Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01103/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01103-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 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 May 18, 2020, the parties stipulated for Plaintiff to have an additional thirty days to file an 

opening brief in the action. Notably, the Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days 

by the stipulation of the parties (Doc. 5 at 3), which was previously used by Plaintiff. (Docs. 11, 12)

Beyond the single extension by stipulation, “requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by 

written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” (Doc. 5 at 3) This is now the third extension 

requested by Plaintiff by stipulation, which the Court construes to be a motion to amend the Court’s 

scheduling order. (See id.)

Jonathan Pena, counsel for Plaintiff, asserts the additional time is necessary because “Counsel is 

experiencing extraordinary delays and backlogs with both the administrative and civil court work” due 

to the “ongoing health and safety measures recommended by the CDC” and the number of weeks the 

pandemic has continued. (Doc. 18) In addition, Mr. Pena reports:

[T]he week of 05/10/2020, Plaintiff’s Counsel had 15 administrative hearings, 14 

hearing preparation appointments with claimants, 5 reply brief, 1 merits brief, 2 

NORMA ALICIA GARCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-1103 - JLT 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S THIRD

REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 18)

Case 1:19-cv-01103-JLT Document 19 Filed 05/21/20 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

motion for summary judgments and 14 letter briefs due. The week of 05/18/2020, 

Plaintiff’s Counsel had 11 administrative hearings, 19 hearing preparation 

appointments with claimant, 2 reply brief, 1 motion for summary judgement, 1 letter 

brief and 5 opening briefs.

(Doc. 18 at 2) Finally, Mr. Pena notes the Commissioner does not oppose the requested extension and 

stipulated to it on May 18, 2020. (Id.)

Notably, Plaintiff’s counsel was presumably aware of his schedule and obligations in other 

actions when seeking the prior extension of time in this action on April 17, 2020. Thus, the Court is 

unable to find counsel’s workload alone constitutes good cause for the requested additional extension 

of time, which was filed after the deadline previously ordered by the Court. See Motley v. City of 

Fresno, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177697 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2016) (“workload considerations and 

the press of business will rarely constitute good cause”). Nevertheless, the Court notes Counsel also 

reports a reduction in staff due to the ongoing pandemic guidelines, and the Commissioner does not 

oppose the request. Further, it does not appear the Commissioner would suffer any prejudice as a result 

of the additional extension of time. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The request for a third extension of time (Doc. 18) is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff SHALL file her opening brief no later than June 17, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01103-JLT Document 19 Filed 05/21/20 Page 2 of 2