(SS) Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedFebruary 16, 2021

Docket1:20-cv-00514

StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) Guzman v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Guzman 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) Guzman 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 MONICA TABAREZ GUZMAN, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-0514 - 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 Monica Tabarez Guzman seeks judicial review of a decision to denying her application for 18 Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On April 14, 2020, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting 19 forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 5) 20 After the parties exchanged confidential letter briefs, Plaintiff filed her opening brief on January 21 13, 2021. (Doc. 20) Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the date of 22 service of the opening brief brief, the Commissioner was to file a responsive brief. (Doc. 5 at 2) To 23 date, the Commissioner has not filed a proof of service indicating a response was served upon Plaintiff. 24 In addition, the Commissioner did not request an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 26 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 27 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 28 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. 1 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 2 impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure 3 to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 4 (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 5 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 6 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 7 and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, within 14 days, the Commissioner SHALL show cause 8 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order. Alternatively, within 14 9 days, the Commissioner may file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: February 16, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

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

11 MONICA TABAREZ GUZMAN, ) Case No.: 1:20-cv-0514 - 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 Monica Tabarez Guzman seeks judicial review of a decision to denying her application for 18 Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On April 14, 2020, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting 19 forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 5) 20 After the parties exchanged confidential letter briefs, Plaintiff filed her opening brief on January 21 13, 2021. (Doc. 20) Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the date of 22 service of the opening brief brief, the Commissioner was to file a responsive brief. (Doc. 5 at 2) To 23 date, the Commissioner has not filed a proof of service indicating a response was served upon Plaintiff. 24 In addition, the Commissioner did not request an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order. 25 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 26 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 27 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 28 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. 1 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court may 2 impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure 3 to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 4 (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 5 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 6 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 7 and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, within 14 days, the Commissioner SHALL show cause 8 why sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order. Alternatively, within 14 9 days, the Commissioner may file a response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: February 16, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

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

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack