Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01276/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01276-3/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 

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

BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

United States Attorney 

DONNA L. CALVERT 

Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 

BRENDA M. PULLIN 

Special Assistant United States Attorney 

Social Security Administration 

 

 160 Spear Street, Suite 800 

 San Francisco, California 94105 

 Telephone: (415) 977-8975 

 Facsimile: (415) 744-0134 

 E-Mail: Brenda.Pullin@ssa.gov 

Attorneys for Defendant 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

PAIGE ELLIS KNIGHT, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner 

of Social Security, 

 Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-1276-SMS 

STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR FIRST 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT 

TO FILE RESPONSIVE BRIEF

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel 

of record, that Defendant shall have a first extension of time of 30 days to respond to Plaintiff’s 

opening brief. The extension is necessary as this case was not originally assigned to the undersigned 

defense counsel, but rather was transferred to her in the midst of the merits briefing (see Doc. No. 

19). Upon its transfer, new defense counsel was under the impression that the formerly assigned 

Case 1:14-cv-01276-SMS Document 21 Filed 06/19/15 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

attorney had already requested an extension for filing the responsive brief. However, such an 

extension appears not to have been filed. 

Defendant respectfully suggests that this constitutes excusable neglect due to the volume of 

cases and administrative tasks handled by defense counsel. For these reasons, Defendant requests a 

30-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s opening brief. 

 There have been two prior extensions of time in this case, each extending the time for Plaintiff 

to file her opening brief (Doc. Nos. 15, 17). Defendant’s responsive brief was previously due on or 

before May 27, 2015; the new deadline would be June 26, 2015. The parties further stipulate that the 

Court’s Scheduling Order shall be modified accordingly. 

Dated: June 18, 2015 By: /s/ Jacqueline A. Forslund 

 (as authorized via e-mail) 

 JACQUELINE A. FORSLUND 

 Attorney for Plaintiff 

 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER 

 United States Attorney 

 

Dated: June 18, 2015 By: s/ Brenda M. Pullin 

 BRENDA M. PULLIN 

 Special Assistant U.S. Attorney 

 Attorneys for Defendant 

 ORDER

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: 6/19/2015 /s/ SANDRA M. SNYDER 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01276-SMS Document 21 Filed 06/19/15 Page 2 of 2