Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02355/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-02355-0/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

motion re late reply – frazier v. ssa C 05-2355 WDB 1

JAMES HUNT MILLER (CA BAR # 135160)

P.O. Box 10891

OAKLAND CA 94610

P: (510) 451-2132

F: (510) 451-0824

e: jimillaw@rcn.com

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOANNE P. FRAZIER, )

)

Plaintiff, ) No. C-05-02355 WDB

)

vs. )

) PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

) TO HAVE LATE-FILED 

The COMMISSIONER OF the ) REPLY CONSIDERED

SOCIAL SECURITY ) AND PROPOSED ORDER

ADMINISTRATION, )

)

Defendant. ) (no hearing)

______________________________)

MOTION.

Plaintiff hereby requests that the Court consider Plaintiff’s late-filed optional

Reply when deciding this case. Pursuant to the scheduling order, the optional reply

was to have been filed, or the record closed, within 14 days of Defendant’s cross

motion, or by Monday, January 9, 2006, based on Defendant’s Cross Motion filed on

December 22, 2005 (allowing for three service days pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rules 5

and 6). That optional reply date was not met due to inept scheduling of undersigned

counsel.

Plaintiff’s counsel has, since becoming aware of the overdue reply, prepared

and e-filed it (on January 19, 2006). Plaintiff respectfully submits that counsel’s error

Case 4:05-cv-02355-WDB Document 15 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 1 of 2
 Case 4:05-cv-02355-WDB Document 16 Filed 01/26/06 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

motion re late reply – frazier v. ssa C 05-2355 WDB 2

in conforming with the schedule was accidental, the Court should not sanction or

punish Plaintiff, and the Court should allow and consider the late filing.

Upon inquiry by Plaintiff’s counsel, the U.S. Attorney’s office advised that

Defendant would not comply with Plaintiff’s request that Defendant allow Plaintiff

here to make a statement that Defendant did not oppose consideration of the reply.

This was taken as a refusal to stipulate to consideration of the reply. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff submits and requests that no hearing is necessary for resolution of this

motion, as is usual in Social Security litigation.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED on this 22nd day of January, 2006.

/s/_________________________________________

James Hunt Miller, Attorney for Ms. Frazier

ORDER.

PURSUANT TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s

late-filed Reply will be considered.

DATED: _______________ __________________________________

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:05-cv-02355-WDB Document 15 Filed 01/23/2006 Page 2 of 2

1/24/06

Case 4:05-cv-02355-WDB Document 16 Filed 01/26/06 Page 2 of 2