Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01237/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01237-2/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 April 25, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation for Plaintiff Johnny Contreras to have an 

extension of thirty-one days to file an opening brief. (Doc. 13.) Importantly, the scheduling order in 

this action allows for “a single thirty (30) day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 5 at 4, 

emphasis added.) This extension was used by the plaintiff in his previous request for an additional 

thirty days to prepare an opening brief. (Docs. 11-12.) Beyond the single thirty-day 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.) Therefore, the Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a 

motion by Plaintiff for modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order.

A scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 

disregarded without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). 

The deadlines are considered “firm, real and are to be taken seriously by parties and their counsel.” 

Shore v. Brown, 74 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94828 at *7 (E.D. Cal. 

JOHNNY CONTRERAS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01237 - JLT 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

(Doc. 13)

Case 1:13-cv-01237-JLT Document 14 Filed 04/28/14 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

Oct. 9, 2009). Here, Plaintiff’s counsel requests the extension “to allow time for possible settlem[ent].” 

(Doc. 13 at 2.) The Court will grant Plaintiff’s request for a further extension of time because 

Defendant does not oppose the request. However, the parties are cautioned that no further extensions 

of time will be granted without a showing of good cause.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff SHALL file an opening brief on or before May 29, 2014. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 28, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01237-JLT Document 14 Filed 04/28/14 Page 2 of 2