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)
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?