Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00791/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00791-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Veronica Wells
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VERONICA WELLS, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:15-cv-00791-AC 

ORDER 

On November 2, 2015, plaintiff filed a request for an extension of time to file a motion for 

summary judgment from October 30, 2015, to November 2, 2015. ECF No. 17. Plaintiff filed 

her request as a stipulation between the parties, explaining that the extension was needed because 

of an illness in the family. Id. The next day, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. 

ECF No. 18. On the same day, plaintiff also filed a request to withdraw her purported stipulation 

for extension of time. ECF No. 19. Plaintiff’s request states that “[d]ue to a communication 

mistake within counsel’s office, plaintiff’s Counsel inadvertently filed” the request as a 

stipulation. Id. At the same time, plaintiff renewed the request for an extension of time that 

would render the late-filed summary judgment motion timely. Id. 

Also on November 3, 2015, defendant the Commissioner of Social Security (“the 

Commissioner”) filed a response to plaintiff’s stipulation. ECF No. 20. In the Commissioner’s 

response, she states that plaintiff emailed her on November 2, 2015, requesting that she agree to 

Case 2:15-cv-00791-AC Document 21 Filed 11/04/15 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

the foregoing extension of time. Id. Before the Commissioner had a chance to respond, plaintiff 

filed a stipulation claiming to have received authorization for the extension from her. Id. When 

the Commissioner’s counsel informed plaintiff’s counsel the next morning that the Commissioner 

would not agree to an extension, plaintiff’s counsel said he would withdraw the stipulation. Id. 

The Commissioner argues that plaintiff’s request for an extension should be denied because it is 

her second request for an extension, and her repeated delays have burdened the Commissioner. 

Id. 

The court finds that despite any burden plaintiff’s extensions may have caused the 

Commissioner, plaintiff has shown good cause for an extension. Plaintiff’s counsel is cautioned, 

however, that he may not submit documents purporting to be stipulations between the parties 

before obtaining authorization from the Commissioner. Should an unauthorized stipulation be 

filed again, counsel will be sanctioned. 

In accordance with the foregoing, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 19, is GRANTED; 

2. Plaintiff’s November 2, 2015, motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 18, is deemed 

timely; 

3. The Commissioner must file an opposition or cross-motion for summary judgment by 

December 2, 2015; and 

4. Plaintiff must file a reply, if any, by December 23, 2015. 

DATED: November 3, 2015 

Case 2:15-cv-00791-AC Document 21 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 2