Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01349/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01349-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Michael Cano
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant

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

STEPHEN MICHAEL CANO,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01349-JLT-CDB (SS)

ORDER ON STIPULATION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANT 

TO RESPOND TO COMPLAINT

(Doc. 10)

Plaintiff Stephen Michael Cano (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a 

complaint on November 4, 2024, seeking judicial review of an administrative decision of the 

Defendant Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) denying Plaintiff’s claim for benefits 

under the Social Security (Doc. 1).

Pending before the Court is the parties’ stipulated request to extend the time for 

Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s complaint by filing the electronic certified administrative 

record as the answer to the complaint. (Doc. 10). The parties represent that Defendant’s 

response to the complaint is currently due to be filed by January 6, 2025, and Defendant has not 

previously requested an extension of the deadline. (Id. ¶ 1). The parties represent that in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that was recently amended to add 

Supplemental Rules for Social Security review cases under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), the 

Commissioner files a certified administrative record (“CAR”) as the Answer to a complaint for 

Case 1:24-cv-01349-JLT-CDB Document 11 Filed 12/26/24 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

review. (Id. ¶ 2). The parties represent that Defendant’s Counsel has been informed by the client 

agency, the Social Security Administration, Office of Appellate Operations, that the CAR is not 

fully prepared in this matter and therefore needs more time to prepare the CAR for the Court’s 

review. (Id. ¶ 3). Thus, the parties stipulate and request an extension for Defendants to file an 

answer or other response to the complaint by 30 days to February 5, 2025. (Id. ¶ 4). The parties 

represent that Plaintiff’s Counsel has no objection to the instant request, which is made in good 

faith and is not intended to delay the proceedings. (Id. ¶¶ 5–6).

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED the Defendant shall have until 

February 5, 2025, to respond to the complaint by filing an answer or other responsive pleading. 

See Local Rule 144(a); see also (Doc. 5 ¶ 9) (“Each party is entitled to a single extension of time 

of up to thirty (30) days, with no requirement for consent of the opposing party or Court order. 

The party shall file a Notice of Extension with the court and all remaining deadlines will be 

adjusted accordingly. Any other requests for modification of this briefing schedule must be 

made by written stipulation or motion and will be granted only for good cause. Local Rule 

144(d).”).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01349-JLT-CDB Document 11 Filed 12/26/24 Page 2 of 2