Opinion
Civil Action No.: 12-cv-1365-AP
09-07-2012
JESSICA SABRINA MARJERRISON, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.
For Plaintiff : Frederick W. Newall #10269, Esq. For Defendant: JOHN WALSH Acting United States Attorney WILLIAM GEORGE PHARO U.S. Attorney's Office-Denver STEPHANIE L. FISHKIN-KILEY Special Assistant U. S. Attorney Assistant Regional Counsel Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration
JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES
1. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES
For Plaintiff:
Frederick W. Newall #10269, Esq.
For Defendant:
JOHN WALSH
Acting United States Attorney
WILLIAM GEORGE PHARO
U.S. Attorney's Office-Denver
STEPHANIE L. FISHKIN-KILEY
Special Assistant U. S. Attorney
Assistant Regional Counsel
Office of the General Counsel
Social Security Administration
2. STATEMENT OF LEGAL BASIS FOR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
The Court has jurisdiction based on section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
3. DATES OF FILING OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS
A. Date Complaint Was Filed: May 25, 2012.
B. Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: June 11, 2012.
C. Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: August 18, 2012.
4. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD
Plaintiff states: Although counsel has undertaken a timely review of the record, the accuracy and completeness of the Administrative Record cannot be verified until after the Plaintiff's Opening brief is filed.
Defendant states: There are no issues with the accuracy or completeness of the Administrative Record.
5. STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
Plaintiff states: See Plaintiff's statement in paragraph 4, above.
Defendant states: None anticipated.
6. STATEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR DEFENSES
The parties, to the best of their knowledge, do not believe this case raises unusual claims or defenses.
7. OTHER MATTERS
None.
8. BRIEFING SCHEDULE
Plaintiff's attorney, because of workload, namely Regina Anderson v. Apfel , due October 11, 2012, requests that briefing commence 45 days after this joint case management plan was due. Counsel for both parties conferred and agreed upon the following proposed briefing schedule:
A. Plaintiffs Opening Brief Due: October 19, 2012.
B. Defendant's Response Brief Due: November 19, 2012.
C. Plaintiffs Reply Brief (If Any) Due: December 3, 2012.
9. STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
A. Plaintiffs Statement: Plaintiff does not request oral argument.
B. Defendant's Statement: Defendant does not request oral argument
10. CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE
All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.
11. OTHER MATTERS
THE PARTIES FILING MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OR CONTINUANCES MUST COMPLY WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(C) BY SUBMITTING PROOF THAT A COPY OF THE MOTION HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE MOVING ATTORNEY'S CLIENT, ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND ALL PRO SE PARTIES.
12. AMENDMENTS TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN
The parties agree that the Joint Case Management Plan may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause.
BY THE COURT:
________________________
THE HONORABLE JOHN L. KANE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
APPROVED:
____________
FREDERICK W. NEWALL
Attorney for Plaintiff
JOHN WALSH
Acting United States Attorney
WILLIAM GEORGE PHARO
U.S. Attorney's Office-Denver
By: ____________
STEPHANIE LYNN F. KILEY
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant.