From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hallum v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 7, 2022
1:21-cv-00602-EPG (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00602-EPG

09-07-2022

JOHNNY EDWARD HALLUM, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney PETER K. THOMPSON, HI 5890 Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration ELLINOR R. CODER, CA 258258 Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant JONATHAN O. PENA Attorney for Plaintiff


PHILLIP A. TALBERT

United States Attorney

PETER K. THOMPSON, HI 5890

Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration

ELLINOR R. CODER, CA 258258

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

JONATHAN O. PENA

Attorney for Plaintiff

ORDER RE: STIPULATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME (ECF NO. 13).

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that the time for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's opening brief be extended sixty (60) days from September 6, 2022 up to and including November 7, 2022. This is the Defendant's first request for an extension; this case was previously stayed and Plaintiff's deadline extended pursuant to the Court's order upon stipulation of the parties.

There is good cause for this extension. Defendant apologizes to Plaintiff and the Court for initially mis-calendaring the deadline under the Scheduling Order, causing this request for an extension to be filed one day after the brief deadline (Doc. 3). Defendant has been diligently working this case, as it was initially part of a pre-answer project to review over 200 of the Commissioner's stayed cases for policy compliance, so that the Commissioner could identify cases for early settlement. Plaintiff filed his opening brief on August 5, 2022, after a stipulated extension of 60 days (Doc. 11, 12). Thereafter, the undersigned was assigned this matter for briefing.

A shorter time period would not suffice to prepare the Commissioner's response to Plaintiff's opening brief. The undersigned counsel for Defendant has been issued military orders to travel to Washington, D.C. from September 11, 2022 to September 15, 2022. Due to ongoing high workloads following the Commissioner's filing numerous administrative records between April and June 2022, the undersigned foresaw this schedule conflict in early August and requested that her supervisor re-assign cases with briefs due in September. However, to date, none of the undersigned's cases have been transferred due to the sustained high workloads in the office.

The undersigned has been diligently trying to meet deadlines in her assigned cases. Counsel has filed seven merits briefs or stipulated voluntary remands in the 30-day period for Defendant's responsive brief in this case. In addition, the undersigned has worked part or all of three weekends meeting assigned deadlines in her other job as a reservist, as well as additional hours at the Office of the General Counsel.

The undersigned projects that she has 11 merits briefs due in October 2022 and 9 due in November 2022. This is more than twice a typical workload for litigation matters, considering counsel's non-litigation assignments. This workload is incompatible with giving each case due attention for briefing, and time to consult with agency personnel regarding settlement. In addition, several attorneys from the Office of the General Counsel have departed or are on extended leave, causing re-assignment of their workloads to remaining staff. As a result, the undersigned has received 21 new cases in various stages of litigation in recent weeks.

The Commissioner recognizes that this is an unusual request and apologizes to Plaintiff and the Court for the delay in this case. No unnecessary delay is intended.

ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation (ECF No. 13), IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant shall have an extension, up to and including November 7, 2022, to file a response to Plaintiff's opening brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Hallum v. Kijakazi

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 7, 2022
1:21-cv-00602-EPG (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022)
Case details for

Hallum v. Kijakazi

Case Details

Full title:JOHNNY EDWARD HALLUM, Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 7, 2022

Citations

1:21-cv-00602-EPG (E.D. Cal. Sep. 7, 2022)