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