United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2025

Cutchlow v. O'Malley

Cutchlow v. O'Malley
United States District Court for the Northern District of California · Decided May 12, 2025
Cutchlow v. O'Malley

Trial Court Opinion

1 CAROLINE J. ALEGRE, SBN 271053 HOMELESS ACTION CENTER 2601 San Pablo Avenue Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 698-1097 Facsimile: (510) 858-7867 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiff 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA R.C., ) ) Civil No. 4:24-cv-07367-HSG 13 Plaintiff, ) ) 14 v. ) MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE ) PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF; ORDER 15 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 16 Defendant. ) ) 17 ) ) 19 Pursuant to FRCP Rule 6(b)(1)(A), Plaintiff hereby moves the Court to extend, until May 24, 2025, the date to file Plaintiff’s Reply Brief in Support of Reversal of the Decision of the Commissioner. Plaintiff’s Reply is due on or before May 9, 2025, however, undersigned counsel needs more time to review the evidence and draft her Reply.

24 Specifically, good cause exists to extend time because Plaintiff was diagnosed with metastatic cancer less than two weeks ago, and this week, Plaintiff’s counsel received over 900 pages of new medical evidence of diagnoses including squamous cell carcinoma and bone metastasis. Plaintiff’s counsel’s cursory review of the new evidence suggests to her that it may be material, directly relating to evidence at issue in this case, including Plaintiff’s hearing ! || testimony. Additional time is needed for Plaintiffs counsel to review the new evidence prior to drafting the Reply, to assess whether good cause exists to file a motion requesting incorporation of the new evidence into the record, per 42 U.S.C. § 405(g); Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, || 463 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Key v. Heckler, 754 F.2d 1545, 1551 (9th Cir. 1985) (“Ifnew information surfaces after the Secretary's final decision and the claimant could not have || obtained that evidence at the time of the administrative proceeding, the good cause requirement is satisfied.”)).

0 Undersigned counsel has conferred with counsel for Defendant and counsel for || Defendant has indicated no objection to a 15-day extension of time for Plaintiff to file her || Reply.

14 |) Respectfully submitted May 9, 2025.

16 .

By: /s/ Caroline J. Alegre 17 CAROLINE J. ALEGRE 8 Homeless Action Center Attorney for Plaintiff ORDER APPROVED AND SO ORDERED: Dated: 5/12/2025 fF .

26 HON. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 57 United States District Court Judge flaca NIRA ASDA ay W7247 DOCG

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