Coulter v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 39

ORDER GRANTING Defendant's Motions to Stay 37 38 , signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/1/2013. CASE STAYED. (Hall, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, )
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
TERRY COULTER,

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01937 - AWI - JLT
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS
TO STAY
(Docs. 37, 38)

Counsel for Defendant Commissioner of Social Security requests a stay in this action “until

18

Congress has restored appropriations.” (Docs. 37, 38). As counsel notes, “the Appropriations Act that

19

had been funding the Department of Justice expired and appropriations to the Department lapsed” on

20

September 30, 2013. (Doc. 38 at 1). As a result, “Department of Justice attorneys and employees of

21

the Social Security Administration are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary basis, except in

22

very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection

23

of property.’” Id. at 1-2 (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 1342).

24

The Supreme Court explained the “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent

25

in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for

26

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936). To

27

evaluate whether to stay an action, the Court must the weigh competing interests that will be affected

28

by the grant or refusal to grant a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Among
1

1

these competing interests are: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2)

2

the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) the orderly

3

course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of

4

law which could be expected to result from a stay. Id. (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55)).

5

The party seeking a stay “bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S.

6

681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). The Supreme Court explained, “If there is even a fair

7

possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else,” the party seeking the stay “must make

8

out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. The decision whether to grant or

9

deny a stay is committed to the Court’s discretion. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators

10

Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).

11

In this action, Plaintiff filed a motion for attorney fees on September 17, 2013 (Doc. 35), and

12

Defendant’s response to the motion is due no later than October 17, 2013. However, counsel for the

13

Commissioner of Social Security is precluded from working on this action “until Congress has restored

14

appropriates to both the Department of Justice and Social Security Administration.” (Doc. 38 at 2).

15

Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Bosavanh, does not oppose the entry of a stay. Id. Thus, it does not appear

16

Plaintiff would suffer any damage upon the entry of a stay, and Defendant has set forth “a clear case of

17

hardship” with the inability to respond to the motion.

18

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

19

1.

Defendant’s motions to stay (Docs. 37, 38) are GRANTED;

20

2.

The matter is STAYED pending a resolution from Congress; and

21

3.

Defendant SHALL file a status report within seven days of the restoration of funding to
the Department of Justice and Social Security Administration.

22
23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 1, 2013

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2