(SS) Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CYNTHIA DARNELL SMITH,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.
Case No. 1:25-cv-01114-KES-CDB (SS)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
EXTENDING NUNC PRO TUNC TIME TO
FILE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
(Doc. 13)
Plaintiff Cynthia Darnell Smith (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a
complaint on September 2, 2025, seeking review of the final decision of the Commissioner of
Social Security denying disability benefits. (Doc. 1). On September 4, 2025, the Court entered the
scheduling order, setting forth dates and deadlines for the filing of the administrative record and of
cross-motions for summary judgment. (Doc. 5). Following the Court’s order on the parties’
stipulation extending Defendant’s time to file a response to Plaintiff’s complaint (see Doc. 11), on
December 3, 2025, Defendant filed a copy of the administrative record. (Doc. 12).
On January 2, 2026—the deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for summary judgment (see
Doc. 5 ¶ 3)—Plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a 60-day extension of the filing deadline to March
3, 2026. (Doc. 13). Plaintiff represents that the request is made in good faith and not for the
purpose of delay as counsel for Plaintiff has numerous merit briefs and reply briefs due the weeks
of December 22, 2025, and December 29, 2025. Id. at 1. Counsel for Plaintiff represents he needs
Case 1:25-cv-01114-KES-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/06/26 Page 1 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
additional time to file Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in light of the multiple overlapping
briefing deadlines and to allow counsel to fully develop and present the issues here for the Court’s
consideration. Id. at 1-2. Counsel for Plaintiff represents he attempted to contact counsel for
Defendant on December 30, 2025, and followed up on January 2, 2026, to obtain a stipulation for
the requested extension but did not receive a response in time to file a joint request. Id.
Requests for extensions of time in the Eastern District of California are governed by Local
Rule 144, which provides: “Counsel shall seek to obtain a necessary extension from the Court or
from other counsel or parties in an action as soon as the need for an extension becomes apparent.”
L.R. 144(d). That rule further provides, “Requests for Court-approved extensions brought on the
required filing date for the pleading or other document are looked upon with disfavor.”
Here, given that the administrative record was filed on December 3, 2025, coupled with
counsel for Plaintiff’s representations that he needs approximately two additional months to prepare
and file an opening brief, it should have been apparent well before the January 2, 2026, deadline
for filing Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment that an extension was needed. Hence, under
Local Rule 144, Plaintiff’s request for an extension is untimely.
The Court disfavors granting nunc pro tunc relief and directs Plaintiff to exercise better care
in anticipating any future requests for extensions of time and filing such requests well before the
terminal filing date that Plaintiff seeks to extend. Nevertheless, in light of Plaintiff’s
representations that he attempted to contact Defendant’s counsel before the filing deadline, the
Court finds good cause to continue the filing deadline as requested.
Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Case 1:25-cv-01114-KES-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/06/26 Page 2 of 3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Plaintiff’s motion and for good cause shown, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. Plaintiff’s due date for filing a motion for summary judgment is extended nunc pro tunc
from January 2, 2026, to March 3, 2026;
2. No further extension of the filing deadlines will be granted without a timely-filed
request by one or both parties supported by a showing of good cause; and
3. The Court’s Scheduling Order (Doc. 5) shall continue to govern the filing of
Defendant’s cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition and any reply brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026 ___________________ _
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:25-cv-01114-KES-CDB Document 14 Filed 01/06/26 Page 3 of 3