Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01780/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01780-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Belinda Rodriguez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

-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

Steven G. Rosales

Attorney at Law: 222224

Law Offices of Lawrence D. Rohlfing

12631 East Imperial Highway, Suite C-115

Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670

Tel.: (562)868-5886

Fax: (562)868-5491

E-mail _steven.rosales@rohlfinglaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff BELINDA RODRIGUEZ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BELINDA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CAROLYN COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:15-CV-01780-SKO

STIPULATION TO EXTEND 

BRIEFING SCHEDULE

TO THE HONORABLE SHEILA K. OBERTO, MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

OF THE DISTRICT COURT:

Plaintiff Belinda Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) and defendant Carolyn Colvin, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”), through their undersigned 

counsel of record, hereby stipulate, subject to the approval of the Court, to extend 

the time for Plaintiff to file Plaintiff’s Opening Brief to November 3, 2016; and 

that Defendant shall have until December 5, 2016, to file her opposition. Any 

reply by plaintiff will be due December 20, 2016.

Case 1:15-cv-01780-SKO Document 14 Filed 09/29/16 Page 1 of 3
-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

A second extension of time for plaintiff is needed in order to properly 

address the issues within the administrative record in this matter as well as the 

demands arising from complications related to Counsel Spouse’s terminal illness 

which has unexpectedly worsened in the last few weeks. Due to a deterioration in 

her condition in the last few weeks, Counsel‘s spouse now requires in home 

medical assistance 24 hours a day and Counsel has been required to devout time to 

planning and managing the transition to end of life care. Counsel required time to 

deal with this change in condition and has taken steps to secure the at home 

hospice level care which his spouse now requires in order to better allow him to 

attend to his professional obligations. 

Counsel sincerely apologizes to the court for any inconvenience this may 

have had upon it or its staff. 

DATE: September 26, 2015 Respectfully submitted,

 LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE D. ROHLFING

/s/ Steven G. Rosales

 BY: _________________________ 

 Steven G. Rosales

 Attorney for plaintiff BELINDA RODRIGUEZ

DATED: September 26, 2016 PHILLIP A. TALBERT

Acting United States Attorney 

*/S/- Asim Modi

_________________________________

Asim Modi 

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Defendant

[*Via email authorization]

 

Case 1:15-cv-01780-SKO Document 14 Filed 09/29/16 Page 2 of 3
-3-

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

ORDER

On July 19, 2016, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file an opening brief no later 

than September 16, 2016, pursuant to a stipulation of the parties. (Docs. 11-12.) 

The parties filed the above second “Stipulation to Extend Briefing Schedule” on 

September 26, 2016, ten days after Plaintiff’s opening brief deadline.

The Court may extend time to act after the deadline has expired because of 

“excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, although the Stipulation 

demonstrates good cause under to support the request for extension of time (see

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), no such excusable neglect has been articulated – much 

less shown –to justify the untimeliness of the request. Notwithstanding this 

deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Plaintiff (as evidenced by 

the parties’ agreement to the extension of time after the deadline), and in view of 

the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of 

seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 

F.3d 1253, 1258-59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated 

request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc request for extensions of 

time will be viewed with disfavor.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have an extension of time, to 

and including November 3, 2016, in which to file his Opening Brief. Defendant 

shall have an extension of time to December 5, 2016, to file an opposition, and any 

reply by Plaintiff shall be due December 20, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01780-SKO Document 14 Filed 09/29/16 Page 3 of 3