Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01692/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01692-2/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS MOJARRO, 

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY, 

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-1692-BAM

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 13)

The Court previously ordered Plaintiff Jose Majarro to show cause why his case should 

not be dismissed for his failure to file an opening brief. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff’s response was due 

on or before October 18, 2016. Two weeks after the deadline to file a response to the show cause 

order, Plaintiff filed an untimely response on November 1, 2016. (Doc. 14). 

In his response, counsel for Plaintiff states that several absences from the office caused 

him to get behind on his email correspondence. Declaration of Phillip W. Gillet, Jr. (“Gillet 

Decl.”), (Doc. 14) ¶ 4. Counsel also declares that because this is his first social security appeal, he 

was unaware that he needed to submit his letter brief. Gillet Decl. ¶ 5. He asks that the Court 

forgive his error and allow him to provide the Commissioner with his letter brief on November 4, 

2016. Gillet Decl. ¶ 6. 

The Court accepts Plaintiff’s explanation and representations; however, the Court does not 

Case 1:15-cv-01692-BAM Document 16 Filed 11/04/16 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

2

condone counsel’s failure to manage the timelines in this case. Pursuant to the scheduling order, 

Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief was due on or before April 28, 2016. Plaintiff’s untimely 

confidential letter brief, not yet finished, is now over six months late. Further, when ordered to 

show cause, Plaintiff filed his response two weeks late. While short extensions of time are 

routinely granted to accommodate the heavy workloads common to social security practitioners, 

Plaintiff’s delay in this case is egregious. 

Plaintiff’s unfamiliarity with social security cases is also of no excuse. Under the federal 

rules, parties in all cases, social security or otherwise, must diligently adhere to dates set by the 

Court. Fed. R. Civ. 16(b)(4); see Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th 

Cir. 1992) (scheduling orders are “not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be 

cavalierly disregarded by counsel without peril.”). The Court’s scheduling order outlining the due 

dates for the parties’ submissions is quite clear. Any failure to follow these deadlines must be 

accompanied by good cause and due diligence, neither of which Plaintiff has shown. 

Nonetheless, in the abundance of caution, the Court’s Order to Show Cause issued on

October 11, 2016, is HEREBY DISCHARGED and no sanctions will be imposed at this time. 

However, given the lengthy delay in this action, the parties are on notice that, absent exceptional 

circumstances and demonstrated good cause, the Court cannot accommodate any further 

continuances of the briefing schedule. Any further requests for an extension of time will be 

looked upon with disfavor. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 3, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01692-BAM Document 16 Filed 11/04/16 Page 2 of 2