Whether a dominant national trade association may avoid antitrust liability under Section 1 of the Sherman Act by promulgating a facially anticompetitive rule that suppresses competition through indirect enforcement mechanisms

No question identified. : To the Honorable Elena Kagan, Circuit Justice for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Unopposed Application for an Extension of Time to File a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Pursuant to Supreme Court Rules 13.5 and 30, counsel for applicant Real Estate Exchange, Inc. respectfully requests a 30-day extension of time to petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter, to and including August 14, 2025. The judgment to be reviewed is of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which entered its decision on March 3, 2025, Ex. A, and denied a timely petition for rehearing on April 16, 2025, Ex. B. Unless extended, the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari will expire on July 5, 2024. This Application is timely, having been filed at least 10 days before the petition is currently due. This Court’s jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). Reasons for Granting an Extension A 30-day extension of time is necessary and appropriate for the Applicants to prepare and file any petition for writ of certiorari. The request is unopposed. 1. This case presents important, recurring, and divisive questions about antitrust law. At issue are questions of whether a dominant national trade association may avoid liability under Section 1 of the Sherman Act by promulgating a facially anticompetitive rule—here, a no-commingling rule that suppresses competition from innovative market entrants—but delegating enforcement to local surrogates and relying on private platforms to implement it. 2. Applicants retained undersigned counsel for the purposes of filing a petition for certiorari. An extension will permit counsel to prepare a petition that best presents this case’s important questions for this Court’s consideration. Counsel is also engaged in other important representations! and will need to continue balancing commitments until the petition is filed. The other parties consent to the extension. Conclusion The Applicants’ request for a 30-day extension of time to petition for a writ of certiorari in this matter should be granted to and including August 15, 2025. July 3, 2025 Respectfully submitted, CLA Pd Charles R. Flores Counsel of Record Flores Law PLLC 917 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002 (713) 364-6640 cf@chadflores.law 1 The other representations include (1) in Krell et al. v. American Bureau of Shipping et al., No. 24-20438 (5th Cir.), appellate briefing and preparation for upcoming oral argument, (2) in Megalomedia Ince. et al., v. Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Co., No. 23-20570 (5th Cir.), remanded district court proceedings for jurisdictional findings and preparation for oral argument, (3) in United States v. Jones et al., No. (D. Kan.), briefing of discovery motions regarding abrogation of attorney-client privileges, (4) in VanDerStok v. Bondi, No. 4:22-cv-00691-O (N.D. Tex.), proceedings on a motion for a preliminary injunction, (5) in Larosiere v. Wilson, No. 6:24-cv-1629 (M.D. Fla.), proceedings on a motion to dismiss and discovery motions, (6) in Webber v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 7:25-cv-00095 (S.D. Tex.), proceedings on a motion to remand, (7) in Defense Distributed v. YouTube, LLC, No. 25-BC03B-000 (Tex. Bus. Ct. [8rd Div.), proceedings for injunctive relief, and (8) in Nevada Department of Business and Industry v. Mansour, No. 85521 (Nev.), preparation of a petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court.