Mills v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/25/13 ORDERING that because defendant stipulated (ECF No. 14) to plaintiffs late-requested extension and thus to the late filing of the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16), and given the representations made within plaintiff' counsel's filing at ECF No. 17, the undersigned deems plaintiff's late motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) as timely filed. (Kastilahn, 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,

16

Defendant.

17
Plaintiff filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order For Extension Of Time To File Motion on

18
19

November 6, 2013.1 (ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff’s filing stated only that he needed “additional time

20

to fully research the issues presented,” which was not a valid basis upon which to request an

21

extension, and moreover, it appeared that plaintiff’s counsel waited until November 6, 2013 —

22

weeks after the deadline of October 19, 2013 — before asking the court to extend the deadline at

23

issue. E.D. Cal. L.R. 144(d) (“Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court

24

or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes

25

apparent. Requests for Court approved extensions brought on the required filing date for the

26

pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.”). Accordingly, on November 13,

27
28

1

This case was referred to the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule
302(c)(15).
1

1

2013, the undersigned denied the stipulation without prejudice to refiling, and required plaintiff’s

2

counsel to further explain the basis of the requested extension and the reason for his delay in

3

requesting it. (ECF No. 15.)

4

On November 13, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel filed the motion for summary judgment. (ECF

5

No. 16.) The next day, on November 14, 2013, plaintiff’s counsel filed a “Response” to the

6

undersigned’s order of November 13, 2013. (ECF No. 17.) In his Response, counsel admitted

7

that “The Court is correct to note Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment should have been

8

filed on or before October 19, 2013.” (Id. at 2.) Counsel explained that a “calendaring mistake”

9

caused him to miss the filing deadline, and that he “takes full responsibility for the error and

10

respectfully requests [that] this Court find [that the] Motion for Summary Judgment [was] timely

11

filed.” (Id.)

12

The undersigned is troubled by the weeks-long delay in filing plaintiff’s motion, even

13

accepting that a “calendaring mistake” was made. Given that defendant has stipulated (ECF No.

14

14) to the late-requested extension and thus to the late filing of the motion, however, the

15

undersigned deems the motion timely.

16

It is HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

17

Because defendant stipulated (ECF No. 14) to plaintiff’s late-requested extension and thus

18

to the late filing of the motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16), and given the

19

representations made within plaintiff’s counsel’s filing at ECF No. 17, the undersigned deems

20

plaintiff’s late motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 16) as timely filed.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2013

23
24
25
26
27
28
2