Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00571/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00571-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

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 06cv571-BEN(NLS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAULO BONILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv571-BEN (NLS)

ORDER RE PARTIES’ REQUEST FOR

CONTINUANCE OF CROSS-MOTIONS

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

HEARING DATE

On October 30, 2006, the parties in this case submitted a stipulation and request for a 30-day

continuance of their cross-motions for summary judgment hearing date of December 1, 2006. The

request was received in this chambers on November 2, 2006. For the foregoing reasons, the request for

a continuance is DENIED. 

The complaint in this case was filed in March 2006, the administrative record was filed in May

2006, and the original cross-motion summary judgment hearing date was October 3, 2006. (Doc. Nos.

1, 5, 7.) 

On September 11, 2006 the parties submitted a stipulation requesting a 60-day extension of the

summary judgment hearing date. The Court found good cause to grant a 45-day extension, continuing

the hearing date to November 17, 2006. (Doc. No. 9.) 

On October 4, 2006, Plaintiff’s counsel contacted chambers requesting an extension of the date

by which Plaintiff must file his motion for summary judgment; the Court found good cause to grant an

extension based on the fact that the scheduling order dated September 14, 2006 was not filed by the

Case 3:06-cv-00571-BEN-NLS Document 12 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 3
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 06cv571-BEN(NLS)

Clerk of the Court until September 28, 2006. The motion hearing date was again continued, to

December 1, 2006. (Doc. No. 10.) On October 10, 2006, Plaintiff filed his motion for summary

judgment. (Doc. No. 11.)

Based on the fact that the complaint was filed over seven months ago, and the administrative

record was filed over five months ago, ample time to prepare the parties’ motions and responsive papers

has been allowed. Further, the parties’ current request for an additional 30-day continuance of the

hearing date does not contain any statement as to why the continuance is being sought. Accordingly, the

Court does not find good cause to extend the dates. The request is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November 2, 2006

Hon. Nita L. Stormes

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:06-cv-00571-BEN-NLS Document 12 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3 06cv571-BEN(NLS)

Case 3:06-cv-00571-BEN-NLS Document 12 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 3