportunity to oppose Mt.

12

Diablo’s motion and hereby EXTENDS to November 13, 2020 the deadline to file his

13

opposition. Wilson is hereby advised that, if he fails to submit opposition by said

14

deadline, the Court will construe the above-referenced “Incomplete Opposition” as his

15

opposition.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated: October 14, 2020
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Wilson, citing Civil Local Rule 7-4, contends Mt. Diablo’s motion is procedurally
deficient in that, according to Wilson, it lacks a “statement of the issues to be decided.”
(See Application ¶ 6 (quoting Civil L.R. 7-4(a)(3)).) In a section titled “Introduction,”
however, Mt. Diablo sets forth information that fully meets that requirement. (See Mot.
at 3:6-5:7.)
2

2