IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 17, 2010
LEATRICE COX, PLAINTIFF,
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ORDER COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANT.
Plaintiff's counsel has electronically filed in the above-captioned case a stipulation and proposed order that is captioned for filing in the Fresno Division of the court in "Case No. 2:05-cv-02148," with no indication of the assigned judges. The document may have been properly filed in this case, however, since the caption of the filing identifies the plaintiff as Leatrice Cox, and Leatrice Cox is not a party in Case No. 2:05-cv-02148. The signature block on the proposed order has been prepared for signature by the undersigned.
The court would construe plaintiff's filing as a request for extension of time intended for filing in this case but for the fact that plaintiff requests a 30-day extension of time from December 17, 2010, to January 16, 2011, to submit "a confidential brief." By order filed and served on November 22, 2010, the scheduling order filed in this action on July 14, 2005, was reinstated, and plaintiff was ordered to file her motion for summary judgment and/or remand within 45 days from service of the order. See Order filed and served Nov. 22, 2010 (Doc. No. 30). Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and/or remand is due on January 6, 2011, 45 days after November 22, 2010, and the court has not ordered or authorized the filing of a confidential letter brief.
If plaintiff is in need of a 10-day extension of time to January 16, 2011 (which is a Sunday) to file the motion she is required to file, plaintiff must submit a new stipulation and proposed order that is properly captioned and reflects the correct document to be filed and amount of time sought.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the defective stipulation and proposed order filed by plaintiff on December 17, 2010 (Doc. No. 31) will not be approved.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.