From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. California
Feb 25, 2010
No. C 09-2668 MMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010)

Opinion

No. C 09-2668 MMC.

February 25, 2010


ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PROOF OF SERVICE


By order filed January 28, 2010, the Court directed defendant to serve plaintiff, no later than February 5, 2010, with a copy of the administrative transcript, and to file, no later than February 5, 2010, proof of such service.

Before the Court is defendant's motion, filed February 17, 2010, for an extension of time to file the above-referenced proof of service, specifically, an extension to February 23, 2010. Thereafter, on February 23, 2010, defendant filed proof of service, which filing indicates defendant served plaintiff with the administrative transcript on December 17, 2009.

Defendant failed to provide the Court with a chambers copy of his motion for an extension of time. Although the Court has considered the motion, defendant, for future reference, is reminded of the following provision in the Court's Standing Orders: "In all cases that have been assigned to the Electronic Case Filing Program, the parties are required to provide for use in chambers one paper copy of each document that is filed electronically. The paper copy of each such document shall be delivered no later than noon on the day after the document is filed electronically. The paper copy shall be marked `Chambers Copy' and shall be delivered to the Clerk's Office in an envelope clearly marked with the judge's name, case number, and `E-Filing Chambers Copy.'"

Good cause appearing, defendant's motion for an extension to file the proof of service is hereby GRANTED.

The deadline for plaintiff to file his motion for summary judgment remains March 12, 2010, as set forth in the Court's January 28, 2010 order. In such motion, plaintiff shall set forth all arguments in support of his position that the administrative law judge's decision of February 23, 2007 is erroneous. The Court hereby informs plaintiff that a failure to file a motion for summary judgment may result in dismissal of the above-titled action for failure to prosecute.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Astrue

United States District Court, N.D. California
Feb 25, 2010
No. C 09-2668 MMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:DANIEL RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

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

Date published: Feb 25, 2010

Citations

No. C 09-2668 MMC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2010)