(SS) Jennings v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration CHANTAL R. JENKINS, PA SBN 307531 Special Assistant United States Attorney 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 977-8931 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 E-Mail: Chantal.Jenkins@ssa.gov Attorneys for Defendant UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION

) 1:20-cv-01180-SKO MARVIN LOUIS JENNINGS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) POST HOC STIPULATION AND ORDER ) FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME v. ) ) (Doc. 16) ) Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) Defendant. ) IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Defendant shall have an extension through June 15, 2021 to respond to Plaintiff’s settlement letter. Defendant’s counsel miscalendared the deadline to respond to Plaintiff’s letter. Counsel apologizes to Plaintiff and the Court for any inconvenience caused by this delay. The parties further stipulate that the Court’s Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly. Respectfully submitted,

Dated: June 16, 2021 /s/ Melissa Newel by Chantal R. Jenkins* *As authorized via email on June 16, 2021 Melissa Newel Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: June 16, 2021 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration

By: /s/ Chantal R. Jenkins Special Assistant United States Attorney

On June 15, 2021, eight days after Defendant’s confidential letter brief was to be served, Defendant filed a proof of service of his confidential letter brief on that same date. (Doc. 15.) The following day, on June 16, 2021, the parties filed the above stipulation (Doc. 16), requesting an extension of time for Defendant to file his confidential letter brief. The Court may extend time to act after the deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, although the stipulation demonstrates good cause under to support the request for extension of time (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), no such excusable neglect has been articulated—much less shown—to justify the untimeliness of the request. Notwithstanding this deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by his agreement to the extension of time after the deadline), and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc requests for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant’s request for an extension of time to June 15, 2021, to serve his confidential letter brief is granted. All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 13) are modified accordingly. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2021 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE