Kaszuba v. Kilolo Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: July 21, 2022
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00515
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KRIS K., Case No.: 3:20-cv-00515-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER:

14 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 15 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, and Commissioner of Social Security, 16 (2) ISSUING AMENDED BRIEFING Defendant. 17 SCHEDULE

18 [ECF No. 21] 19 20 21 22 23 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed1 Motion for Continuance. ECF No. 21. 24 Plaintiff seeks to extend upcoming filing deadline for his Opposition to Defendant’s 25 Motion to Remand (ECF No. 19) by ten days. Id. 26 27 28 1 1 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. 2 P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 3 cause, extend the time”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires 4 “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). 5 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 6 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 7 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 8 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 9 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 10 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 11 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). A “party demonstrates good cause by 12 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 13 Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 14 2018). 15 Defendant filed her Motion to Remand on July 8, 2022. ECF No. 19. The same day, 16 the Court issued a briefing schedule, requiring that Plaintiff file his Opposition by July 22 17 and Defendant file her reply by July 29, setting a videoconference hearing for August 5. 18 ECF No. 20. In the instant motion, Plaintiff represents to the Court that he had three 19 medical appointments in the past week, which took up considerable time and limited his 20 ability to prepare his opposition brief. ECF No. 21 at 1. Plaintiff notes that he has diligently 21 searched the internet for analogous cases to inform his opposition brief, to no avail, and 22 plans to visit the law library for help. Id. at 2. Further, Plaintiff represents that he requires 23 the assistance of a caregiver to visit the San Diego Law Library and search its legal 24 databases. Id. Thus, Plaintiff requests a ten-day continuance of his Opposition deadline, as 25 well as the remaining dates set forth in the briefing schedule. 26 Upon due consideration, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 27 motion (ECF No. 21) as follows: 28 / / 1 1. Plaintiff shall file his Opposition no later than August 5, 2022. 2 2. Defendant shall file her Reply no later than August 12, 2022. 3 3. A hearing on the Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 19) will be held 4 on August 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard 5 via videoconference. The Court will provide, via email, a Zoom link to the 6 hearing participants two days before the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 21, 2022 9 AWioevdH. Kovlolard 10 Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28