Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00378-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Gricelda Flores
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

GRICELDA FLORES,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00378-CDB (SS)

ORDER ON STIPULATION EXTENDING

TIME TO FILE A RESPONSIVE BRIEF 

(Doc. 15)

On March 29, 2024, Plaintiff Gricelda Flores (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint seeking 

judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or 

“Defendant”) denying her application for disability insurance and supplemental security income 

benefits under the Social Security Act. (Doc. 1). Defendant lodged the certified administrative 

record with the Court on May 28, 2024. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff filed an opening brief on June 27, 

2024. (Doc. 12). 

Defendant filed a notice of a 30-day extension to respond to Plaintiff’s opening brief on 

July 26, 2024. (Doc. 14). On the day Defendant’s brief was due, Defendant filed the instant 

stipulation for a second extension of time. (Doc. 15).

Requests for extensions of time in the Eastern District of California are governed by Local 

Rule 144, which provides: “Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or 

from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent.” 

Case 1:24-cv-00378-KES-CDB Document 16 Filed 08/28/24 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

L.R. 144(d). Given counsel for Defendant’s representations concerning the prospect of settlement 

discussions and workload, it should have become apparent to Defendant that an extension was 

needed, and hence, under Local Rule 144, a request for an extension of time should have been 

filed before the day its brief was due. See id. (“Requests for Court-approved extensions brought 

on the required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.”).

In light of the parties’ representations, an extension of time is warranted. However, the 

Court admonishes Defendant to exercise better care and adherence to this Court’s Local Rules in 

all future filings.

Accordingly, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 

Defendant’s deadline to file a responsive brief be extended to September 18, 2024, and the 

Court’s scheduling Order (Doc. 9) shall continue to govern the filing of any reply brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 28, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00378-KES-CDB Document 16 Filed 08/28/24 Page 2 of 2