McDONALD v. BERRYHILL

Case No. 1:16-cv-01477-SKO.

LARRY EUGENE McDONALD, Plaintiff, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

United States District Court, E.D. California, Fresno Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 405
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)
Nature of Suit: 864 Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Larry Eugene McDonald, Plaintiff, represented by James S. Pi , Charles E. Binder and Harry J. Binder, Attorneys at Law, LLP.

Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant, represented by Carolyn B. Chen , Social Security Administration OGC, Region IX & Benjamin E. Hall , United States Attorney.


STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME OF 45 DAYS FOR DEFENDANT'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Defendant shall have an extension of time of an additional 45 days to respond to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. This is the first continuance sought by Defendant. The current due date is June 14, 2017. The new due date will be July 28, 2017.

There is good cause for this request. Since the filing of Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, Defendant's counsel had experienced sickness with flu-like symptoms and took sick leave for close to a week, along with pre-approved leave, and is still addressing the backlog of cases that had to be continued during her absence and continues to have a full workload of two district court hearings, about 14 pending district court briefs, and one pending Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brief in the next month and a half. Therefore, Defendant is respectfully requesting additional time up to and including July 28, 2017, to fully review the record and research the issues presented by Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, as Defendant's counsel addresses her workload. This request is made in good faith with no intention to unduly delay the proceedings.

The parties further stipulate that the Court's Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly.

ORDER

Based on the parties' stipulation (Doc. 10), it is ORDERED that Defendant has an additional 45 days to respond to Plaintiff's Opening Brief. The new deadline for Defendant's response is July 28, 2017. All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 3) shall be extended accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases