(SS) Trujillo v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Trujillo v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJanuary 4, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-00273

StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) Trujillo v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Trujillo 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.

Bluebook

(SS) Trujillo v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 DARLENE ALICE TRUJILLO, CASE NO: 1:21-cv-00273-NONE-GSA 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT v. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR EXTENSION KILOLO KIJAKAZI, acting 10 Commissioner of Social Security, (Doc. 18) 11 Defendant. 12

13 14 Plaintiff moves for a 30-day extension of time from January 3, 2022 to February 2, 2022 to 15 file an opening brief due to counsel’s workload given the increased number of Certified 16 Administrative Records filed in previously stayed cases. This is Plaintiff’s first motion for an 17 extension for cause. 18 The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the 19 parties. Doc. 5 at 3. Beyond the single extension by stipulation, “requests to modify [the 20 scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” Id. 21 When considering whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, courts consider 22 the foreseeability of the impediment to meeting the deadline and the party’s diligence in seeking 23 the extension once it became apparent they could not meet the deadline. See Sharp v. Covenant 24 Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Ordaz Gonzalez v. Cty. of Fresno, No. 1:18-CV- 25 01558-BAM, 2020 WL 2539287, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2020). The Court has the inherent 26 power to manage its own docket to achieve an orderly and expeditious resolution of cases. Southern 27 California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 Plaintiff’s counsel indicated he contacted defense counsel for concurrence but did not 1 receive a response. The Court hesitates to act on the motion without an indication whether the 2 motion is opposed. 3 Accordingly, Defendant is DIRECTED to respond to the motion within 5 days of the entry 4 of this order. Alternatively, if Plaintiff has now received a response, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to 5 file an amended motion within 5 days of the entry of this order indicating whether it is opposed. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 Dated: January 3, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10

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

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 6 DARLENE ALICE TRUJILLO, CASE NO: 1:21-cv-00273-NONE-GSA 7 Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT v. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR EXTENSION KILOLO KIJAKAZI, acting 10 Commissioner of Social Security, (Doc. 18) 11 Defendant. 12

13 14 Plaintiff moves for a 30-day extension of time from January 3, 2022 to February 2, 2022 to 15 file an opening brief due to counsel’s workload given the increased number of Certified 16 Administrative Records filed in previously stayed cases. This is Plaintiff’s first motion for an 17 extension for cause. 18 The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the 19 parties. Doc. 5 at 3. Beyond the single extension by stipulation, “requests to modify [the 20 scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” Id. 21 When considering whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, courts consider 22 the foreseeability of the impediment to meeting the deadline and the party’s diligence in seeking 23 the extension once it became apparent they could not meet the deadline. See Sharp v. Covenant 24 Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Ordaz Gonzalez v. Cty. of Fresno, No. 1:18-CV- 25 01558-BAM, 2020 WL 2539287, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2020). The Court has the inherent 26 power to manage its own docket to achieve an orderly and expeditious resolution of cases. Southern 27 California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002). 28 Plaintiff’s counsel indicated he contacted defense counsel for concurrence but did not 1 receive a response. The Court hesitates to act on the motion without an indication whether the 2 motion is opposed. 3 Accordingly, Defendant is DIRECTED to respond to the motion within 5 days of the entry 4 of this order. Alternatively, if Plaintiff has now received a response, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to 5 file an amended motion within 5 days of the entry of this order indicating whether it is opposed. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

9 Dated: January 3, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(SS) Trujillo v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-trujillo-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack