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)

Download PDF
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

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?