Clausen v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 18

ORDER REQUIRING Defendant to file responsive pleading or Show Cause why this action should not be deemed unopposed. Within five (5) days from the date of service of this order, Defendant shall either file an opposition to Plaintiff's opening brief or a written response to show cause why Plaintiff's opening brief should not be deemed unopposed. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 8/8/2018. (Timken, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LISA LEANNE CLAUSEN,
Plaintiff,

11
v.

12
13

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,

Case No. 1:17-cv-01484-SAB
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING OR SHOW CAUSE
WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE
DEEMED UNOPPOSED
FIVE-DAY DEADLINE

14
Defendant.
15
16

Plaintiff Lisa Leanne Clausen filed this action seeking judicial review of the denial of

17 benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security on November 3, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) On
18 November 7, 2017, the scheduling order issued. (ECF No. 5.) Pursuant to the scheduling order,
19 the Commissioner’s responsive brief was to be filed within thirty days after service of Plaintiff’s
20 opening brief. (Id. at ¶ 7.)
21

Plaintiff filed her opening brief on July 6, 2018. (ECF No. 15.) Defendant’s responsive

22 brief was due within thirty days, and Defendant has not filed an opposition brief.
23

Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these

24 Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all
25 sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to
26 control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate,
27 including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir.
28 2000).

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within five (5) days from the date of

1

2 service of this order, Defendant shall either file an opposition to Plaintiff’s opening brief or a
3 written response to show cause why Plaintiff’s opening brief should not be deemed unopposed.
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 Dated:

August 8, 2018
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2