Kaszuba v. Kilolo Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Allison H. Goddard (author)
Analysis
The court considered an unopposed motion by the plaintiff for a ten-day continuance of the briefing schedule regarding the defendant's motion to remand. The court granted the motion, extending the deadline for the plaintiff's opposition to August 5, 2022, and rescheduling the subsequent reply and hearing dates.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Continuance“Upon due consideration, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 21) as follows:” | agree with court The court applied the 'good cause' standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and local rules. The plaintiff provided specific reasons for the delay (medical appointments, need for legal research assistance) and demonstrated diligence in attempting to meet the original deadline. The request was unopposed. Granting a short continuance for good cause is a standard exercise of discretion that follows from the cited law and the recited facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for a motion for continuance (good cause under Rule 6(b)). It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority defining the standard and focuses on the plaintiff's diligence and reasons for the request. The facts recited (medical appointments, need for library access) support the finding of good cause. The reasoning is complete for this procedural matter.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 KRIS K., Case No.: 3:20-cv-00515-AHG 13 Plaintiff, ORDER:
14 v. (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 15 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE, and Commissioner of Social Security, 16 (2) ISSUING AMENDED BRIEFING Defendant. 17 SCHEDULE 18 [ECF No. 21] 19 20 21 22 23 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Unopposed1 Motion for Continuance. ECF No. 21. 24 Plaintiff seeks to extend upcoming filing deadline for his Opposition to Defendant’s 25 Motion to Remand (ECF No. 19) by ten days. Id. 26 27 28 1 1 Parties seeking to continue deadlines must demonstrate good cause. FED. R. CIV. 2 P. 6(b) (“When an act may or must be done within a specified time, the court may, for good 3 cause, extend the time”); Chmb.R. at 2 (stating that any request for continuance requires 4 “[a] showing of good cause for the request”). 5 “Good cause” is a non-rigorous standard that has been construed broadly across 6 procedural and statutory contexts. Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1259 7 (9th Cir. 2010). The good cause standard focuses on the diligence of the party seeking to 8 amend the scheduling order and the reasons for seeking modification. Johnson v. Mammoth 9 Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[T]he focus of the inquiry is upon 10 the moving party’s reasons for seeking modification. . . . If that party was not diligent, the 11 inquiry should end.”) (internal citation omitted). A “party demonstrates good cause by 12 acting diligently to meet the original deadlines set forth by the court.” Merck v. Swift 13 Transp. Co., No. CV-16-01103-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 4492362, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 19, 14 2018). 15 Defendant filed her Motion to Remand on July 8, 2022. ECF No. 19. The same day, 16 the Court issued a briefing schedule, requiring that Plaintiff file his Opposition by July 22 17 and Defendant file her reply by July 29, setting a videoconference hearing for August 5. 18 ECF No. 20. In the instant motion, Plaintiff represents to the Court that he had three 19 medical appointments in the past week, which took up considerable time and limited his 20 ability to prepare his opposition brief. ECF No. 21 at 1. Plaintiff notes that he has diligently 21 searched the internet for analogous cases to inform his opposition brief, to no avail, and 22 plans to visit the law library for help. Id. at 2. Further, Plaintiff represents that he requires 23 the assistance of a caregiver to visit the San Diego Law Library and search its legal 24 databases. Id. Thus, Plaintiff requests a ten-day continuance of his Opposition deadline, as 25 well as the remaining dates set forth in the briefing schedule. 26 Upon due consideration, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 27 motion (ECF No. 21) as follows: 28 / / 1 1. Plaintiff shall file his Opposition no later than August 5, 2022. 2 2. Defendant shall file her Reply no later than August 12, 2022. 3 3. A hearing on the Defendant’s Motion to Remand (ECF No. 19) will be held 4 on August 19, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Allison H. Goddard 5 via videoconference. The Court will provide, via email, a Zoom link to the 6 hearing participants two days before the hearing. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 21, 2022 9 AWioevdH. Kovlolard 10 Honorable Allison H. Goddard United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28