Lee v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 19

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/10/2015 ORDERING 17 that plaintiff may have an extension of time, to and including 2/9/2015 in which to file a motion for summary judgment or remand; Opposition to motion due by 3/11/2015, and any Replies due by 3/26/2015. (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 Steven G. Rosales Attorney at Law: 222224 Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing 12631 East Imperial Highway, Suite C-115 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 Tel.: (562)868-5886 Fax: (562)868-5491 E-mail _steven_rohlfing.office@speakeasy.net 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHELLE LEE 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MICHELLE LEE, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting 14 Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant 16 ) Case No.: 2:14-CV-01270-EFB ) ) STIPULATION AND ORDER TO ) MODIFY BRIEFING SCHEDULE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TO THE HONORABLE EDMUND F. BRENNAN, MAGISTRATE JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT: Plaintiff Michelle Lee (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”), through their undersigned counsel of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to modify the time for Plaintiff to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Remand to February 9, 2015; and that Defendant shall have until March 11, 2015, to file his opposition. Any reply by plaintiff will continue to be due March 26, 2015. 26 -1- 1 A modification of the prior agreed upon schedule is needed because 2 Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Spouse is receiving treatment for her Stage IV breast cancer 3 which metastasized initially to her liver and progressed to her lungs, throat, and 4 spine. Despite chemotherapy treatment, Counsel was recently informed that his 5 spouse’s cancer has continued to progress with spinal tumor expanding into the 6 spinal canal and unequivocal progress of multiple tumors resulting in a massively 7 enlarged liver. In addition, on January 10, 2015, complications arising from this 8 disease process resulted in Counsel’s spouse’s hospitalization. Despite attempts to 9 slow the progression of the Cancer with at least 8 separate lines of chemotherapy 10 treatment Counsel’s spouses’ cancer has unequivocally progressed to the point 11 where her physicians have stated on January 13, 2015 that they “would be very 12 surprised to still be treating her one year from now” without some significant 13 response to treatment that has yet to occur. 14 Counsel notes that the modified briefing schedule continues to require any 15 reply brief to be filed by the same March 26, 2015 date as previously set by this 16 Court. Consequently, the modification results in a reduction of time for Counsel to 17 prepare any reply and does not extend the time for this matter to be submitted to the 18 Court for decision. Counsel sincerely apologizes to the court for any 19 inconvenience this may have had upon it or its staff. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// -2- 1 DATE: February 9, 2015 Respectfully submitted, LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING 2 /s/ Steven G. Rosales BY: _________________________ Steven G. Rosales Attorney for plaintiff MICHELLE LEE 3 4 5 6 DATED: February 9, 2015 BENJAMIN WAGNER United States Attorney 7 8 */S/- Michael Marriott 9 _________________________________ Michael Marriott Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorney for Defendant [*Via email authorization] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may have an extension of time, to and including February 9, 2015, in which to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Remand; Defendant may have an extension of time to March 11, 2015 to file his opposition, if any is forthcoming. Any reply by plaintiff will be due March 26, 2015. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 10, 2015. 21 22 23 24 25 26 -3-

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?