Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08150/USCOURTS-azd-3_11-cv-08150-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Russell Johnson,

Plaintiff,

vs.

Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of

Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CV-11-8150-PCT-LOA

ORDER 

This case arises on Plaintiff’s untimely second motion for an extension of time to file

his opening brief. (Doc. 26) Plaintiff’s counsel represents that Commissioner’s counsel has

no objection and “requests an extension of 6 days, until July 18, 2012, to file her Opening

Brief, due to our heavy workload at this time and incorrectly calendaring the due date.” (Id.)

This Social Security appeal was filed on September 21, 2011. (Doc. 1) The

September 27, 2011 scheduling order required Plaintiff to file an opening brief “[w]ithin

sixty (60) days from the filing of the answer and record.” (Doc. 6) On March 23, 2012, the

Commissioner filed a certified copy of the administrative transcript. (Doc. 23) On May 24,

2012, the Court granted Plaintiff a thirty day extension to file Plaintiff’s opening brief

because “Attorney Hansen, a sole practitioner with no regular staff, has four briefs due to the

Arizona Court of Appeals and the Arizona Industrial Commission.” Plaintiff was ordered

to file his opening brief on or before Friday, June 22, 2012. On July 12, 2012, three weeks

beyond the court-ordered deadline to file an opening brief, Plaintiff filed the pending

motion.

Case 3:11-cv-08150-LOA Document 27 Filed 07/13/12 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

- 2 -

Plaintiff’s motion was neither timely filed nor does it demonstrate good cause to grant

the motion under Rule 6(b)(1)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P. It does, however, demonstrate counsel’s

excusable neglect pursuant to Rule 6(b)(1)(B). Excusable neglect is meant to be an “elastic

concept and is not limited strictly to omissions caused by circumstances beyond control of

the movant.” Pioneer Inv. Serv. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 391

(1993); see also Pincay v. Andrews, 389 F.3d 853, 854 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court found

excusable neglect where an attorney delegated calendar duties to a paralegal, who ultimately

misread the Federal Rules and calendared a deadline incorrectly.). 

Although the Court is reluctant to grant Plaintiff’s request for another enlargement of

time in light of the age of this case, the deadline in the scheduling order, and the prior

extension given to Plaintiff, in the interests of resolving the issues raised in the Petition on

the merits, the Commissioner having no objection, and the Commissioner will suffer no

prejudice if the motion were granted, the Court finds excusable neglect to grant Plaintiff’s

request. There will not be, however, additional extensions granted to Plaintiff to file his

opening brief and the Clerk will be directed to dismiss this appeal without prejudice if

Plaintiff’s opening brief is not filed on or before Wednesday, July 18, 2012.

In the interests of justice,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Second Unopposed Motion to Extend Time to File

Opening Brief, doc. 26, is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his opening brief, in full

compliance with the Local Rules, on or before Wednesday, July 18, 2012.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Plaintiff does not file his opening brief on or

before Wednesday, July 18, 2012, the Clerk is kindly directed to dismiss this appeal without

prejudice and further order of the Court.

Dated this 13th day of July, 2012.

Case 3:11-cv-08150-LOA Document 27 Filed 07/13/12 Page 2 of 2