Martindale v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 14

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/22/2014 GRANTING 13 Stipulation for an extension of time; Defendant's shall have up to and including 5/21/2014 to respond to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
DONNA L. CALVERT
Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
CAROLYN B. CHEN, CSBN 256628
Special Assistant United States Attorney
160 Spear Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17

RICHELLE MARTINDALE,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

18

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

Case No.: 2:13-cv-01743-CKD
STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME OF 30 DAYS FOR DEFENDANT’S
CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

19

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

20

counsel of record, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of an additional 30 days to

21

respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This is the first continuance sought by

22

Defendant. The current due date is April 21, 2014. The new due date will be May 21, 2014.

23

There is good cause for this request. In approximately the last month, Defendant’s

24

counsel was assigned two new assignments in other jurisdictions that involved a shorter

25

turnaround time. One of the assignments was an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

26

matter that required action related to discovery. Another was a reassigned Merit Systems

27

Protection Board case requiring an Agency response to a petition for review, for which the

28

original assigned attorneys were unavailable due to pre-approved leave for personal family

Stipulation for an Extension of Time; 2:13-cv-01743-CKD

1

1

reasons and workload issues. Although Defendant’s counsel made a good faith request to the

2

Board for an extension to May (to fully familiarize herself with the extensive record and prepare

3

the response), the Board only partially granted her request and allowed a limited extension to

4

April, the same time this district court case brief is due. In addition, Defendant’s counsel has a

5

pending Ninth Circuit case responsive brief due in the next month, along with a regular full

6

workload of at least 8 other district court briefs. Thus, Defendant’s counsel is requesting

7

additional time up to and including May 21, 2014 to fully review the administrative record and

8

research the issues presented by Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

9
10

The parties further stipulate that the Court's Scheduling Order shall be modified
accordingly.

11

Respectfully submitted,

12
13

Date: April 17, 2014

LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING
s/ Vijay J. Patel by C.Chen*
(As authorized by email on 4/17/2014)
VIJAY J. PATEL
AttorneyS for Plaintiff

14
15
16
17

Date: April 17, 2014

18

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney

20

By s/ Carolyn B. Chen
CAROLYN B. CHEN
Special Assistant U. S. Attorney

21

Attorneys for Defendant

19

22

23
24
25

ORDER
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:

26
27

Dated: April 22, 2014

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

Stipulation for an Extension of Time; 2:13-cv-01743-CKD

2