TELETEN v. COLVIN, 2:14-cv-02140-EFB. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20150611975
Visitors: 22
Filed: Jun. 10, 2015
Latest Update: Jun. 10, 2015
Summary: AMENDED JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Nadezhda Teleten (Plaintiff) filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 15) on May 11, 2015. Her motion raised the issue that the Administrative Record did not contain a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on Plaintiff's prior claim for disability benefits; the inclusion of this document is necessary because the ALJ in the current claim for disability
Summary: AMENDED JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Nadezhda Teleten (Plaintiff) filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 15) on May 11, 2015. Her motion raised the issue that the Administrative Record did not contain a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on Plaintiff's prior claim for disability benefits; the inclusion of this document is necessary because the ALJ in the current claim for disability b..
More
AMENDED JOINT STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Nadezhda Teleten (Plaintiff) filed her Motion for Summary Judgment (Dkt. 15) on May 11, 2015. Her motion raised the issue that the Administrative Record did not contain a decision by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) on Plaintiff's prior claim for disability benefits; the inclusion of this document is necessary because the ALJ in the current claim for disability benefits gave the prior decision preclusive effect. Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (Defendant) developed a supplemental record, which is in transit from the east coast and will be filed and served as soon as it arrives at the U.S. Attorney's Office. Defendant apologizes to Plaintiff and the Court for this issue.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties, subject to the Court's approval, that Plaintiff shall have an additional 14 days to file a Supplemental Brief in support of her Motion for Summary Judgment after Defendant files and serves the supplemental record. Plaintiff's Supplemental Brief will pertain only to new issues that arise from the supplemental record. Plaintiff may also amend any argument in her Motion for Summary Judgment arising from the exclusion of the prior ALJ decision from the record. There is good cause for this extension because Defendant needs a brief period to file and serve the supplemental record, and Plaintiff should have an opportunity to respond.
All other deadlines in the Court's Scheduling Order (Dkt. 6) remain the same. Thus, Defendant will respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 30 days after Plaintiff files her Supplemental Brief (Dkt. 6, ¶5), and Plaintiff shall have 21 days to reply (Dkt. 6, ¶6).
ORDER
The requested extension of time for Defendant to file the supplemental record and for Plaintiff to file a Supplemental Brief is granted. Plaintiff shall have 14 days after Defendant files the supplemental record to file a Supplemental Brief. All other deadlines in the Court's October 7, 2014 Scheduling Order remain the same.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
