Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02147/USCOURTS-cand-5_07-cv-02147-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

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

 Fourteen days (per procedural order), plus three service days 1

(FRCivP Rules 6(e) and 5(b)(2)(D)), and two weekend days after efiling by Defendant. 

Plf’s mot re Reply - Duong v. ssa No. C07-02147 HRL 1

JAMES HUNT MILLER (CA BAR # 135160)

P.O. Box 10891

OAKLAND CA 94610

P:(510) 451-2132

F:(510) 451-0824

e:jim_miller0@yahoo.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARINH DUONG, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. CV 07-2147 HRL

)

vs. ) PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE MOTION

) FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE

COMMISSIONER OF ) REPLY

SOCIAL SECURITY, ) AND PROPOSED ORDER

)

Defendant. ) (no hearing)

______________________________ )

MOTION.

Plaintiff moves the Court to consider Plaintiff’s late-filed optional Reply.

Pursuant to the scheduling order, the optional reply was to have been filed, or the

arguments deemed submitted, by December 24, 2007, based on Defendant’s Cross

Motion filed on December 5, 2004. That optional reply date was not met due to 1

inept scheduling of undersigned counsel.

Counsel has prepared the Reply and e-filed it on this date. Plaintiff respectfully

submits that Counsel’s error in conforming with the schedule was accidental, the

Court should not sanction or punish Plaintiff, and the Court should consider the filing

*E-filed 1/7/08*

Case 5:07-cv-02147-HRL Document 21 Filed 01/07/08 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

Plf’s mot re Reply - Duong v. ssa No. C07-02147 HRL 2

even though it was late.

Plaintiff also submits and requests that no hearing is necessary in this motion,

as is usual in Social Security litigation (per the procedural order).

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this 26th day of December, 2007.

/s/_________________________________________

James Hunt Miller, Attorney for Mr. Duong

ORDER (Proposed).

PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff may

have the late-filed Reply considered..

DATED: _______________ __________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

Howard R. Lloyd 1/7/08

Case 5:07-cv-02147-HRL Document 21 Filed 01/07/08 Page 2 of 2