Moore v. Commissioner of Social Security
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
The court’s May 7, 2014 scheduling order in this case provides that plaintiff “shall file a
motion for summary judgment and/or remand within 45 days from being served with a copy of
the administrative record.” (ECF No. 5.) On February 5, 2015, the Commissioner lodged the
administrative transcript. (ECF No. 19.) Thereafter, on March 20, 2015, plaintiff timely filed her
opening motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 22.)
However, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was also accompanied by a motion for
clarification. (ECF No. 21.) That motion seeks unspecified clarification of the court’s prior order
denying plaintiff’s December 31, 2014 “request for judgment” as premature. The court’s prior
order reasoned as follows:
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
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.
(ECF No. 17.) It is unclear what further clarification plaintiff seeks. The administrative
transcript has now been filed, and plaintiff has filed her opening motion for summary judgment.
In accordance with the court’s scheduling order, the Commissioner shall then file any opposition
to plaintiff’s motion within 30 days from service of plaintiff’s motion, and plaintiff may, but need
not, file a reply brief within 21 days from service with the Commissioner’s opposition. (See ECF
No. 5.) After expiration of the deadline for filing any reply brief, the case shall be submitted for
decision without oral argument on the record and written briefing, unless the court specifically
requests additional written briefing or oral argument. Because the court’s orders are sufficiently
clear and specific, no further clarification is needed at this juncture.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (ECF No. 21) is denied.
2. Further briefing in the case shall proceed in accordance with the court’s May 7, 2014
scheduling order, as summarized above.
Dated: March 25, 2015
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?