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.

Kevin Helm v. Michael S. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 7, 2011

KEVIN HELM,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MICHAEL S. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
DEFENDANT.

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

ORDER REGARDING THE PARTIES' STIPULATION REGARDING REPLY BRIEF FILED SEPTEMBER 6, 2011

On September 6, 2011, the parties filed a Stipulation to extend the time within which Plaintiff may file a reply brief, from September 6, 2011, to October 6, 2011. Plaintiff indicates that "[a]n attorney recently left the firm and more cases have been reassigned to Plaintiff's attorney" as a result. (Doc. 1.)

Despite the parties' stipulation to a thirty day extension of time, such a lengthy extension for a reply brief is not warranted. The time for filing a reply brief is fifteen days following the filing of Defendant's brief; thus, a proper extension of time would be a second fifteen-day period. Therefore, Plaintiff may have through September 21, 2011, within which to file a reply brief.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

i70h38

20110907

© 1992-2011 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.