(SS) Webber v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 22, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00849·Unknown

Opinion

Robert C. Weems (SBN 148156) 1 WEEMS LAW OFFICES 2 526 3rd St., Ste. A-2 San Rafael, CA 94901 3 Ph: (415) 881-7653 4 Fx: (866) 610-1430 rcweems@weemslawoffices.com 5

6 Attorney for Plaintiff

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 11 12 DELORES DIANN WEBBER, Case No: 2:20-cv-00849-DMC 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR 14 v. EXTENSION OF TIME 15 Commissioner of Social Security, [Fed.R.Civ.P. 6] 16 Defendant 17 WHEREAS, Plaintiff’s Counsel of Record, Robert C. Weems, requires a third 18 extension of time to continue revision to plaintiff’s draft motion to further develop 19 arguments concerning, , changes to the regulations applicable to plainitff’s 20 benefits application between her first and second applications; map dates when records 21 were received relative to those applications; and refine arguments concerning the 22 identification of impairments and weighing of opinion and other evidence in order to 23 fully present plaintiff’s case; 24 WHEREAS, Defendant’s Counsel of Record does not believe that the addition 25 delay to permit Mr. Weems to finalize Plaintiff’s motion will prejudice the 26 Commissioner; and, 27 28 1 1 WHEREAS, Mr. Weems anticipates he can finalize Plaintiff's motion within a 2 || further twenty-one (21) days from the date upon which plainitffs motion was due under 3 || the prior extension of time and is not requesting this extension for an improper purpose 4 || but to meet his professional obligations to this Court and avoid prejudice to Plaintiff. 5 ||See, FRCP 11; Unioil, Inc. v. EF. Hutton & Co., 809 F.2d 548, 558 (9th Cir. 1986). 6 NOW, WHEREFORE, the Parties agree good cause exists for and, subject to the 7 || Court’s approval, stipulate to a 21-day extension of time for Plaintiff to file her motion 8 || for summary judgment in this action. The revised due date for the filing of plaintiff’ □ 9 || motion for summary judgment is January 5, 2021. 10 |} SO STIPULATED AND AGREED: i For Plaintiff: For Defendant: 12 || WEEMS LAW OFFICES MCGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attomey 13 DEBORAH LEE STACHEL Regional Chief Counsel, Region □□ 14 Social Security Administration ELLINOR RAVENEL CODOR 15 Special Assistant United States 16 Attorney 7 /s/Robert C. Weems By: /s/ Ellinor R. Codor 18 || Robert C. Weems, Ellinor R. Codor 19 || Attorney for Plaintiff Special Assistant United States Attorney and Attorney for the Defendant (per e-mail authorization) 21 SO ORDERED: 22 23 || Dated: December 22, 2020 SSS. 24 —_— << 25 DENNIS M. COTA 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 27 28 Stipulation and Order

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

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

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

Related

Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co.
809 F.2d 548 (Ninth Circuit, 1986)