Hurtado v. Colvin
Filing
30
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 29 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER For Second Extension of Time to File Reply Brief filed by Jonathan Hurtado. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on August 3, 2017. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/3/2017)
4
JOANNA PARNES, State Bar No. 278974
BAY AREA LEGAL AID
1735 Telegraph Ave.
Oakland, CA 94612
jparnes@baylegal.org
Phone: (510) 663-4744 x5214
Fax: (510) 663-4740
5
Attorney for Plaintiff
1
2
3
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
11
12
13
14
15
16
CIVIL NO. 3:16-cv-05608-JST
JONATHAN HURTADO,
Plaintiff,
v.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF
Nancy A. Berryhill,
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant
17
18
The parties hereto, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate that Plaintiff,
19
Jonathan Hurtado, shall have an additional seven days, until August 14, 2017, in which to file and
20
serve a reply brief in this action. This is the second stipulation for extended time requested by Plaintiff
21
for this reply brief and is necessary due to scheduled travel and high workload demands.
22
The parties further stipulate that the Court’s Procedural Order for Social Security Review
23
Actions shall be modified accordingly.
24
Dated: August 2, 2017
By:____/s/____________________
25
Joanna Parnes
26
Attorney for Plaintiff
27
28
1
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
-1FILING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF - 3:16-cv-5608
1
2
Dated: August 2, 2017
By: __/s___ (as authorized via email)
3
Jeffrey Chen
4
Special Assistant United States Attorney
5
[PROPOSED] ORDER:
6
PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED
7
Dated: August 3, 2017
8
By:
Hon. Jon S. Tigar
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
-2FILING PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF - 3:16-cv-5608
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?