Gina Gomez v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Filing 17

JUDGMENT OF REMAND by Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver: IT IS ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be remanded to the agency for further administrative proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). Upon remand, the agency will vacate the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision and remand the case to the ALJ to re-evaluate the evidence and issue a new decision. (See attached) (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (edr)

1

12

E. MARTIN ESTRADA
United States Attorney
DAVID M. HARRIS
Assistant United States Attorney
Chief, Civil Division
CEDINA M. KIM
Assistant United States Attorney
Senior Litigation Counsel, Civil Division
MARLA K. LETELLIER, CSBN 234969
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel
Office of Program Litigation, Division 7
6401 Security Boulevard
Baltimore, Maryland 21235
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

13

Attorneys for Defendant

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

JS-6

14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SOUTHERN DIVISION

16
17
18

GINA GOMEZ,

19

Plaintiff,

20

v.

21
22
23

MARTIN O’MALLEY,
Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.

) CASE 8:24-CV-01360-RAO
)
) [PROPOSED] JUDGMENT OF
)
) REMAND
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] JUDGMENT

CASE NO. 8:24-CV-01360-RAO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Based upon the parties’ Stipulation for Voluntary Remand to Agency Pursuant to
Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) and Entry of Judgment, IT IS ORDERED that
the above-captioned matter be remanded to the agency for further administrative
proceedings pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. section 405(g). Upon remand, the
agency will vacate the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) decision and remand the case
to the ALJ to re-evaluate the evidence and issue a new decision.

8
9

Dated: 11/22/2024
HONOR
HONORABLE
RABLE ROZELLA A.
A OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

CASE NO. 8:24-cv-01360-RAO