Shanahan v. Berryhill, 2:18-cv-00484-EFB. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20180809869
Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 08, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST REQUEST) EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Rita J. Shanahan and Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, through their undersigned attorneys, stipulate, subject to this court's approval, to extend the time by 21 days from August 2, 2018 to August 23, 2018 for Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment, with all other dates in the Court's Order Concerning Review Of Social Se
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST REQUEST) EDMUND F. BRENNAN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Rita J. Shanahan and Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, through their undersigned attorneys, stipulate, subject to this court's approval, to extend the time by 21 days from August 2, 2018 to August 23, 2018 for Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment, with all other dates in the Court's Order Concerning Review Of Social Sec..
More
STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FIRST REQUEST)
EDMUND F. BRENNAN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Rita J. Shanahan and Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, through their undersigned attorneys, stipulate, subject to this court's approval, to extend the time by 21 days from August 2, 2018 to August 23, 2018 for Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment, with all other dates in the Court's Order Concerning Review Of Social Security Cases extended accordingly. This is Plaintiff's first request for an extension. This request is made at the request of Plaintiff's counsel to allow additional time to fully research the issues presented. Counsel was on vacation and failed to flag this matter for an extension before leaving. Counsel is actively acting as lead counsel for an amicus in Biestek v. Berryhill, US SCt. Case no.: 17-1184 (whether the on demand rule for the vocational testimony applies in Social Security hearings).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
