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)
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?