Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Chavez v. Berryhill, 1:16-cv-01251-BAM. (2017)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20170606913 Visitors: 7
Filed: Jun. 05, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 05, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE HER RESPONSIVE BRIEF BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment and/or to file any cross-motion thereto be extended by sixty (60) days. Plaintiff filed her brief on May 10, 2017 after one extension. There is good cause for this extension becau
More

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

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the deadline for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment and/or to file any cross-motion thereto be extended by sixty (60) days. Plaintiff filed her brief on May 10, 2017 after one extension.

There is good cause for this extension because Defendant needs additional time to draft and file her brief due to the heavy workload of Defendant's attorney assigned to this case. Defendant's attorney currently has 33 pending District Court cases that are in various stages of litigation, eight of which require imminent briefing, and additionally handles employment and privacy matters for the agency.

The current due date for Defendant's motion is June 9, 2017. With the Court's approval, the new due date would be August 7, 2017. The parties further stipulate that the Court's Scheduling Order, dated August 30, 2016, shall be modified accordingly.

ORDER

Pursuant to the Parties' Stipulation for an Extension of Time, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that that Defendant shall have a 60-day extension, or until August 7, 2017, to submit her response to Plaintiff's Opening Brief. (Doc. 17). All other dates in the Scheduling Order shall be extended accordingly. This is the first extension of time requested by Defendant. However, given the lengthy extension, Defendant is warned that any further request for an extension will be denied absent a showing of good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Nancy A. Berryhill is now the Acting Commissioner of Social Security. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Nancy A. Berryhill should be substituted for Acting Commissioner Carolyn W. Colvin as the defendant in this suit. No further action needs to be taken to continue this suit by reason of the last sentence of section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
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