Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00495/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-00495-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Marcus Anthony Lopez
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

On December 26, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation for Plaintiff Marcus Lopez to have an 

extension of thirty days to his opening brief. (Doc. 19.) Importantly, the scheduling order in this action 

allows for “a single thirty (30) day extension” by stipulation of the parties. (Doc. 9 at 4, emphasis 

added.) This extension was used previously by Plaintiff, who requested an extension of time on 

November 24, 2014. (Docs. 17-18.) Beyond the single thirty-day extension, “requests to modify [the 

scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” (Doc. 5 at 

4.) Therefore, the Court construes the stipulation of the parties to be a motion by Plaintiff for 

modification of the Court’s Scheduling Order.

A scheduling order “is not a frivolous piece of paper, idly entered, which can be cavalierly 

disregarded without peril.” Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 610 (9th Cir. 1992). 

The deadlines are considered “firm, real and are to be taken seriously by parties and their counsel.” 

Shore v. Brown, 74 Fed. R. Serv. 3d (Callaghan) 1260, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94828 at *7 (E.D. Cal. 

MARCUS ANTHONY LOPEZ,

 Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00495- JLT 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND

EXTENSION OF TIME 

(Doc. 19)

Case 1:14-cv-00495-JLT Document 20 Filed 12/30/14 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

Oct. 9, 2009). Here, Plaintiff’s counsel requests the extension, reporting she recently suffered from 

“prolonged health problems that caused a backlog in her workload.” (Doc. 19 at 1.) Defendant does 

not oppose the request for an extension. (See id at 2). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time is GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff SHALL file an opening brief no later than January 28, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2014 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00495-JLT Document 20 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 2