Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01698/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01698-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On June 6, 2016, Plaintiff filed a stipulation of the parties to extend time for Plaintiff to serve a 

confidential letter brief. (Doc. 10) Notably, the Administrative Record in the action was filed on 

March 30, 2016. (Doc. 9) Pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief 

should have been served no later than April 29, 2016. (See Doc. 5 at 2) (directing Plaintiff to serve a 

confidential brief “[w]ithin thirty (30) days after service of the administrative record). Evidentially, 

Plaintiff failed to serve the letter brief until June 3, 2016, and several days later filed the request for an 

extension of time from the Court. (See Doc.10 at 1) 

Notably, the Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of time—of thirty days—by the 

stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 5 at 4) Even with the extension permitted by the Scheduling Order, 

Plaintiff’s service of the confidential letter brief was untimely. Nevertheless, Defendant does not 

oppose the extension requested or object that the confidential letter brief was untimely.

MARIA THERESA CISNEROS- BELLO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01698- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST 

FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME NUNC PRO 

TUNC

(Doc. 10)

Case 1:15-cv-01698-JLT Document 11 Filed 06/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED nunc pro tunc;

2. Defendant SHALL serve a responsive brief on or before July 8, 2016; and

3. The parties are reminded of the obligation to comply with the deadlines imposed by the 

Scheduling Order; and

4. The parties are cautioned that no further extensions will be granted without the showing 

of exceptionally good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 9, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01698-JLT Document 11 Filed 06/09/16 Page 2 of 2