Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02975/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02975-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAMISHA V. JACOBS,

Plaintiff,

v.

ANDREW SAUL,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-02975-SK 

ORDER REFERRING ATTORNEY 

HARVEY PETER SACKETT TO THE 

STANDING COMMITTEE ON 

PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR 

DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS

On October 21, 2019, Plaintiff Damisha V. Jacobs filed a stipulated request to extend her 

deadline to file a motion for summary judgment for fifty days, to January 4, 2020. Plaintiff stated 

that the basis for her requested extension was her counsel’s workload. The Court granted her an 

extension of lesser duration and required her to file the motion for summary judgment by 

November 15, 2019. The Court informed the parties that no further extensions would be granted 

without a showing of extraordinary good cause. The Court also admonished the parties to email 

Microsoft Word versions of proposed orders with motions and stipulations to 

skpo@cand.uscourts.gov in accordance with the Court’s Standing Order.

Despite the Court’s prior order limiting her requested extension and informing her that no 

further extensions would be granted without a showing of extraordinary good cause, almost three 

weeks after her deadline had passed, on December 4, 2019, Plaintiff again sought a fifty-day

extension based on her counsel’s workload. Such conduct is not acceptable. Nevertheless, 

because the Court does not want to punish Plaintiff for her counsel’s errors, the Court granted

Plaintiff an extension to file her motion for summary judgment to January 4, 2020. 

The Court admonished Plaintiff’s counsel that no further extensions would be granted 

absent a showing of extraordinary good cause. Additionally, the Court admonished Plaintiff’s 

Case 3:19-cv-02975-SK Document 24 Filed 01/30/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

counsel that if there were further violations of the Court’s orders, the Court would sanction 

counsel personally and refer counsel to the United States District Court for the Northern District of 

California’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct.

Without seeking leave of Court, Plaintiff filed her motion for summary judgment on 

January 6, 2020, two days past the deadline. Again, because the Court does not want to punish 

Plaintiff for her counsel’s actions, the Court will not strike her motion as late. However, the Court 

is concerned that the current manner in which Plaintiff’s counsel, Harvey Peter Sackett, is

representing his client. At this time, the Court will not issue an order to show cause why sanctions 

should not issue or order personal sanctions against Plaintiff’s counsel, but the Court does not 

foreclose that option if there are further violations of the Court’s orders.

The Court HEREBY REFERS Harvey Peter Sackett to the United Stated District Court for 

the Northern District of California’s Standing Committee on Professional Conduct. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 30, 2020

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02975-SK Document 24 Filed 01/30/20 Page 2 of 2