Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-02566/USCOURTS-cand-4_17-cv-02566-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nancy A. Berryhill
Defendant
Jerry Huggins
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

-1-

1

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

FILING REPLY- 4:17-cv-02566-KAW

ABBY HERZBERG, State Bar No. 265582

BAY AREA LEGAL AID

1735 Telegraph Ave.

Oakland, CA 94612

aherzberg@baylegal.org

Phone: (510) 250-5210

Fax: (510) 663-4740

Attorney for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

Jerry Huggins, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

 Nancy A. Berryhill,

 Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant

 4:17-cv-02566-KAW

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER 

FOR FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE REPLY

The parties hereto, by and through their undersigned attorneys, hereby stipulate that Plaintiff, 

Jerry Huggins, shall have an additional 30 days, until September 19, 2018, in which to file and serve a 

reply in this action. This is the first stipulation for extended time requested by Plaintiff for the reply in 

this matter. This is necessary due to an unexpected substitution of counsel made necessary by prior 

extensions in this case as well as the time taken by the Appeals Council to decide whether or not to 

agree to voluntary remand. 

Specifically, Plaintiff's prior attorney (Joanna Parnes) reviewed the record, drafted the motion 

for summary judgment, and intended to draft and file the reply prior to going on maternity leave on 

August 1, 2018, but was unable to do so after Defendant's third extension. Accordingly, the 

Case 4:17-cv-02566-KAW Document 30 Filed 08/17/18 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-

2

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR 

FILING REPLY- 4:17-cv-02566-KAW

undersigned recently substituted in as counsel. Counsel for Defendant considered voluntary remand 

of this case, but the case was not suitable for remand. Counsel for Defendant notified Plaintiff’s 

counsel regarding the decision regarding voluntary remand on August 15, 2018. In the interest of 

efficiency, the undersigned began reviewing the record and drafting the reply after she heard back 

from Counsel for Defendant regarding remand. For these reasons, and due to preexisting as well as 

additional unexpected and unavoidable workload demands, an extension is necessary for Plaintiff to 

sufficiently review the record and draft the reply.

Respectfully Submitted,

 Dated: August 16, 2018 By:____/s/____________________

Abby Herzberg

Attorney for Plaintiff 

Dated: January 10, 2018 By: __/s___ (as authorized via email on 8/16/28)

Tina Laxmi Naicker

Office of General Counsel 

Social Security Administration

[PROPOSED] ORDER:

PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: By: 

U.S. Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore

8/17/18

Case 4:17-cv-02566-KAW Document 30 Filed 08/17/18 Page 2 of 2