Walsh v. Colvin
Filing
30
STIPULATION AND ORDER re 28 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to extend briefing schedule filed by Michael P Walsh, Carolyn W. Colvin. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore on 9/20/16. (sisS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2016)
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.rosales@rohlfinglaw.com
5
Attorneys for Plaintiff MICHAEL P. WALSH
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
MICHAEL P. WALSH,
11
Plaintiff,
12
vs.
13
CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting
14
Commissioner of Social Security,
15
Defendant
16
) Case No.: CV 15-02737 KAW
)
) STIPULATION TO EXTEND
) BRIEFING SCHEDULE
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO THE HONORABLE KANDIS A. WESTMORE, MAGISTRATE
JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT:
Plaintiff Michael P. Walsh (“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 extend
the time for Plaintiff to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment or Remand
to September 14, 2016; and that Defendant shall have until October 17, 2016, to
file her opposition, if any is forthcoming. Any reply by plaintiff will be due
October 21, 2016.
-1-
1
A final extension of time for plaintiff is needed in order to properly address
2
the issues within the administrative record in this matter as well as the demands
3
arising from complications related to Counsel Spouse’s terminal illness which has
4
unexpectedly worsened in the last few weeks. Subsequent to a surgical procedure
5
on July 6, 2016 to remove tumors in the spine/hip as a result of stage 4 breast
6
cancer, Counsel’s spouse was not discharged until July 9, 2016 and then Counsel’s
7
spouse was re-admitted to the hospital for 5 days on July 15, 2016 due to
8
complications arising from the July 6th surgery. Counsel’s spouse was also
9
admitted on August 1, 2016 and then discharged on August 5, 2016, to provide
10
treatment for intractable pain related to the terminal illness. Upon discharge from
11
the hospital Counsel’s spouse required less minimal assistance in the home due to
12
ambulatory issues that were anticipated to grow worse. Unfortunately, due to a
13
deterioration in her condition in the last few weeks, Counsel‘s spouse now requires
14
in home medical assistance 15 hours a day. Counsel required the time to deal with
15
this change in condition and has taken steps to secure the at home care which his
16
spouse now requires in order to better allow him to attend to his professional
17
obligations.
18
///
19
///
20
///
21
///
22
///
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
///
27
28
-2-
1
2
Counsel sincerely apologizes to the court for any inconvenience this may
have had upon it or its staff.
3
4
5
DATE: September 12, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING
6
/s/ Steven G. Rosales
BY: _________________________
Steven G. Rosales
Attorney for plaintiff
7
8
9
10
DATED: September12, 2016
BRIAN J. STRETCH
United States Attorney
11
12
13
14
15
16
*/S/- Henry Chi
_________________________________
Henry Chi
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Attorney for Defendant
[*Via email authorization]
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-
1
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff may have an extension of time, to
2
and including September 14, 2016, in which to file Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary
3
Judgment or Remand; Defendant may have an extension of time to October 17,
4
2016 to file her opposition, if any is forthcoming. Any reply by plaintiff will be
5
due October 21, 2016.
6
7
8
9
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE:
9/20/16
_______________________________________
THE HONORABLE KANDIS A. WESTMORE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
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?