Feltis v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 9/1/11 ORDERING that Plaintiff shall have until October 11, 2011, to file a motion for summary judgment. The court's scheduling order is modified accordingly. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3

BESS M. BREWER, #100364
LAW OFFICE OF
BESS M. BREWER & ASSOCIATES
P.O. Box 5088
Sacramento, CA 95817
Telephone: [phone]

4
5

Attorneys for Plaintiff

6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11

SANDRA FELTIS

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12
13
14
Plaintiff,
15
v.
16
17

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE
Commissioner of Social Security
of the United States of America,

18
Defendant.
19

Case No. 11-CIV-0723 KJN

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S
TIME TO FILE SUMMARY
JUDGEMENT MOTION

)
20
21

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their attorneys, that the

22

Plaintiff’s time to file his summary judgment is hereby extended from August 29, 2011, to October11,

23

2011. This is Plaintiff’s first extension and is required due to Plaintiff’s counsel’s impacted briefing

24

schedule and need to prioritize older cases.

25
26

////

27

////

28

////
1

2

/s/Bess M. Brewer
BESS M. BREWER
Attorney at Law

3

Attorney for Plaintiff

1

Dated: August 29, 2011

4
5
Dated: August 29, 2011

Benjamin B. Wagner

6
United States Attorney
7
/s/ Elizabeth Barry
ELIZABETH BARRY
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant

8
9
10
11

ORDER

12
13
14

The stipulation of the parties is HEREBY APPROVED.1 Plaintiff shall have until
October 11, 2011, to file a motion for summary judgment. The court’s scheduling order is modified
accordingly.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16
17

DATED: September 1, 2011

18
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The undersigned notes that plaintiff, who is represented by an attorney who appears regularly
before the undersigned and all too regularly seeks extensions of time based on her “impacted briefing
schedule,” filed this stipulation and proposed order on the day that plaintiff was required to file a motion
for summary judgment. Plaintiff’s counsel is again admonished that, pursuant to Local Rule 144(d),
“[c]ounsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in
an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent,” and that requests for court-approved
extensions brought on or after the required filing date “are looked upon with disfavor.” The undersigned
also notes that plaintiff’s counsel appears to be falling behind in her cases again—plaintiff’s counsel
filed four requests for extensions in four separate cases between August 26, 2011, and August 29, 2011.
(See Pacheco v. Astrue, No. 2:10-cv-1733 KJN (E.D. Cal.); Carson v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-0632 KJN
(E.D. Cal.); Feltis v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-0723 KJN (E.D. Cal.); Juarez v. Astrue, No. 2:10-cv-0748 KJN
(E.D. Cal.).)

2