(SS) Urrabazo v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Urrabazo v. Commissioner of Social Security

DecidedDecember 12, 2019

Docket1:19-cv-00248

StatusUnknown

This text of (SS) Urrabazo v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Urrabazo 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) Urrabazo v. Commissioner of Social Security, (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3

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

11 DAVID MALDONADO URRABAZO, SR., ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-248 - 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 David Maldonado Urrabazo, Jr., seeks judicial review of a decision to denying his application 18 for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On February 21, 2019, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, 19 setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 3) 20 Plaintiff filed his opening brief on November 8, 2019. (Doc. 13) Pursuant to the terms of the 21 Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the filing of the opening brief, the Commissioner was to file a 22 response. (Doc. 3 at 2) To date, the Commissioner has not filed a responsive brief, and the 23 Commissioner did not request an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 25 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 26 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 27 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. 28 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court impose 1 sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure to 2 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 3 (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 4 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 5 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 6 and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, the Commissioner is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date 8 of service of this order why the sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order 9 or to file response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: December 12, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 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 DAVID MALDONADO URRABAZO, SR., ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-248 - 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 David Maldonado Urrabazo, Jr., seeks judicial review of a decision to denying his application 18 for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On February 21, 2019, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, 19 setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 3) 20 Plaintiff filed his opening brief on November 8, 2019. (Doc. 13) Pursuant to the terms of the 21 Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the filing of the opening brief, the Commissioner was to file a 22 response. (Doc. 3 at 2) To date, the Commissioner has not filed a responsive brief, and the 23 Commissioner did not request an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order. 24 The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a 25 party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any 26 and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have 27 inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. 28 Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court impose 1 sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure to 2 comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) 3 (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 4 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court 5 order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute 6 and to comply with local rules). 7 Accordingly, the Commissioner is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date 8 of service of this order why the sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order 9 or to file response to Plaintiff’s opening brief. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED.

12 Dated: December 12, 2019 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 13 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(SS) Urrabazo v. Commissioner of Social Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ss-urrabazo-v-commissioner-of-social-security-caed-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack