Jaross v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 05/02/17 ORDERING that the briefing schedule is EXTENDED as follows: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment or Remand due 05/01/17; Defendant's opposition due 05/31/17; any reply by plaintiff is due 06/14/17. (Benson, A)

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.: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail [e-mail]

5
Attorneys for Plaintiff LISA ROSE JAROSS
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LISA ROSE JAROSS,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting
14
Commissioner of Social Security,
15
Defendant
16

) Case No.: 2:16-CV-01861 EFB
)
) STIPULATION TO EXTEND
) BRIEFING SCHEDULE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TO THE HONORABLE EDMUND F. BRENNAN, MAGISTRATE
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT:
Plaintiff Lisa Rose Jaross (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”), through their undersigned
counsel of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to extend
the time for Plaintiff to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Remand
to May 1, 2017; and that Defendant shall have until May 31, 2017, to file her
opposition. Any reply by plaintiff will be due June 14, 2017.

26
27
28

-1-

1

As the Court is aware, Counsel suffered the loss of his spouse. Counsel

2

simply underestimated how profound his wife's long illness and unfortunate death

3

at the young age of 41 would, for lack of better description, break his stride both at

4

home and professionally. Counsel has recognized that the continued routine

5

request for extension is not tenable moving forward and has crafted a plan to

6

alleviate his case load with the assistance of other Attorney’s from his firm. The

7

failure to more timely notify the Court of the need for more time was a result of a

8

miscommunication within Plaintiff’s Counsel’s firm as to the status of the due

9

date.

10

Counsel for plaintiff does not anticipate this extraordinary request for more

11

time to become the rule and recognizes it is the extraordinary exception and

12

sincerely apologizes to the court for any inconvenience this may have had upon it

13

or its staff.

14

DATE: May 1, 2017

15

Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING
/s/ Steven G. Rosales
BY: _________________________
Steven G. Rosales
Attorney for plaintiff

16
17
18
19

DATED: May 1, 2017

PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney

20
21
22
23
24
25

*/S/- Daniel P. Talbert
_________________________________
Daniel P. Talbert
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Attorney for Defendant
[*Via email authorization]

26
27
28

-2-

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may have an extension of time, to

2

and including May 1, 2017, in which to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

3

Judgment or Remand; Defendant may have an extension of time to May 31, 2017

4

to file her opposition, if any is forthcoming. Any reply by plaintiff will be due

5

June 14, 2017.

6
7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: May 2, 2017
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-