Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Pio Rodriguez v. Michael J. Astrue

May 10, 2011

PIO RODRIGUEZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REGARDING STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME FILED MAY 6, 2011 (Document 15)

On May 6, 2011, the parties filed a stipulation regarding an extension of time within which Defendant would be permitted to file its opposition no later than June 3, 2011. (Doc. 15.) Before addressing the parties stipulation, the Court will address Plaintiff's filing an Amended Opening Brief some twenty-eight days past the relevant deadline and, without leave of Court. This Court once again takes note of Plaintiff's counsels disregard of deadlines and procedural formalities.

Relevant Background

Plaintiff Pio Rodriguez filed a Complaint in this Court on July 13, 2010. (Doc. 2.) A scheduling order was issued on July 14, 2010. (Doc. 6.) Following service of the summons and complaint, Defendant Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, lodged the administrative record on December 9, 2010. (Doc. 10.)

On April 7, 2011, following an earlier stipulation for an extension of time, Plaintiff timely filed an Opening Brief in this matter. (Doc. 13.) Thus, Defendant's opposition became due on or before May 9, 2011.

However, on May 4, 2011, Plaintiff filed an Amended Opening Brief. Plaintiff's filing was not accompanied by a request or motion for leave of Court, nor did the amended pleading address the necessity for the filing. (See Doc. 14.)

Thereafter, on May 6, 2011, the parties filed a "Stipulation Extend Time [sic]," wherein Defendant sought an extension of thirty days, through and including June 3, 2011, within which to file its opposition "[i]n light of the amended brief filed [by Plaintiff] May 4, 2011." (Doc. 15.)

Discussion

The Scheduling Order issued on July 14, 2010, does not expressly address the matter of amended pleadings or briefs. It does however provide as follows:

12. The court will allow a single thirty (30) day extension of any part of this scheduling order by stipulation of the parties. Court approval is not required for this extension. However, the stipulation shall be filed with the court.

13. Request for modification of this briefing schedule will not routinely be granted.

14. With the exception of the single thirty day extension, requests to modify this order must be made by written motion and will be granted only for good cause.

(Doc. 6 at 4, emphasis in original.) The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do address amended ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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