Haun v. Commissioner of Social Security
Filing
11
STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/4/2017 ORDERING that defendant shall respond to the complaint and serve a certified copy of the transcript of the administrative record on or before 2/2/2017. Plaintiff shall serve new evidence and/or a confidential settlement letter to Defendant on or before 3/6/2017. Defendant shall serve her response to Plaintiff's confidential settlement letter on or before 4/5/2017. In the event the parties do not agree to remand, Plaintiff shall file her motion for summary judgment on or before 5/10/2017. Defendant shall file her response to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on or before 6/9/2017. Plaintiff shall file any reply on or before 6/29/2017. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney
DEBORAH LEE STACHEL
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration
SHARON LAHEY
California State Bar No. 263027
Special Assistant United States Attorney
6
7
8
9
10
160 Spear Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: (415) 977-8963
Facsimile: (415) 744-0134
E-Mail: Sharon.Lahey@ssa.com
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
11
12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
15
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
16
LISA A. HAUN,
17
Plaintiff,
18
vs.
19
20
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner
Of Social Security,
CIVIL NO. 2:16-cv-02190-AC
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED
ORDER FOR DEFENDANT’S FIRST
EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND
TO COMPLAINT AND SERVE A
CERTIFIED COPY OF THE
TRANSCRIPT OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
21
Defendant.
22
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between Lisa A. Haun (Plaintiff) and Carolyn W.
23
Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Defendant or the Commissioner), by and through
24
their respective counsel of record, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of 30 days to respond
25
to the complaint filed in the above-captioned matter (Docket Number 1) and serve a certified copy of
26
the transcript of the administrative record pursuant to the Court’s September 19, 2016 Procedural Order
27
for Social Security Review Actions (the “scheduling order”) (Docket Number 5). The current deadline
28
is January 3, 2017, and the new deadline will be February 2, 2017. This is the first extension of time
STIPULATION & PROPOSED ORDER
1
(CIVIL NO.. 2:16-cv-02190-AC)
1
requested in the above-captioned matter. Defendant requests this additional time due to an inter-agency
2
delay in finalizing the certified administrative record for service. The parties further agree that the
3
scheduling order be modified accordingly.
4
Respectfully submitted,
5
Dated: December 29, 2016
LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING
6
By: /s/ Cyrus Safa*
CYRUS SAFA
(*As authorized by email on December 29, 2016)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
7
8
9
10
Dated: December 29, 2016
PHILLIP A. TALBERT
United States Attorney
11
By: /s/ Sharon Lahey
SHARON LAHEY
Special Assistant U. S. Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant
12
13
14
ORDER
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Good cause appearing, pursuant to stipulation, IT IS SO ORDERED. Defendant shall respond to
the Complaint For Review of the Final Decision of the Social Security and serve a certified copy of the
transcript of the administrative record on or before February 2, 2017. Plaintiff shall serve new evidence
and/or a confidential settlement letter to Defendant on or before March 6, 2017. Defendant shall serve
her response to Plaintiff’s confidential settlement letter on or before April 5, 2017. In the event the
parties do not agree to remand, Plaintiff shall file her motion for summary judgment on or before May
10, 2017. Defendant shall file her response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on or before
June 9, 2017. Plaintiff shall file any reply on or before June 29, 2017.
DATED: January 4, 2017
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION & PROPOSED ORDER
2
(CIVIL NO.. 2:16-cv-02190-AC)
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?