From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Clay v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Mar 26, 2008
No. C 06-05032 SBA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)

Opinion

No. C 06-05032 SBA.

March 26, 2008


ORDER [Docket No. 2]


When plaintiff filed her complaint [Docket No. 1], the Court issued a Social Security Procedural Order (the "Procedural Order") [Docket No. 2], establishing a briefing schedule for this matter. As the Procedural Order states, "[p]laintiff shall serve and file a motion for summary judgment or for remand within thirty days of service of defendant's answer." Docket No. 2 ¶ 2. Defendant answered on December 22, 2006. See Docket No. 9. Plaintiff did not file a motion for summary judgment until February 29, 2008, over a year later. See Docket No. 15. Under the Procedural Order, defendant's opposition or counter-motion is due by March 30, 2008. See Docket No. 2 ¶ 3. In turn, under the Procedural Order, plaintiff's reply, if any, would be due 14 days after service of defendant's opposition or counter-motion. See id. ¶ 4. Given that plaintiff has without explanation caused an extremely long delay in resolving this matter, the Court shortens the period for her to reply, from 14 days, to 5 days. Thus, plaintiff's reply, if any, will be due 5 days after service of defendant's opposition or counter-motion.

The defendant then was Jo Anne Barnhart, since replaced by Michael J. Astrue, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Clay v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division
Mar 26, 2008
No. C 06-05032 SBA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)
Case details for

Clay v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:DEBORAH R. CLAY, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. California, Oakland Division

Date published: Mar 26, 2008

Citations

No. C 06-05032 SBA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)