(SS) Macias v. Commissioner of Social Security

1 RraAquQeUl@EeLr iMsa.l gB.cUoSmA NI, CA State Bar No.: 323162 6485 N. Palm Avenue, Suite 105 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: (559) 478-4119 Facsimile: (559) 478-5939 Attorney for Plaintiff, LORENA MACIAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION LORENA MACIAS, ) CASE NO.: 1:22−CV−01283−SKO )) 12 Plaintiff, )) STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR ) 30-DAY EXTENSION OF TIME v. ) FOR PLAINTIFF LORENA ) MACIAS TO FILE MOTION FOR KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ) SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR ) OTHER DISPOSITIVE MOTION Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) (Doc. 12) 16 Defendant. ) ) 18 Plaintiff, LORENA MACIAS (“Macias”) and Defendant KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) (jointly referred to as “the Parties”) by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby agree and stipulate to the following: 22 WHEREAS, by email exchanges dated February 21, and 22, 2023, counsel for the Parties’ met and conferred about stipulating to a 30-day extension of time pursuant to the October 7, 2022, Scheduling Order Social Security Case (Doc. 3), for Plaintiff Macias to file her motion for summary judgment so that she may attend to two family emergencies that presented themselves this week; 1 WHEREAS, in preparing the stipulation, counsel for Plaintiff learned that the deadline for filing Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Court’s scheduling order had been mistakenly calendared for February 27, 2023; 4 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order Social Security Case (Doc. 3), “within 45 days after service of the administrative record, the plaintiff shall file the motion for summary judgment”; 7 WHEREAS, Defendant filed the administrative record in the case on January 5, 2023 (see, Doc. 11); 9 WHEREAS, the correct deadline to file Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment has passed, and was set for February 20, 2023; 11 WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court’s Scheduling Order, (Doc. 3), “The Court will allow a single thirty (30) day extension of any part of this scheduling order by stipulation of the parties. Court approval is not required for this extension. However, the stipulation shall be filed with the Court.”; 15 WHEREAS, the Parties nonetheless seek leave from the Court due Plaintiff’s counsel’s error in calendaring, and because request for a modification brought on the filing deadline are looked upon with disfavor. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 144(d).

19 THEREFORE, the Parties, by and through their counsel of record whose signatures appear below, hereby stipulate to and seek leave from the Court to retroactively extend the deadline for Plaintiff Macias to file her motion for summary judgment or other appropriate dispositive motion by 30 days from February 20, 2023, such that a pleading filed on or before March 22, 2023, shall be considered timely.

25 Good cause exists and the requested extension is necessary to cure Plaintiff’s lead’s counsel’s calendaring error which would unduly prejudice her client, but also so Plaintiff’s counsel may have some time to assist with two family emergencies that have presented themselves this week, and because office for Plaintiff’s counsel is otherwise short-staffed, with two litigation assistants out on medical leave, and one temporary employee handling all litigation matters.

3 Therefore, counsel for Macias requires additional time to complete work on the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff will be prejudiced if leave of the court is not granted. Defendant will suffer no prejudice if leave of court is granted.

6 The Parties have not previously stipulated to any extensions of time.

8 IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED: February 22, 2023 /s/ Raquel M. Busani 11 RAQUEL M BUSANI 12 Attorney for Plaintiff, LORENA MACIAS DATED: February 22, 2023 /s/ Justin L. Martin .

JUSTIN L. MARTIN Attorney for Defendant, 16 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security

1 ORDER 2 On February 22, 2023, the parties filed the above stipulation (Doc. 12), requesting an extension of time for Plaintiff to file her opening brief—one day after Plaintiff’s filing deadline expired on February 21, 2023.1 5 The Court may extend time to act after the deadline has expired because of “excusable neglect.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). Here, although the stipulation demonstrates good cause to support the request for extension of time (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4)), no such excusable neglect has been articulated—much less shown—to justify the untimeliness of the request. Notwithstanding this deficiency, given the absence of bad faith or prejudice to Defendant (as evidenced by Defendant’s agreement to the extension of time after the deadline), and in view of the liberal construction of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1) to effectuate the general purpose of seeing that cases are tried on the merits, see Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1258–59 (9th Cir. 2010), the Court GRANTS the parties’ stipulated request. The parties are cautioned that future post hoc requests for extensions of time will be viewed with disfavor.

17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have an extension of time, to and including March 23, 2023, in which to file Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. All other deadlines set forth in the Scheduling Order (Doc. 3) shall be extended accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 23, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The parties state that the filing deadline for Plaintiff’s opening brief was February 20, 2023, but that day was a court holiday. The correct deadline for Plaintiff’s brief was February 21, 2023, and