Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01060/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01060-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 This is the fourth request for an extension of the dispositive motion deadline. 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Shawntajiah A. (a minor), )

 by Crystal Ayers, )

)

Plaintiff, ) NO. CV07-01060-PHX-SMM

)

vs. ) O R D E R

)

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner )

of Social Security Administration, )

)

Defendant. )

_________________________________)

 Currently pending before the Court is the parties’ Stipulation1

 to Extend the

Summary Judgment Schedule for Plaintiff to file its Reply brief. Plaintiff seeks an

extension until August 19, 2008. 

 Plaintiff’s attorney cites a high volume of work for the primary reason for requesting

the extension. Such was the same reason provided to the Court for the previous requests.

On April 16, 2008, this Court entered an Order stating that the Court would grant no

further extensions to the dispositive motion deadline, this includes Response and Reply

briefs. As articulated, the Court acknowledges that Plaintiff’s counsel has other cases he

is diligently working on; however, such is not justification for repeatedly delaying the

instant case. (See Doc. 20.) 

 Plaintiff’s counsel has provided the deadlines he is facing in this and other cases.

These deadlines raise the possibility that Plaintiff’s counsel has undertaken an

unmanageable number of cases. See Matter of Wolfram, 847 P.2d 94, 101 (Ariz. 1993)

Case 2:07-cv-01060-SMM Document 27 Filed 07/02/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(“A lawyer must not accept representation if the lawyer's workload prohibits handling a

matter in compliance with our professional rules.”). While Plaintiff’s counsel clearly has

a number of current conflicts, he has not established justification nor good cause as to why

he is unable to complete the Reply brief during the permitted period.

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING the Stipulation. (Doc. 26.) 

 DATED this 1st day of July, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-01060-SMM Document 27 Filed 07/02/08 Page 2 of 2