Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05879/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-05879-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Housing Discrimination

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIEL EVERETT,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-01716

Case No. 18-05879 

ORDER RE REQUEST FOR 

ADDITIONAL TIME

Re: Dkt. No. 50

Plaintiff filed an administrative motion to consider whether State Bar of California v. Daniel 

Everett, No. 4:18-cv-05879-SBA (filed on September 25, 2018) should be related to the present case

(17-cv-01716-SI). The motion was filed on October 5, 2018. Dkt. No. 46. Pursuant to Civil Local 

Rule 7-11(b), defendant’s opposition was due no later than October 9, 2018. 

Defendant has since filed two successive requests for additional time to respond to plaintiff’s 

motion. Dkt. Nos. 47, 50. The Court hereby GRANTS defendant’s request. Defendant is to file a 

response by Monday, November 26, 2018. 

The Court notes that defendant has now filed for, and been granted, four requests for 

extensions of time in this case. Dkt. Nos. 17, 33, 47, 50.

1

 Defendant is reminded that the Court 

 

1 This Court has remanded defendant’s case to the California State Bar Court on three 

separate occasions, in three separate actions. 17-CV-01716, Dkt. No. 21; 17-CV-03595, Dkt. No. 

32; 18-CV-00051, Dkt. No. 11. In addition, the Ninth Circuit summarily denied defendant’s motion 

to stay this Court’s remand Order. 17-CV-01716, Dkt. No. 43 (“A review of the record and the 

opening brief indicates that the questions raised in this appeal are so insubstantial as not to require 

further argument.”). 

Case 3:18-cv-05879-SI Document 15 Filed 11/21/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

may issue sanctions for bad faith conduct, including delaying or disrupting litigation. See Chambers 

v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 45-46 (1991); see also Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678, 689 n.14 (1978).

The Court is not inclined to grant any additional requests.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2018 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:18-cv-05879-SI Document 15 Filed 11/21/18 Page 2 of 2