Mills v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/12/13 DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO REFILING 14 Stipulation and Proposed Order filed by Anthony J Mills. (Meuleman, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY J. MILLS, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-0899-KJN v. ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. 16 Plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order For Extension Of Time To File Motion on 17 18 November 6, 2013.1 (ECF No. 14.) However, plaintiff’s filing states only that he need 19 “additional time to fully research the issues presented.” (ECF No. 14 at 2.) This is not a valid 20 basis upon which to request an extension. Disconcertingly, it appears that plaintiff’s counsel 21 waited until after a deadline before asking the court to extend that same deadline. E.D. Cal. L.R. 22 144(d) (“Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel 23 or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent. Requests for Court 24 approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are 25 looked upon with disfavor.”). Here, the administrative record was electronically filed on 26 September 4, 2013 (see E.D. Cal. L.R. 135), such that plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment 27 28 1 This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(15). 1 1 should have been filed on October 19, 2013. (See ECF Nos. 13 (Notice of Lodging Social 2 Security Administrative Transcript; 7 at 2 (Scheduling Order providing that plaintiff’s summary 3 judgment briefing is to be filed 45 days after plaintiff is served with a copy of the administrative 4 record).) Yet the stipulation requesting an extension of time was not filed until November 6, 5 2013. Further, the events giving rise to the requested extension appear primarily workload- 6 related, such as the vague need to “fully research” issues. These workload-related hurdles were 7 presumably apparent to counsel before the filing deadline, and plaintiff’s counsel offers no 8 explanation regarding the delay in seeking the court’s approval of the extension. 9 Accordingly, the undersigned denies the stipulation without prejudice to refiling, and any 10 such refiling should include a full explanation of the basis for the requested extension and the 11 reason for the apparent delay in seeking it. 12 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 Plaintiff’s Stipulation For Extension Of Time To File Motion (ECF No. 14) is denied 14 15 16 without prejudice to refiling. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 12, 2013 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?