Bustos v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
17
ORDER and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 1/25/12, ORDERING that the parties 16 stipulation is approved, and plaintiff have until 3/2/11, to file a motion for summary judgment or remand. The scheduling order in t his case is amended accordingly. On or before 2/10/12, plaintiff's counsel, Bess M. Brewer, shall show good cause in writing why she should not be sanctioned in an amount of $2,500. Ms. Brewer shall appear before the undersigned in regards to this order to show cause on February 23, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Neither plaintiff nor defendant's counsel need appear at the 2/23/12 show cause hearing. (Kastilahn, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
ROBERT V. BUSTOS,
11
Plaintiff,
12
13
No. 2:11-cv-01953 KJN
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,
Commissioner of Social Security,
ORDER & ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
14
Defendant.
15
16
/
Presently before the court is a stipulation and proposed order filed on January 18,
17
2012, which seeks a continuance of the deadline for plaintiff to file his motion for summary
18
judgment or remand from January 17, 2012, to March 2, 2012 (Dkt. No. 16). Plaintiff’s
19
counsel’s excuse is once again her “impacted briefing schedule.” The undersigned approves the
20
stipulation despite the fact that plaintiff’s counsel filed it after plaintiff’s initial deadline to file
21
his motion and in violation of Local Rule 144(d) and the court’s order.
22
However, the undersigned orders plaintiff’s counsel, Bess M. Brewer, to show
23
cause in writing why she should not be sanctioned $2,500 for her constant inability, at least in
24
cases before the undersigned, to timely file motions for summary judgment or requests for
25
extensions of deadlines. Ms. Brewer, an officer of this court, is an attorney who regularly
26
appears before the undersigned and all too regularly seeks extensions of time based on her
1
1
“impacted briefing schedule.” Such an excuse is wholly inappropriate, especially when the
2
undersigned has specifically and repeatedly warned Ms. Brewer of the inadequacy of that excuse;
3
Ms. Brewer has come to abuse the privilege of seeking extensions of time.
4
The undersigned previously ordered Ms. Brewer to appear and address her failure
5
to timely prosecute her clients’ cases and to follow the court’s orders and Local Rules. (Ortiz v.
6
Astrue, No. 2:09-cv-02641 KJN (E.D. Cal.), Order, Aug. 9, 2010, Dkt. No. 25.) During that
7
hearing, it was noted that the reason for Ms. Brewer’s “impacted briefing schedule” might very
8
well be that she is taking on more cases than she can actually handle. Despite Ms. Brewer’s
9
contrition on that occasion, her court appearance, which did not result in the imposition of
10
monetary sanctions, seems to have had no impact on Ms. Brewer’s approach to accepting cases.
11
In Ortiz, the undersigned warned Ms. Brewer at the hearing and in the order discharging the
12
order to show cause that: “her future failures to comply with the court’s orders will result in the
13
imposition of sanctions, monetary or otherwise, and those sanctions will be significant in the first
14
instance.”
15
Ms. Brewer appears to be falling behind in her cases again, having recently filed
16
several requests for extensions, most of which were late-filed. (See, e.g., Pacheco v. Astrue, No.
17
2:10-cv-1733 KJN (E.D. Cal.) (seeking two extensions); Duong v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-00347
18
KJN (E.D. Cal.) (seeking two extensions); Carson v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-0632 KJN (E.D. Cal.)
19
(seeking two extensions); Feltis v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-0723 KJN (E.D. Cal.) (seeking two
20
extensions); Juarez v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-0748 KJN (E.D. Cal.) (seeking two extensions).)
21
Nearly all of these requests were inadequately and inappropriately premised on Ms. Brewer’s
22
“impacted briefing schedule.” At this point, Ms. Brewer has left the undersigned with no options
23
other than to heavily sanction Ms. Brewer, refer her to the California State Bar, or dismiss her
24
clients’ cases; the undersigned would prefer not to force Ms. Brewer’s clients to suffer dismissals
25
for Ms. Brewer’s ongoing failures.
26
////
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
3
The parties’ stipulation (Dkt. No. 16) is approved, and plaintiff shall have
until March 2, 2011, to file a motion for summary judgment or remand.
4
2.
The scheduling order in this case is amended accordingly.
5
3.
On or before February 10, 2012, plaintiff’s counsel, Bess M. Brewer, shall
6
show good cause in writing why she should not be sanctioned in an amount of $2,500, for her
7
ongoing failures to timely prosecute her clients’ cases and follow the court’s local rules and
8
orders.
9
10
11
12
13
14
4.
Ms. Brewer shall appear before the undersigned in regards to this order to
show cause on February 23, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
5.
Neither plaintiff nor defendant’s counsel need appear at the February 23,
2012 show cause hearing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 25, 2012
15
16
17
_____________________________________
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?