(SS) Urrabazo v. Commissioner of Social Security

E.D. California

(SS) Urrabazo v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 12, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-00248·Unknown

Opinion

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MALDONADO URRABAZO, SR., ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-248 - JLT ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED v. ) ) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ) Defendant. ) )

David Maldonado Urrabazo, Jr., seeks judicial review of a decision to denying his application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On February 21, 2019, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 3) Plaintiff filed his opening brief on November 8, 2019. (Doc. 13) Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the filing of the opening brief, the Commissioner was to file a response. (Doc. 3 at 2) To date, the Commissioner has not filed a responsive brief, and the Commissioner did not request an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order. The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, the Commissioner is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this order why the sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order or to file response to Plaintiff’s opening brief.

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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MALDONADO URRABAZO, SR., ) Case No.: 1:19-cv-248 - JLT ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER TO DEFENDANT TO SHOW CAUSE ) WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED v. ) ) FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE ) Defendant. ) )

David Maldonado Urrabazo, Jr., seeks judicial review of a decision to denying his application for Social Security benefits. (Doc. 1) On February 21, 2019, the Court issued its Scheduling Order, setting forth the applicable deadlines. (Doc. 3) Plaintiff filed his opening brief on November 8, 2019. (Doc. 13) Pursuant to the terms of the Scheduling Order, within thirty days of the filing of the opening brief, the Commissioner was to file a response. (Doc. 3 at 2) To date, the Commissioner has not filed a responsive brief, and the Commissioner did not request an extension of time to comply with the Court’s order. The Local Rules, corresponding with Fed. R. Civ. P. 11, provide: “Failure of counsel or of a party to comply with . . . any order of the Court may be grounds for the imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” Local Rule 110. “District courts have inherent power to control their dockets,” and in exercising that power, a court may impose sanctions. Thompson v. Housing Authority of Los Angeles, 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986). A court impose sanctions, including terminating sanctions, for a party’s failure to obey a court order or failure to comply with local rules. See, e.g. Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (imposing sanctions terminating for failure to comply with an order); Malone v. U.S. Postal Service, 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (imposing terminating sanctions for failure to comply with a court order); Henderson v. Duncan, 779 F.2d 1421, 1424 (9th Cir. 1986) (sanctions for failure to prosecute and to comply with local rules). Accordingly, the Commissioner is ORDERED to show cause within fourteen days of the date of service of this order why the sanctions should not be imposed for failure to follow the Court’s order or to file response to Plaintiff’s opening brief.

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

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

Pincite

(SS) Urrabazo v. Commissioner of Social Security ((SS) Urrabazo v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related