Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Beltran v. Astrue

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 27, 2009

MARIA BELTRAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

The court is in receipt of the parties' second proposed stipulation to extend plaintiff's time to file her motion for summary judgment. The matter will be set for hearing before the undersigned.

On December 30, 2008, the court granted plaintiff an additional two-and-a-half months in which to file her motion. In approving the stipulation on December 30, the court noted that: "Given the length of the extension granted herein, no further extensions will be granted absent a showing of substantial cause." On March 5, 2009, the parties submitted a proposed stipulation and order to continue the deadline for plaintiff to file her motion for summary judgment. The stipulation stated that: "This extension is required due [sic] Plaintiff's counsel's extremely heavy briefing schedule." The court found that the boilerplate language failed to overcome the burden placed on plaintiff by the December 30, 2008 order, and disapproved the stipulation on March 6, 2009. In denying the request for extension of time, the court noted that: "Plaintiff may, however, resubmit a proposed stipulation and order demonstrating the 'substantial cause' required." Order filed March 6, 2009.

On March 17, 2009, the parties submitted a second stipulation and order requesting an extension of plaintiff's deadline which was identical to the previously submitted stipulation the court disapproved and which, once again, fails to overcome the burden placed on plaintiff by the December 30, 2008, order. While the court is mindful that plaintiff's counsel carries a heavy caseload and does not wish to invite a claim of malpractice against plaintiff's counsel, the stipulation wholly ignores the requirements placed on plaintiff for the extension without a demonstration of good cause, and should be denied. However, the court defers ruling on the request. Plaintiff's request for an extension of time in which to file her motion for summary judgment is now SET for oral argument on April 1, 2009, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom No. 25.

So Ordered.

20090327

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.