Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00258/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00258-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security
Defendant
Ricardo Reyes
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO REYES, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00258-BAM

ORDER DENYING STIPULATION TO 

EXTEND BRIEFING SCHEDULE

(Doc. 15)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

On December 1, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation, subject to the Court’s approval, to 

extend the briefing schedule in this matter. Specifically, the parties requested that the Court 

extend the time for Defendant to file a cross-motion for summary judgment from November 20, 

2015 to January 5, 2015. Defense counsel explained that the stipulation was necessary because 

“the case was reassigned to current counsel who was unaware of the reassignment and did not 

calendar the due date.” (Doc. 15 at 1-2.) 

Where, as here, a party requests an extension of time after the time has expired, the party 

must demonstrate that the failure to act was due to excusable neglect. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). 

According to the record, defense counsel appeared in this action as early as March 23, 2015. 

(Doc. 6.) Defense counsel also apparently stipulated to Plaintiff’s extension of time to file his 

Case 1:15-cv-00258-BAM Document 16 Filed 12/03/15 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

opening brief in October 2015. (Doc. 12 at 2.) Given counsel’s recurring and recent involvement 

in this action, it does not appear that the failure to calendar the due date was the result of an 

unknown reassignment. The Court therefore finds no excusable neglect. Accordingly, the 

stipulation for an extension of time is HEREBY DENIED. Defendant shall serve and file a 

response to Plaintiff’s opening brief within fourteen (14) days of the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 2, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00258-BAM Document 16 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 2