Bracey v. Kijakazi

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 9, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00138
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTEN LLOYD BRACEY, Case No.: 23-CV-138-WVG

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION/NOTICE OF 13 v. WITHDRAWAL OF PLEADINGS 14 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17

18 19 Before the Court is Kristen Lloyd Bracey’s Motion/ Notice of Withdrawal of 20 Pleadings (“Motion”). (Doc. No. 6.) In relevant part, Plaintiff moves the Court for leave to 21 withdraw her January 25, 2023, Complaint pursuant to 18 C.F.R. section 385.216 (“Rule 22 216”). (Id.; see generally Doc. No. 1.) The Motion indicates Plaintiff is aware of the 23 consequences of withdrawal. (Doc. No. 6, 1:19-20.) On February 28, 2023, the Court 24 ordered the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) to respond to the Motion. 25 (Doc. No. 7.) Defendant timely filed its response on March 9, 2023, and indicated it does 26 not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion to any extent. (Doc. No. 8.) As explained below, the Court 27 GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion. 28 / / / 1 Having considered the Parties’ inapposite positions and the legal authority 2 || applicable to Rule 216 motions, the Court finds good cause underlies Plaintiffs request for 3 relief. Under Rule 216, the withdrawal of an operative complaint is not a matter of right. 4 || Port of Seattle, Wash. V. FERC, 299 F.3d 1016, 1029-1030 (9th Cir. 2007) (“hold[ing] the 5 || withdrawal of the complaint did not become effective as a matter of law”) (citing 18 C.F.R. 6 385.216(b)(1)). Specifically, district courts may deny Rule 216 motions where a party 7 ||opponent or a non-party disfavors withdrawal or, separately, under circumstances that 8 || warrant resolution of the complaint on the merits. Jd. at 1030 (observing Rule 216’s broad 9 ||scope as it does not limit oppositions to such motions only to “formal parties to the 10 || proceeding”); see also E. Hydroelectric Corp. v. FERC, 887 F.3d 1197, 1201 (11th Cir. 11 |/2018) (affirming Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s denial of petitioner’s 12 || withdrawal of licensing application and request for rehearing in construing same as 13 || pleadings and finding the record supported the Commission’s decision). 14 Here, it is clear the Parties are aligned Plaintiffs withdrawal of the Complaint is 15 || appropriate. Separately, the Court has not been made aware by the Parties or any non-party 16 ||that there are any circumstances present that suggest this litigation should continue for 17 || purposes of resolving on the merits. For these reasons, the Court finds good cause supports 18 || Plaintiff's request and thus GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion. Plaintiff shall withdraw her 19 ||Complaint no later than five (5) days from this Order’s issuance. Upon □□□□□□□□□□□ 20 || withdrawal, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of this Court to close this Action. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || DATED: March 9, 2023 UM Ss IA Hon. William V. Gallo 95 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28