Anita Cervantez v. Commissioner of Social Security
This text of Anita Cervantez v. Commissioner of Social Security (Anita Cervantez v. Commissioner of Social Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ANITA CERVANTEZ, No. 1:25-CV-00790 (EPG) 11 Plaintiff,
12 v. STIPULATION FOR BRIEFING EXTENSION; ORDER 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 14 Defendant. 15
18 19 20 On June 30, 2025, Plaintiff Anita Cervantez filed the instant civil action for judicial 21 review of the defendant Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying her application for 22 Social Security disability benefits. (ECF Doc. 1). Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s Complaint 23 on August 28, 2025. (ECF Doc. 10. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is currently due to 24 be filed on or before September 29, 2025. (ECF Doc. 5, p.2:15-16) 25 Pursuant to this Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff seeks an extension of thirty-five (35) 26 days to file her motion. (Id. at p. 3:20-21). This is Plaintiff’s first request for an extension of time. 27 Plaintiff’s counsel seeks the extension due to a recent unexpected surgical procedure which 28 required time away from the office thereby altering and now causing conflicting briefing 2 deadlines in other matters before the Court. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel was not involved at 3 the administrative level and a close review of the administrative record concerning Plaintiff’s 4 medical issues and vocational background is necessary and required. See, Costa v. Comm’r. of 5 Soc. Sec. Admin., 690 F.3d 1132, 1134 at n.1 (9th Cir. 2021) [noting “social security disability 6 cases are often highly fact-intensive and require careful review of the administrative record, 7 including complex medical evidence.”]. Defendant has no objection to the requested extension. 8 9 10
11 Respectfully submitted, 12 Dated: September 15, 2025 NEWEL LAW 13 By: Melissa Newel 14 Melissa Newel Attorney for Plaintiff 15 ANITA CERVANTEZ
16 Dated: September 15, 2025 ERIC GRANT 17 United States Attorney 18 MATHEW W. PILE Associate General Counsel 19 Office of Program Litigation, Office 7
20 By: Oscar Gonzalez de Llano* 21 OSCAR GONZALEZ DE LLANO Special Assistant United States Attorney 22 Attorney for Defendant
28 1
2 ORDER ° Based on the parties’ stipulation for a briefing extension, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff ‘ shall be granted an extension of time of thirty-five (35) days to file her Opening Brief. The Opening Brief shall be filed on or before November 3, 2025, and all deadlines are modified 6 accordingly. 7 g | IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _ September 16, 2025 [Jo ey — 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Anita Cervantez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anita-cervantez-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2025.