Garza v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 25

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/21/18: Defendant shall have an extension of time of an additional 14 days to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. The new due date shall be March 7, 2018.(Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
DEBORAH LEE STACHEL
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: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-Mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendant

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

12
13

CARLOS GARZA,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16

vs.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

17

Defendant.

18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:17-cv-01076-EFB
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME OF 14
DAYS FOR DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT AND 35 DAYS FOR
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY

19
20

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective

21

counsel of record, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of an additional 14 days to

22

respond to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. This is the fourth continuance sought by

23

Defendant. The current due date is February 21, 2018. The new due date will be March 7, 2018.

24

The parties also stipulate that Plaintiff will still have an extension of time of 35 days for his

25

reply.

26

There is good cause for this request. Since the Court’s previous extension of time, the

27

government experienced brief shutdowns, and Defendant’s counsel had been diligently

28

addressing her full workload including other district court cases and an employment case with a

1

1

voluminous record involving briefing. Moreover, since the last extension of time, the parties

2

engaged in settlement negotiations. However, the parties did not reach an agreement and have

3

decided to continue to pursue litigation of this case.

4

Therefore, Defendant is respectfully requesting additional time up to and including

5

March 7, 2018, to provide a response to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this case.

6

The parties further stipulate that Plaintiff will have 35 days until May 2, 2018 to provide his

7

reply to Defendant’s response since Plaintiff’s counsel will be out of the country from February

8

to April.

9

This request is made in good faith with no intention to unduly delay the proceedings.

10
11
12

Respectfully submitted,
Date: February 16, 2018

BARBARA M. RIZZO, ATTORNEY AT LAW

13
s/ Barbara M. Rizzo by C.Chen*
(As authorized by email on 2/16/2018)
BARBARA M. RIZZO
Attorneys for Plaintiff

14
15
16
17

Date: February 16, 2018

18

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
By s/ Carolyn B. Chen
CAROLYN B. CHEN
Special Assistant U. S. Attorney

19
20

Attorneys for Defendant

21
22
23
24

ORDER
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED.

25
26
27

DATED: February 21, 2018

_________________________________
HON. EDMUND F. BRENNAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

2