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)

Download PDF
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: (415) 977-8956 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 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

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?