United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, 2022

(SS) Trujillo v. Commissioner of Social Security

(SS) Trujillo v. Commissioner of Social Security
United States District Court for the Eastern District of California · Decided January 4, 2022
(SS) Trujillo v. Commissioner of Social Security

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DARLENE ALICE TRUJILLO, CASE NO: 1:21-cv-00273-NONE-GSA Plaintiff, 8 ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT v. TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S 9 MOTION FOR EXTENSION KILOLO KIJAKAZI, acting Commissioner of Social Security, (Doc. 18) Defendant.

14 Plaintiff moves for a 30-day extension of time from January 3, 2022 to February 2, 2022 to file an opening brief due to counsel’s workload given the increased number of Certified Administrative Records filed in previously stayed cases. This is Plaintiff’s first motion for an extension for cause.

18 The Scheduling Order allows for a single extension of thirty days by the stipulation of the parties. Doc. 5 at 3. Beyond the single extension by stipulation, “requests to modify [the scheduling] order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.” Id. 21 When considering whether good cause exists to modify a scheduling order, courts consider the foreseeability of the impediment to meeting the deadline and the party’s diligence in seeking the extension once it became apparent they could not meet the deadline. See Sharp v. Covenant Care LLC, 288 F.R.D. 465, 467 (S.D. Cal. 2012); Ordaz Gonzalez v. Cty. of Fresno, No. 1:18-CV- 01558-BAM, 2020 WL 2539287, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 19, 2020). The Court has the inherent power to manage its own docket to achieve an orderly and expeditious resolution of cases. Southern California Edison Co. v. Lynch, 307 F.3d 794 (9th Cir. 2002).

28 Plaintiff’s counsel indicated he contacted defense counsel for concurrence but did not receive a response. The Court hesitates to act on the motion without an indication whether the motion is opposed.

3 Accordingly, Defendant is DIRECTED to respond to the motion within 5 days of the entry of this order. Alternatively, if Plaintiff has now received a response, Plaintiff is DIRECTED to file an amended motion within 5 days of the entry of this order indicating whether it is opposed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9 Dated: January 3, 2022 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.