Glaude v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of the United States

N.D. California

Glaude v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of the United States

DecidedDecember 26, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-06884

StatusUnknown

This text of Glaude v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of the United States (Glaude v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of the United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Glaude v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of the United States, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ALYCIA ROSE GLAUDE, 7 Case No. 24-cv-06884-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 DISMISS COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 10 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OF THE Re: Dkt. No. 8 UNITED STATES, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff brings this action challenging the denial of her application for disability benefits 14 under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Commissioner’s denial became final 15 on July 25, 2024 and therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint in this action was due on September 30, 16 2024, that is, the next business day after September 28, 2024, when the complaint would otherwise 17 have been due. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g); 20 C.F.R. §404.968 (complaint challenging final denial 18 must be filed 60 days after receipt of the notice of the Agency’s Appeals Council’s action); 20 19 C.F.R. § 404.901 (notice is presumed to have been received “5 days after the date on the notice”); 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (providing that filing deadlines falling on a weekend are timely filed on the 21 next business day). Instead, the Complaint was filed the next business day, on October 1, 2024.1 22 The Commissioner brings a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that although the deadline is non- 23 jurisdictional, Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable tolling because Plaintiff’s counsel, who 24 experienced technical difficulties with the Court’s ECF system, waited until after business hours 25 on the date the complaint was due, to file the complaint. The Court has reviewed the affidavit of 26 1 The Commissioner suggest in the Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiff’s complaint was filed eight 27 days late because the statute allows 60 days from the date of the final decision to challenge a 1 Plaintiff’s counsel, dkt. no. 10 at pp. 5-7, and finds that extraordinary circumstances and □□□□□□□□□□ 2 || overall diligence warrant a finding of equitable tolling. See Okafor v. United States, 846 F.3d 337, 3 340 (9th Cir. 2017) (Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of 4 || establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some 5 extraordinary circumstance stood in his way”) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 6 (2005)). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: December 26, 2024 10 € J PH C. SPERO nited States Magistrate Judge 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ALYCIA ROSE GLAUDE, 7 Case No. 24-cv-06884-JCS Plaintiff, 8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 9 DISMISS COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL 10 SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OF THE Re: Dkt. No. 8 UNITED STATES, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 Plaintiff brings this action challenging the denial of her application for disability benefits 14 under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Social Security Commissioner’s denial became final 15 on July 25, 2024 and therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint in this action was due on September 30, 16 2024, that is, the next business day after September 28, 2024, when the complaint would otherwise 17 have been due. See 42 U.S.C. §405(g); 20 C.F.R. §404.968 (complaint challenging final denial 18 must be filed 60 days after receipt of the notice of the Agency’s Appeals Council’s action); 20 19 C.F.R. § 404.901 (notice is presumed to have been received “5 days after the date on the notice”); 20 Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a) (providing that filing deadlines falling on a weekend are timely filed on the 21 next business day). Instead, the Complaint was filed the next business day, on October 1, 2024.1 22 The Commissioner brings a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that although the deadline is non- 23 jurisdictional, Plaintiff is not entitled to equitable tolling because Plaintiff’s counsel, who 24 experienced technical difficulties with the Court’s ECF system, waited until after business hours 25 on the date the complaint was due, to file the complaint. The Court has reviewed the affidavit of 26 1 The Commissioner suggest in the Motion to Dismiss that Plaintiff’s complaint was filed eight 27 days late because the statute allows 60 days from the date of the final decision to challenge a 1 Plaintiff’s counsel, dkt. no. 10 at pp. 5-7, and finds that extraordinary circumstances and □□□□□□□□□□ 2 || overall diligence warrant a finding of equitable tolling. See Okafor v. United States, 846 F.3d 337, 3 340 (9th Cir. 2017) (Generally, a litigant seeking equitable tolling bears the burden of 4 || establishing two elements: (1) that he has been pursuing his rights diligently, and (2) that some 5 extraordinary circumstance stood in his way”) (quoting Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 6 (2005)). Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 Dated: December 26, 2024 10 € J PH C. SPERO nited States Magistrate Judge 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Glaude v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration of the United States, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glaude-v-commissioner-of-the-social-security-administration-of-the-united-cand-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack