M.R.Z. v. Commissioner of Social Security

N.D. California

M.R.Z. v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedOctober 22, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-02757

StatusUnknown

This text of M.R.Z. v. Commissioner of Social Security (M.R.Z. v. Commissioner of Social Security) 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

M.R.Z. v. Commissioner of Social Security, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 ANDREA MCEWEN, SBN 264494 HOMELESS ACTION CENTER 2 2150 Dwight Way Berkeley, CA 94704 3 (510)698-1079 phone (510)540-0403 fax 4 amcewen@homelessactioncenter.org 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ) CASE NO. 3:25-cv-02757-LJC 10 M.R.Z., ) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) 12 v. ) ) MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; ORDER ) 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ) ) 14 Defendant. ) ) 15 _____________________________________ ) 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff hereby moves for a stay of pending deadlines in the above-captioned case. 20 21 1. United States Department of Justice attorneys who handle Social Security litigation 22 are currently out of the office due to a lapse in federal government appropriations. 23 2. Absent an appropriation, Department of Justice attorneys are prohibited from 24 working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including “emergencies 25 involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. 26 3. Although we have stipulated to a remand, we have not yet negotiated EAJA fees. 27 Undersigned counsel for Plaintiff, therefore, requests a stay of all pending deadlines related to 28 EAJA fees until Congress has restored appropriations to the Department of Justice. 1 4. If this motion for a stay is granted, Plaintiff requests that, at that point, all current 2 || deadlines be extended commensurate with the duration of the lapse in appropriations. 3 5. A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power 4 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), citing Landis v. North 5 || America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 6 || bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 7 || Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 8 || Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). 9 Instead, district courts should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the 10 || justification given for it.” Young v. .N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing that if 11 stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it). 12 6. Here, a stay of proceedings is warranted in this matter because the government 13 || essentially cannot participate in the litigation of the case until funding is restored. 14 15 ORDER 16 Good cause being shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay is 17 || GRANTED. This matter is STAYED until Congress has restored appropriations to the Department 18 of Justice or Congress enacts a continuing resolution. 19 Within three (3) days of the restoration of appropriations or enactment of a continuing 20 resolution, Defendant shall file a notice thereof with the Court. At that time, the Court will set a 21 || status conference to discuss whether modification to the scheduling order will be necessary. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. “4 Dated: October 22, 2025 □ UN Aj . LISA J. CISNEROS D STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27 28

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 3:25-ev-02757-LIC

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

1 ANDREA MCEWEN, SBN 264494 HOMELESS ACTION CENTER 2 2150 Dwight Way Berkeley, CA 94704 3 (510)698-1079 phone (510)540-0403 fax 4 amcewen@homelessactioncenter.org 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ) CASE NO. 3:25-cv-02757-LJC 10 M.R.Z., ) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) 12 v. ) ) MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS; ORDER ) 13 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ) ) 14 Defendant. ) ) 15 _____________________________________ ) 16 17 18 19 Plaintiff hereby moves for a stay of pending deadlines in the above-captioned case. 20 21 1. United States Department of Justice attorneys who handle Social Security litigation 22 are currently out of the office due to a lapse in federal government appropriations. 23 2. Absent an appropriation, Department of Justice attorneys are prohibited from 24 working, even on a voluntary basis, except in very limited circumstances, including “emergencies 25 involving the safety of human life or the protection of property.” 31 U.S.C. § 1342. 26 3. Although we have stipulated to a remand, we have not yet negotiated EAJA fees. 27 Undersigned counsel for Plaintiff, therefore, requests a stay of all pending deadlines related to 28 EAJA fees until Congress has restored appropriations to the Department of Justice. 1 4. If this motion for a stay is granted, Plaintiff requests that, at that point, all current 2 || deadlines be extended commensurate with the duration of the lapse in appropriations. 3 5. A district court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power 4 control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997), citing Landis v. North 5 || America Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). A stay is discretionary and the “party requesting a stay 6 || bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Nken v. 7 || Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). “Generally, stays should not be indefinite in nature.” 8 || Dependable Highway Exp., Inc. v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066-67 (9th Cir. 2007). 9 Instead, district courts should “balance the length of any stay against the strength of the 10 || justification given for it.” Young v. .N.S., 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 (9th Cir. 2000) (discussing that if 11 stay is especially long or its term is indefinite, a greater showing is required to justify it). 12 6. Here, a stay of proceedings is warranted in this matter because the government 13 || essentially cannot participate in the litigation of the case until funding is restored. 14 15 ORDER 16 Good cause being shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to stay is 17 || GRANTED. This matter is STAYED until Congress has restored appropriations to the Department 18 of Justice or Congress enacts a continuing resolution. 19 Within three (3) days of the restoration of appropriations or enactment of a continuing 20 resolution, Defendant shall file a notice thereof with the Court. At that time, the Court will set a 21 || status conference to discuss whether modification to the scheduling order will be necessary. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. “4 Dated: October 22, 2025 □ UN Aj . LISA J. CISNEROS D STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

27 28

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 3:25-ev-02757-LIC

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

M.R.Z. v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mrz-v-commissioner-of-social-security-cand-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack