Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Simon v. Colvin, 1:15-cv-01239-EPG. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20161202786 Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 30, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE HER RESPONSIVE BRIEF ERICA P. GROSJEAN , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, and with the approval of the Court, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of 14 days from today to file her responsive brief or a voluntary remand stipulation. Defendant respectfully requests this additional time to consult with the client and potentially obtain authority for a v
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE HER RESPONSIVE BRIEF

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties, through their undersigned attorneys, and with the approval of the Court, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of 14 days from today to file her responsive brief or a voluntary remand stipulation. Defendant respectfully requests this additional time to consult with the client and potentially obtain authority for a voluntary remand in lieu of further litigation.

The new due date for Defendant's responsive brief or any remand stipulation will be Tuesday, December 13, 2016.

ORDER

Based on the above stipulation, the Court GRANTS Defendant an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff's Opening Brief. Defendant's Opposition Brief shall be filed no later than December 13, 2016. Any reply by Plaintiff may be filed no later than December 28, 2016.

The Court has further reviewed Defendant's response to its Order to Show Cause. (ECF No. 24.) While the Court understands that counsel may be responsible for a large number of cases, the management of deadlines within those cases is counsel's responsibility. The Court is willing to grant requests for extension of time liberally, but a complete failure to comply with a deadline, particularly a deadline that defense counsel himself requested (see ECF No. 21), falls well below the standard of practice expected. Nonetheless, the Court will take counsel at his word that he is taking measures to ensure that this does not occur again and DISCHARGES the Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 23).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer