Wilson v. City of Walnut Creek et al

Filing 51

Order by Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton re: 49 Ex Parte Application.(pjhlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/14/2020)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

MICHAEL GEARY WILSON,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 20-cv-02721-PJH

Plaintiff,

8
v.

ORDER RE: EX PARTE
APPLICATION

CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, et al.,

Re: Dkt. No. 49

Defendants.

12
13
14

The court is in receipt of an ex parte application from plaintiff seeking to extend the

15

deadline to file an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss. Dkt. 49. On September

16

29, 2020, the court set a briefing schedule on defendant’s motion to dismiss requiring

17

plaintiff to file an opposition by October 13, 2020 and defendants to file a reply brief by

18

October 20, 2020. Plaintiff has had ample time to file an opposition to defendants’ motion

19

to dismiss, which has been pending since August 3, 2020. Dkt. 34. Rather than filing an

20

opposition, plaintiff has appealed the court’s previous order and filed the present ex parte

21

application. Nonetheless, because plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the court will extend

22

plaintiff’s deadline to file an opposition. Accordingly, the court SETS the following briefing

23

schedule. Plaintiff shall file an opposition by October 21, 2020. Defendants may file a

24

reply by October 28, 2020. No further extension shall be considered absent good cause.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2020
/s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton
PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON
United States District Judge