Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00397/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00397-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JUAN JAIME, )

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner )

of Social Security, )

)

)

Defendant. )

 )

1:09-cv-00397 GSA

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION FOR

EXTENSION OFTIME WITHIN WHICH TO

FILE REPLY BRIEF

On January 6, 2010, the parties filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order granting an extension

of time to Plaintiff within which to file the reply brief. The stipulation provides that Plaintiff “be

granted a 30 day extension of time, until February 4, 2010 . . ..” (Doc. 19.) For the foregoing

reasons, the stipulation is ADOPTED in part and DENIED in part.

Pursuant to the Scheduling Order of March 4, 2009, a reply brief “shall be filed with the court

and served . . . within fifteen (15) days after service” of Defendant’s opposition brief. (Doc. 7, ¶ 8,

emphasis added.) Accordingly, when Defendant filed and served its brief in opposition on December

4, 2009, Plaintiff’s reply brief became due on or before December 19, 2009. By comparison, the

stipulation filed today assumes the reply brief would have been due thirty (30) days after the

opposing brief has been filed. The assumption in incorrect. 

1

Case 1:09-cv-00397-GSA Document 20 Filed 01/06/10 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

The stipulation provides no explanation for Plaintiff’s delay. It does not account for the

period between December 19, 2009 - the date the reply brief was due - and today’s date. Moreover,

even assuming for the sake of argument that the reply brief was due January 4, 2010, no explanation

is provided to account for the belated request for an extension of time. See Local Rule 144(d).

Plaintiff shall be permitted an extension of time within which to file a reply brief of fifteen

(15) daysfrom the date of this Order. Therefore, Plaintiff’s reply brief shall be filed with this Court

no later than January 21, 2010.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-00397-GSA Document 20 Filed 01/06/10 Page 2 of 2