(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedJuly 23, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-01390

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 EDWARD SOTO ALVAREZ, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-1390 JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. ) ) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) COURT’S ORDER ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16

17 Edward Soto Alvarez seeks judicial review of a decision to denying her application for Social 18 Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On October 1, 2020, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the 19 applicable deadlines. (Doc. 5) 20 Plaintiff served a confidential letter brief upon Defendant on June 16, 2021. (Doc. 12) 21 Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty-five days of the date of service of the 22 confidential letter brief, the Commissioner was to serve a response and file a proof of service. (Doc. 5 23 at 2) To date, the Commissioner has not filed a proof of service indicating a response was served upon 24 Plaintiff. In addition, the Commissioner did not request an extension of time to comply with the 25 Court’s order. 26 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 27 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 28 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 1 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. 2 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 3 impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure 4 to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 5 (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 6 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 7 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 8 and to comply with local rules). 9 Accordingly, within 14 days, the Commissioner SHALL show cause why the sanctions should 10 not be imposed for failure to serve a response to Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief and file proof of 11 service, as required (Doc. 5 at 2). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated: July 23, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 EDWARD SOTO ALVAREZ, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-1390 JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED 13 v. ) ) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE 14 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, ) COURT’S ORDER ) 15 Defendant. ) ) 16

17 Edward Soto Alvarez seeks judicial review of a decision to denying her application for Social 18 Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On October 1, 2020, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the 19 applicable deadlines. (Doc. 5) 20 Plaintiff served a confidential letter brief upon Defendant on June 16, 2021. (Doc. 12) 21 Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty-five days of the date of service of the 22 confidential letter brief, the Commissioner was to serve a response and file a proof of service. (Doc. 5 23 at 2) To date, the Commissioner has not filed a proof of service indicating a response was served upon 24 Plaintiff. In addition, the Commissioner did not request an extension of time to comply with the 25 Court’s order. 26 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 27 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 28 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 1 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. 2 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 3 impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure 4 to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 5 (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 6 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 7 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 8 and to comply with local rules). 9 Accordingly, within 14 days, the Commissioner SHALL show cause why the sanctions should 10 not be imposed for failure to serve a response to Plaintiff’s confidential letter brief and file proof of 11 service, as required (Doc. 5 at 2). 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED.

14 Dated: July 23, 2021 _ /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 15 CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(SS) Alvarez v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-alvarez-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack