Langston v. Berryhill, 2:18-cv-00658-DMC. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190207890
Visitors: 17
Filed: Feb. 06, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2019
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the parties, through their respective counsel of record that the time for responding to Plaintiff's Motion Summary Judgment be extended from February 4, 2019 to March 4, 2019. This is Defendant's first request for extension. Good cause exists to grant Defendant's request for extension. Counsel has over 80+ active social security matters, which require two or more dispositive
Summary: JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME DENNIS M. COTA , Magistrate Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the parties, through their respective counsel of record that the time for responding to Plaintiff's Motion Summary Judgment be extended from February 4, 2019 to March 4, 2019. This is Defendant's first request for extension. Good cause exists to grant Defendant's request for extension. Counsel has over 80+ active social security matters, which require two or more dispositive ..
More
JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
DENNIS M. COTA, Magistrate Judge.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by the parties, through their respective counsel of record that the time for responding to Plaintiff's Motion Summary Judgment be extended from February 4, 2019 to March 4, 2019. This is Defendant's first request for extension. Good cause exists to grant Defendant's request for extension. Counsel has over 80+ active social security matters, which require two or more dispositive motions per week until mid-March. Due to the government shutdown, Counsel has multiple scheduling conflicts in a variety of her cases, including multiple dates on the same deadline. For example, Counsel currently has four dispositive motions due on the same date as the current filing JS and PO for Extension of Time, Case No. 2:18-cv-00658-DMC 1 deadline. Due to heavy caseload and unexpected scheduling conflicts, Counsel needs additional time to adequately review the transcript and properly respond to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The parties further stipulate that the Court's Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly. Defendant makes this request in good faith with no intention to unduly delay the proceedings. Counsel apologizes for the belated request, but made her request as soon as reasonably practicable. Respectfully submitted,
ORDER
APPROVED AND SO ORDERED:
Source: Leagle
