Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01631/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01631-2/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

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 August 15, 2016, Defendant filed a stipulation of the parties to extend time for the 

Commissioner to respond to Plaintiff’s opening brief. (Doc. 15) Notably, the Scheduling Order allows 

for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 4), which was previously 

used by Defendant. (Docs. 13, 14) Beyond the single extension, “requests to modify [the scheduling] 

order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” (Doc. 5 at 4) 

Defendant’s counsel, April Alongi, asserts that “since the prior extension, counsel has been 

handling a large number of District Court and Ninth Circuit cases in addition to this one, with thirteen 

briefs—one in the Ninth Circuit—due within the next twenty-five days.” (Doc. 15 at 2) In addition, 

Ms. Alongi reports she “had numerous other deadlines, including numerous conferences in an 

employment case, a settlement memorandum, and multiple mentoring and reviewing duties in the 

Office of the General Counsel.” (Id.) She also was “out of the office on leave for five days and has 

been intermittently absent due to illness.” (Id.) Therefore, Ms. Alongi asserts additional time is needed 

MARIE E. LULE,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-01631- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION

FOR A SECOND EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 15)

Case 1:15-cv-01631-JLT Document 16 Filed 08/17/16 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

“to properly respond to the issues Plaintiff raised in her Brief.” (Id. at 3) Plaintiff does not oppose the 

request for a further extension of time for Defendant to file a responsive brief. (Id.) Good cause 

appearing, the Court ORDERS:

1. Defendant’s request for a second extension of time is GRANTED;

2. Defendant SHALL file a responsive brief on or before September 14, 2016; and

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

of exceptionally good cause.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2016 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01631-JLT Document 16 Filed 08/17/16 Page 2 of 2