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)
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?