Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security

Filing 23

ORDER denying 21 Motion for clarification signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 3/25/15: Further briefing in the case shall proceed in accordance with the court's May 7, 2014 scheduling order.(Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNEISHA MOORE,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-0820-KJN

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant.

17
18

The court’s May 7, 2014 scheduling order in this case provides that plaintiff “shall file a

19

motion for summary judgment and/or remand within 45 days from being served with a copy of

20

the administrative record.” (ECF No. 5.) On February 5, 2015, the Commissioner lodged the

21

administrative transcript. (ECF No. 19.) Thereafter, on March 20, 2015, plaintiff timely filed her

22

opening motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22.)

23

However, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was also accompanied by a motion for

24

clarification. (ECF No. 21.) That motion seeks unspecified clarification of the court’s prior order

25

denying plaintiff’s December 31, 2014 “request for judgment” as premature. The court’s prior

26

order reasoned as follows:

27
28

Pursuant to the court’s scheduling order (ECF No. 5), plaintiff’s
“request for judgment,” liberally construed as a motion for
summary judgment, is premature, because the Commissioner has
1

1
2
3

not yet filed and served the administrative record. Therefore, the
court denies the motion without prejudice as premature and will not
consider the contents of that motion. After the Commissioner files
the administrative record, plaintiff may file a motion for summary
judgment in accordance with the requirements and deadlines set
forth in the court’s scheduling order.

4
5

(ECF No. 17.) It is unclear what further clarification plaintiff seeks. The administrative

6

transcript has now been filed, and plaintiff has filed her opening motion for summary judgment.

7

In accordance with the court’s scheduling order, the Commissioner shall then file any opposition

8

to plaintiff’s motion within 30 days from service of plaintiff’s motion, and plaintiff may, but need

9

not, file a reply brief within 21 days from service with the Commissioner’s opposition. (See ECF

10

No. 5.) After expiration of the deadline for filing any reply brief, the case shall be submitted for

11

decision without oral argument on the record and written briefing, unless the court specifically

12

requests additional written briefing or oral argument. Because the court’s orders are sufficiently

13

clear and specific, no further clarification is needed at this juncture.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 21) is denied.

16

2. Further briefing in the case shall proceed in accordance with the court’s May 7, 2014

17
18

scheduling order, as summarized above.
Dated: March 25, 2015

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2