Ceasario v. Berryhill, 2:18-cv-00336-JAD-CWH. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20190107905
Visitors: 7
Filed: Jan. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2019
Summary: UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (THIRD REQUEST) CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") respectfully requests for the second time that the Court extend the time for Defendant to file her Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, due on January 3, 2019, by 14 days, through and including January 17, 2019. An extension of time is needed in order to prepare Defendant's brief because the a
Summary: UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (THIRD REQUEST) CARL W. HOFFMAN , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") respectfully requests for the second time that the Court extend the time for Defendant to file her Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, due on January 3, 2019, by 14 days, through and including January 17, 2019. An extension of time is needed in order to prepare Defendant's brief because the at..
More
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME (THIRD REQUEST)
CARL W. HOFFMAN, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Nancy Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security ("Defendant") respectfully requests for the second time that the Court extend the time for Defendant to file her Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Memorandum in Support, due on January 3, 2019, by 14 days, through and including January 17, 2019.
An extension of time is needed in order to prepare Defendant's brief because the attorney responsible for drafting the brief is required to go through in-house reviews for newer attorneys and the attorney responsible for reviewing the brief is out on unexpected medical leave. This request is made in good faith with no intention to unduly delay the proceedings.
Counsel for Defendant conferred with Plaintiff's counsel's office on January 3, 2019. Plaintiff's counsel does not oppose this motion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
