Ramirez v. Saul, 2:19-cv-00978-GMN-NJK. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20191023d05
Visitors: 9
Filed: Oct. 22, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 22, 2019
Summary: ORDER [Docket No. 22]. NANCY J. KOPPE , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a renewed stipulation to extend the Commissioner's time to file a cross-motion to affirm. Docket No. 22. 1 The Court continues to have serious concerns regarding the staffing and handling of this social security appeal, as identified previously. Docket No. 21. Indeed, it appears once again that this case has been spearheaded until now by a government attorney who is not admitted to practice in this Court
Summary: ORDER [Docket No. 22]. NANCY J. KOPPE , District Judge . Pending before the Court is a renewed stipulation to extend the Commissioner's time to file a cross-motion to affirm. Docket No. 22. 1 The Court continues to have serious concerns regarding the staffing and handling of this social security appeal, as identified previously. Docket No. 21. Indeed, it appears once again that this case has been spearheaded until now by a government attorney who is not admitted to practice in this Court a..
More
ORDER
[Docket No. 22].
NANCY J. KOPPE, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is a renewed stipulation to extend the Commissioner's time to file a cross-motion to affirm. Docket No. 22.1 The Court continues to have serious concerns regarding the staffing and handling of this social security appeal, as identified previously. Docket No. 21. Indeed, it appears once again that this case has been spearheaded until now by a government attorney who is not admitted to practice in this Court and who has inexplicably not sought permission to do so. See Docket No. 22; see also Henderson v. Berryhill, Case No. 2:19-cv-00028-RFB-NJK, Docket No. 19 at 2 n.3 (D. Nev. Apr. 19, 2019). Moreover, no good reason has been advanced for the Commissioner's inability to meet an already-cushioned deadline other than improper staffing. Nonetheless, it is in the interests of justice to allow this case to be decided on its merits. To that end, and as a one-time courtesy to counsel, the Court will grant the instant stipulation. Counsel and the Commissioner should not expect similar courtesies in the future.
Accordingly, the stipulation is GRANTED and the deadline for the Commissioner to file his cross-motion to affirm is EXTENDED to November 14, 2019. NO FURTHER EXTENSIONS WILL BE GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The stipulation was erroneously docketed as a "motion." Moving forward, counsel must ensure that he uses the correct docketing event. See Local Rule IC 2-2(b).
Source: Leagle
