From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pacheco v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 1, 2011
Case No. 10-CIV-1733 KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. 10-CIV-1733 KJN

09-01-2011

IDALIA PACHECO Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social Security of the United States of America, Defendant.

BESS M. BREWER Attorney at Law Attorney for Plaintiff Benjamin B. Wagner United States Attorney PETER THOMPSON Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant


BESS M. BREWER, #100364

LAW OFFICE OF

BESS M. BREWER & ASSOCIATES

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STIPULATION AND PROPOSED

ORDER EXTENDING PLAINTIFF'S

TIME TO FILE SUMMARY

JUDGEMENT MOTION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties, through their attorneys, that the Plaintiff's time to file his summary judgment is hereby extended from August 29, 2011, to October 4, 2011. This is Plaintiff's first extension and is required due to Plaintiff's counsel's impacted briefing schedule and need to prioritize older cases.

BESS M. BREWER

Attorney at Law

Attorney for Plaintiff

Benjamin B. Wagner

United States Attorney

PETER THOMPSON

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER

The stipulation of the parties is HEREBY APPROVED. Plaintiff shall have until October 4, 2011, to file a motion for summary judgment. The court's scheduling order is modified accordingly.

The undersigned notes that plaintiff, who is represented by an attorney who appears regularly before the undersigned and all too regularly seeks extensions of time based on her "impacted briefing schedule," filed this stipulation and proposed order on the day that plaintiff was required to file a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff's counsel is again admonished that, pursuant to Local Rule 144(d), "[c]ounsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent," and that requests for court-approved extensions brought on or after the required filing date "are looked upon with disfavor." The undersigned also notes that plaintiff's counsel appears to be falling behind in her cases again—plaintiff's counsel filed four requests for extensions in four separate cases between August 26, 2011, and August 29, 2011. (See Pacheco v. Astrue, No. 2:10-cv-1733 KJN (E.D. Cal.); Carson v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-0632 KJN (E.D. Cal.); Feltis v. Astrue, No. 2:11-cv-0723 KJN (E.D. Cal.); Juarez v. Astrue, No. 2:10-cv-0748 KJN (E.D. Cal.).)

IT IS SO ORDERED.

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE


Summaries of

Pacheco v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 1, 2011
Case No. 10-CIV-1733 KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)
Case details for

Pacheco v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:IDALIA PACHECO Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 1, 2011

Citations

Case No. 10-CIV-1733 KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 1, 2011)