Colston v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

STIPULATION and ORDER FOR A FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE HER RESPONSIVE BRIEF. Defendant shall have an extension of time, to and including January 20, 2017, by which to file her responsive brief. Any reply by Plaintiff shall be due by February 6, 2017. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 12/2/2016. (Thorp, J)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 PHILIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration JEFFREY CHEN, CSBN 260516 Special Assistant United States Attorney Social Security Administration 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 977-8939 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 Email: Jeffrey.Chen@ssa.gov Attorneys for Defendant 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 FRESNO DIVISION 13 14 MICHAEL CHARLES COLSTON, 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 18 19 CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. 20 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:15-cv-01750-SKO STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR A FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE HER RESPONSIVE BRIEF 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, and 22 with the approval of the Court, that Defendant shall have a first extension of time of 60 days to 23 file her responsive brief. Defendant respectfully requests this additional time because he has a 24 very heavy workload, including an upcoming Ninth Circuit merits brief due in the middle of 25 December. In addition, the undersigned has a pre-planned holiday of two week at the end of 26 December and in early January. 27 28 The new due date for Defendant’s responsive brief and opposition to Plaintiff’s brief will be Friday, January 20, 2017. 1 1 Respectfully submitted, 2 3 Date: November 29, 2016 4 FORSLUND LAW LLC By: 5 6 7 Date: November 29, 2016 PHILIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney 8 9 10 11 /s/ Jacqueline Anna Forslund * JACQUELINE ANNA FORSLUND * By email authorization on Nov. 29, 2016 Attorney for Plaintiff By: /s/ Jeffrey Chen JEFFREY CHEN Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant 12 13 ORDER On September 29, 2016, the Court ordered Defendant to file a responsive brief no later 14 15 16 17 18 than November 21, 2016, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties. (Docs. 17 & 18.) The parties filed the above “Stipulation for a First Extension of Time for Defendant to File Her Responsive Brief” on November 29, 2016, eight days after Defendant’s responsive brief deadline expired. The Court may extend time to act after the deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, although the Stipulation demonstrates good cause 19 20 under to support the request for extension of time (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), no such excusable neglect has been articulated – much less shown –to justify the untimeliness of the 21 22 23 request. Notwithstanding this deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by the parties’ agreement to the extension of time after the deadline), and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that 24 25 cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are cautioned that 26 27 future post hoc request for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor. 28 2 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall have an extension of time, to and 2 including January 20, 2017, by which to file her responsive brief. Any reply by Plaintiff shall be 3 due by February 6, 2017. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 2, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 .

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?