Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 20

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 10/12/11 ORDERING that plf's Opposition to the 18 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment is due 10/26/11. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3

Ann M. Cerney, SBN: 068748
Attorney at Law
45 Hunter Square Plaza
Stockton, California 95202
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4
Attorney for Plaintiff
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
—o0o—

9
PAMELA IRENE MOORE,

CASE NO. 2:10-CV-02477-KJN

10
Plaintiff,

[proposed] ORDER EXTENDING
PLAINTIFF’S TIME TO REPLY TO
DEFENDANT’S CROSS-MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

11
vs.
12
13

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,

14

Defendant.
__________________________________/

15
16

Pursuant to the stipulation of the parties showing good cause for a requested extension of

17

Plaintiff’s time to reply to Defendant’s Cross-Motion For Summary Judgment, the request is

18

hereby APPROVED.

19

Plaintiff shall file his reply on or before October 26, 2011.

20

However, for a second time in this action, the undersigned is troubled by the timing of the

21

parties’ stipulation seeking the court’s approval for a time extension. Previously, defendant filed

22

a stipulation on August 15, 2011, the same day as defendant’s deadline to file its

23

Opposition/Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. (Dkt. No. 15.) While the undersigned

24

granted that stipulation, he also informed the parties that such timing violates the court’s Local

25

Rules. (Dkt. No. 17 at 2 (citing E.D. Local Rule 144(d) (“Counsel shall seek to obtain a

26

necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the

27

need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the

28

required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.”).) The
1
[P RO PO SED ] O RD ER EXTEN D IN G TIM E

1

undersigned’s prior order even stated that “[f]uture stipulations suffering from similar

2

deficiencies may not be approved.” (Dkt. No. 17 at 2.) Despite the undersigned’s prior order,

3

and with no explanation, the parties have again filed a stipulation requesting a time extension on

4

October 5, 2011 — the very day of the deadline at issue. While the undersigned again approves

5

the pending stipulation, counsel are reminded of the need to abide by the applicable Local Rule

6

and are warned that subsequent stipulations filed on the day of the relevant deadline may be

7

summarily denied.

8
9

SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 12, 2011

10
11
12

_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
[P RO PO SED ] O RD ER EXTEN D IN G TIM E