Pendergast v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 21

ORDER GRANTING 20 the Request for an Extension of Time, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 4/20/2017. Defendant's opening brief due by 4/28/2017. (Hall, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BRYAN RUSSELL PENDERGAST, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. 1 NANCY A. BERRYHILL , Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00552-JLT ORDER GRANTING THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (Doc. 20) 16 17 On April 19, 2017, Defendant filed a stipulation of the parties to extend time for the 18 Commissioner to file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief in the action. (Doc. 20) Notably, the 19 Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 7 at 20 4), and this is the fourth extension requested by the parties—with three by Defendant alone related to 21 responding to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (See Docs. 12, 15, 16, 18) 22 Beyond the single extension permitted by the Scheduling Order, “requests to modify [the 23 scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” (Doc. 7 24 at 4) In addition, the parties were cautioned that requests for modification of the Court’s schedule “will 25 not routinely be granted.” (Id., emphasis in original) Despite the Court’s order, Defendant failed to 26 file a written motion for amending the scheduling order for an extension. 27 Notably, on April 18, 2018, Defendant’s counsel was replaced by Jacob Mikow. (Doc. 19) In 28 1 Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court substitutes Nancy A. Berryhill for her predecessor, Carolyn W. Colvin, as the defendant. 1 the stipulation of the parties, Mr. Mikow explains that he is Mr. Chen’s “direct supervisor,” and the 2 extension of time is needed “due to [the] recent change of counsel…, management re-assessing heavy 3 workloads, and the expectation that a new counsel for Defendant will be assigned to this case in the 4 near future.” (Doc. 20 at 1) 5 On the other hand, the reassignment of the action occurred more than two weeks after the prior 6 deadline ordered by the Court, of March 29, 2017. At that time, the parties were advised that “the 7 Court contemplate[d] that no further extensions of time will be sought,” and informed Defendant that 8 failure to comply with the deadline would result in the matter being decided without any input by 9 Defendant. (Doc. 18 at 2, emphasis omitted) The deadline passed without any response from 10 Defendant until the filing of the stipulation. Nevertheless, because Plaintiff does not oppose the request 11 for an additional extension, the request to continue the deadline until April 28, 2017 will be approved. 12 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 13 1. Defendant’s request for a further extension of time is GRANTED; 14 2. Defendant SHALL file a response to the opening brief no later than April 28, 2017; 15 3. The parties are advised that absolutely no further extensions of time will be entertained and any such requests will be summarily denied; and 16 17 4. If Defendant fails to file the responsive brief in compliance with this deadline as 18 ordered by the Court, the matter WILL be decided without any input by 19 Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: April 20, 2017 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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?