(SS) Quintana v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2020 )

JONATHAN O. PENA, ESQ. 1 CA Bar ID No. 278044 2 Peña & Bromberg, PLC 2440 Tulare St., Suite 320 3 Fresno, CA 93721 Telephone: 559-412-5390 4 Fax: 866-282-6709 5 info@jonathanpena.com Attorney for Plaintiff 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ) Case No. 1:19-cv-01304-BAM SAM QUINANA, ) 10 ) STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR Plaintiff, ) EXTENSION OF TIME 11 ) vs. ) 12 ) ANDREW SAUL, ) 13 Commissioner of Social Security, ) ) 14 ) Defendant. ) 15 16 17 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties through their respective 18 counsel of record, with the Court’s approval, that Plaintiff shall have a 10-day extension of time, 19 from October 9, 2020 to October 19, 2020, for Plaintiff to serve on defendant with 20 PLAINTIFF’S REPLY BRIEF . All other dates in the Court’s Scheduling Order shall be 21 extended accordingly. 22 This is Plaintiff’s third request for an extension of time but first for this task. Good cause 23 exists for this request. Plaintiff’s Counsel has undergone major technology changes within the 24 office to accommodate remote work. During this transition, some cases had tasks that were either 25 deleted or did not transfer over into the new system. Counsel has gone back to ensure the cases 26 have been properly calendar, however, it appears this case was missed. 27 28 1 This request is made in good faith and Plaintiff does not intend to delay this matter any 2 further. Defendant does not oppose the requested extension. Counsel apologizes to the 3 Defendant and Court for any inconvenience this may cause. 4 Respectfully submitted, 5 6 Dated: October 19, 2020 PENA & BROMBERG, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7 By: /s/ Jonathan Omar Pena 8 JONATHAN OMAR PENA 9 Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 11 Dated: October 19, 2020 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 12 United States Attorney DEBORAH LEE STACHEL 13 Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX 14 Social Security Administration 15 By: */s/ Sharon Lahey 16 Sharon Lahey 17 Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant 18 (*As authorized by email on October 19, 2020) 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ORDER 2 An attorney’s calendar errors and oversights generally are not good cause to modify a 3 scheduling order. See, e.g., Robinson v. Adams, 2011 WL 3503116, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 10, 4 2011) (finding no good cause for modification of scheduling order where defendants 5 incorrectly calendared the applicable deadline); Friedman v. Albertson’s, LLC, 2015 WL 6 4606160, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 30, 2015) (“[C]ounsel’s mis-calendaring of the parties’ rebuttal 7 designation deadline militates against a finding of good cause” to modify a scheduling order); 8 see also Wei v. State of Hawaii, 763 F.2d 370 (9th Cir. 1985) (finding no good cause to extend 9 time to serve opposing party where counsel failed to calendar the applicable deadline). 10 Moreover, the parties filed their stipulation ten days after the applicable deadline. Requests for 11 Court-approved extensions brought on or after the required filing date are looked upon with 12 disfavor. L.R. 144(d). Nonetheless, as Plaintiff filed the reply brief concurrently with the 13 stipulation and in light of Defendant’s consent to the extension, the Court finds that no 14 prejudice will result from the brief extension requested here. 15 16 Accordingly, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 17 time to October 19, 2020, to file a reply brief is GRANTED nunc pro tunc. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: October 20, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ 20 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28