Williams v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Filing 20

ORDER Granting 19 Motion to Extend Time to Respond re 15 Motion to Remand to Agency. Responses due by 10/18/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 9/22/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 STEVEN W. MYHRE Acting United States Attorney Nevada State Bar No. 9635 ASIM H. MODI Special Assistant United States Attorney 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 977-8952 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 E-Mail: Asim.Modi@ssa.gov Attorneys for Defendant 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 ROBYN ANN WILLIAMS, 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. 15 16 17 NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2:17-cv-1036-JAD-VCF UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (SECOND REQUEST) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Defendant Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) respectfully requests that the Court extend the time for Defendant to file her Cross-Motion to Affirm and Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Reversal, due on September 18, 2017, by 30 days, through and including October 18, 2017. This request is made in good faith with no intention to unduly delay the proceedings. An extension of time is needed because this case was recently reassigned to the undersigned agency counsel, whose existing work commitments preclude him from adequately researching the 26 -1- 1 factual and legal issues in the instant case prior to September 18, 2017. In particular, on September 11 2 and 12, 2017, the undersigned agency counsel participated in last-minute, work-related travel to present 3 oral arguments in a case before the Central District of California and conduct a training presentation for 4 the agency’s Downtown Los Angeles Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. Moreover, the 5 undersigned agency counsel is currently responsible for performing a range of tasks concurrent with 6 drafting the Commissioner’s brief in the instant case, including: drafting briefs and summary judgment 7 motions and negotiating (or litigating) attorney fees in cases before federal district courts; drafting the 8 Commissioner’s answering brief in a Social Security case before the Ninth Circuit; preparing for a 9 hearing in personnel-related litigation pending before the Merit Systems Protection Board; overseeing 10 ongoing discovery in personnel-related litigation before the Equal Employment Opportunity 11 Commission; assisting with nationally implementing the terms of a class action settlement where the 12 agency was a party; and preparing training materials and conducting presentations for the agency’s 13 Office of Disability Adjudication and Review. 14 15 16 Counsel for Defendant conferred with Plaintiff’s counsel, Cyrus Safa by email on September 14, 2017, who has no opposition to this motion. Respectfully submitted this 14th day of September 2017. 17 STEVEN W. MYHRE Acting United States Attorney 18 19 /s/ Asim H. Modi ASIM H. MODI Special Assistant United States Attorney 20 21 22 OF COUNSEL: 23 DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 24 25 26 -2- 1 IT IS SO ORDERED: 2 3 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE September 22, 2017 DATED: 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -3- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Asim H. Modi, certify that the following individuals were served with the foregoing UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION (SECOND REQUEST) on the date and via the method of service identified below: CM/ECF: Gerald M. Welt Gerald M. Welt, Chtd. 732 S. Sixth Street, Suite 200-D Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 gmwesq@weltlaw.com Cyrus Safa, Esq. Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing 12631 E. Imperial Highway, Suite C-115 Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670 cyrus.safa@rohlfinglaw.com 12 13 Dated this 14th day of September 2017. 14 15 16 //s// Asim H, Modi ASIM H. MODI Special Assistant United States Attorney 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 -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?