(SS) Schillaci v. Commissioner of Social Security

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 APRIL SCHILLACI, Case No. 1:20-cv-00628-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING OR SHOW 13 v. CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED UNOPPOSED FIVE DAY DEADLINE 15 Defendant.

16 17 Plaintiff April Schillaci (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial review of a final 18 decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner” or “Defendant”) denying an 19 application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. On February 16, 2021 an 20 order was filed extending the time for Plaintiff to file her opening brief and setting forth a 21 briefing scheduling. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiff filed her opening brief on February 22, 2021. (ECF 22 No. 20.) Pursuant to the February 16, 2021 order, Defendant’s opposition was to be filed on or 23 before March 24, 2021. (ECF No. 19.) The date has passed and Defendant has not filed an 24 opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief. 25 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these 26 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all 27 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, 1 | including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2 | 2000). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within five (5) days from the date of 4 | service of this order, Defendant shall either file an opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief or a 5 | written response to show cause why Plaintiff's opening brief should not be deemed unopposed. 6 IS SO ORDERED. LF. 2 Po g | Dated: _ March 26, 2021 "

9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28