Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01145/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-01145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Rosezina Williams
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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSEZINA WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 4:19-cv-01145-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 24

On November 4, 2019, the parties filed a stipulation to provide Plaintiff with a second 

extension to file her motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 20.) On November 5, 2019, the 

Court granted the stipulation and explicitly advised the parties that “[n]o further extensions from 

Plaintiff will be entertained.” (Dkt. No. 21 at 2.) Despite this proviso, on December 5, 2019, the 

parties filed a stipulation that would have provided Plaintiff with a third extension of time until 

January 5, 2019. (Dkt. No. 22.) On December 18, 2019, the Court denied the request, but gave 

Plaintiff until December 26, 2019 to file her motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 23.) 

Plaintiff did not do so.

On January 3, 2020, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a motion for summary 

judgment. (Dkt. No. 24.) She concurrently filed the motion. (Dkt. No. 25.) No opposition to the 

motion for leave was filed.

In seeking leave to file the untimely motion, counsel David P. Waggoner explained that he 

relied on the ECF email notification granting the November 4, 2019 stipulation, which “did not 

include the Court’s admonishment that no further extensions would be entertained.” (Decl. of 

David P. Waggoner, Dkt. No. 24-1 ¶ 9.) The email notification, however, includes only the docket 

text, which is not a valid substitute for reviewing the order that was filed by the Court. (See Dkt. 

Case 4:19-cv-01145-KAW Document 26 Filed 01/15/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

No. 24-2.) Indeed, as counsel of record, Mr. Waggoner is responsible for reviewing the actual 

order, and acting in accordance with it to avoid unnecessary harm to his client. 

Nonetheless, while the Court is disappointed that Mr. Waggoner has not accepted 

responsibility for failing to read the November 5, 2019 order, the Court is sympathetic to Mr. 

Waggoner’s challenges regarding his mother’s health.1 For that reason, the Court GRANTS 

Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file the motion for summary judgment. Mr. Waggoner is advised 

that the failure to adhere to future deadlines in this case or others due to a misplaced reliance on 

ECF emails, in lieu of reviewing the Court’s orders, may result in adverse rulings, including 

dismissals for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 15, 2020

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

1 The Court notes that it is unclear whether Mr. Waggoner traveled to Kentucky, as implied by the 

motion, as reference to actual travel is absent from the supporting declaration.

Case 4:19-cv-01145-KAW Document 26 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 2