(SS) Ducey Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Ducey Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 16, 2020·No. 1:19-cv-00792·Unknown

Opinion

By: Sharon E. Kelly 2 State Bar No. 187936 P.O. Box 0142 3 Modesto, CA 95353 Phone (209) 521-2552 4 Fax: (209) 526-7898

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7 10 ) 11 SCOTT DUCEY, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00792-BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) AMENDED STIPULATION AND ) ORDER TO EXTEND TIME 13 vs. ) ) ) 15 Defendant ) 16 17 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, subject to the approval of the 18 Court, to extend the time for plaintiff to serve plaintiff’s letter brief to February 15, 2020. 19 The parties further stipulate that the Court’s Scheduling Order shall be modified 20 accordingly. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 1 The administrative transcript was filed on October 15, 2019. Plaintiff counsel’s office 2 inadvertently missed the email and did not calendar the date for service of the letter brief. This 3 error was discovered on January 15, 2020. Plaintiff counsel apologizes for the delay and 4 inconvenience to the court caused by this error.

5 Therefore, plaintiff counsel requests additional time to review the file and prepare the 6 letter brief. Per Defendant counsel’s email on January 15, 2020, defendant has no objection. 7 Dated: January 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

8 By: /s/ Sharon E. Kelly SHARON E. KELLY 9 Attorney for Plaintiff

10 Dated: January 15, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 12 Social Security Administration

13 By: /s/ Asim Modi (As authorized via email) Special Assistant United States Attorney 15 Attorney for Defendant

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDER 1 The Scheduling Order may be modified only for good cause and with the Court’s 2 consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). A calendaring error is generally not considered good cause. 3 See Sprague v. Fin. Credit Network, Inc., 2018 WL 4616688, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018). 4 Moreover, requests for Court-approved extensions brought on or after the applicable deadline are 5 looked upon with disfavor. Local Rule 144(d). Nonetheless, based upon the parties’ consent to 6 extension, and in the interest of justice, the Court finds that a limited continuance as requested is 7 warranted and no prejudice will result. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a 9 letter brief is extended to February 15, 2020. All other dates in the Court’s Scheduling Order are 10 extended accordingly.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By: Sharon E. Kelly 2 State Bar No. 187936 P.O. Box 0142 3 Modesto, CA 95353 Phone (209) 521-2552 4 Fax: (209) 526-7898

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff

7 10 ) 11 SCOTT DUCEY, ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-00792-BAM ) 12 Plaintiff, ) AMENDED STIPULATION AND ) ORDER TO EXTEND TIME 13 vs. ) ) ) 15 Defendant ) 16 17 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, subject to the approval of the 18 Court, to extend the time for plaintiff to serve plaintiff’s letter brief to February 15, 2020. 19 The parties further stipulate that the Court’s Scheduling Order shall be modified 20 accordingly. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 1 The administrative transcript was filed on October 15, 2019. Plaintiff counsel’s office 2 inadvertently missed the email and did not calendar the date for service of the letter brief. This 3 error was discovered on January 15, 2020. Plaintiff counsel apologizes for the delay and 4 inconvenience to the court caused by this error.

5 Therefore, plaintiff counsel requests additional time to review the file and prepare the 6 letter brief. Per Defendant counsel’s email on January 15, 2020, defendant has no objection. 7 Dated: January 15, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

8 By: /s/ Sharon E. Kelly SHARON E. KELLY 9 Attorney for Plaintiff

10 Dated: January 15, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 12 Social Security Administration

13 By: /s/ Asim Modi (As authorized via email) Special Assistant United States Attorney 15 Attorney for Defendant

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ORDER 1 The Scheduling Order may be modified only for good cause and with the Court’s 2 consent. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). A calendaring error is generally not considered good cause. 3 See Sprague v. Fin. Credit Network, Inc., 2018 WL 4616688, at *3-4 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 25, 2018). 4 Moreover, requests for Court-approved extensions brought on or after the applicable deadline are 5 looked upon with disfavor. Local Rule 144(d). Nonetheless, based upon the parties’ consent to 6 extension, and in the interest of justice, the Court finds that a limited continuance as requested is 7 warranted and no prejudice will result. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that that the deadline for Plaintiff to file a 9 letter brief is extended to February 15, 2020. All other dates in the Court’s Scheduling Order are 10 extended accordingly.

11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: January 16, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

(SS) Ducey Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

(SS) Ducey Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Ducey Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.