Andersen v. Social Security Administration

Filing 16

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/26/18 ORDERING this case RE-OPENED in order to resolve the Court's sentence-six jurisdiction. Case DISMISSED per the parties' stipulation. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
DEBORAH LEE STACHEL
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
IN SEON JEONG, CSBN: 291908
Special Assistant United States Attorney
Social Security Administration
160 Spear Street, Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105-2545
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415-744-0134
Email: [e-mail]

7
8

Attorneys for Defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SACRAMENTO DIVISION

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JAYE R. ANDERSEN,

) CASE NO. 2:15-CV-00873-AC
)
Plaintiff,
) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER
vs.
) TO REOPEN AND DISMISS
)
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
)
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
)
)
Defendant.
__________________________
_____ )

17
18
19

The parties hereby stipulate, through their undersigned attorneys, and with the approval
of the Court, that this case shall be reopened for the purpose of entering judgment for Plaintiff.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On August 11, 2015, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties, this Court remanded the
instant case to the Commissioner for a new hearing. The recording of the hearing held on
August 6, 2013 was incomplete, which made meaningful review of the case impossible. On
November 4, 2016, an administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an unfavorable decision in
Plaintiff’s case, finding Plaintiff not disabled. Plaintiff, however, has agreed to dismiss this
action.
Now that the administrative proceedings have concluded, reopening is necessary. In a
sentence-six remand case, the Court retains jurisdiction following the remand. See Melkonyan v.

1

Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 98 (1991) (district court retains jurisdiction over Social Security cases

2

remanded under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence six, and where the final administrative decision is

3

favorable to one party or the other, the Commissioner is to return to the court following

4

completion of the administrative proceedings on remand so that the court may enter a final

5

judgment or, as in this case, a dismissal); see also Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 298-300

6

(1993).

7
8
9

[A] sentence six remand, because of clear language in the social security statute,
implies and necessarily involves a reservation of jurisdiction for the future and
contemplates further proceedings in the district court and a final judgment at the
conclusion thereof. A sentence six remand judgment, the Court said, is therefore
always interlocutory and never a “final” judgment.

10

Carrol v. Sullivan, 802 F.Supp. 295, 300 (C.D.Cal. 1992) (paraphrasing and quoting

11

Melkonyan).

12
13

It is therefore appropriate to reopen this case in order to resolve the Court’s sentence-six
jurisdiction. Upon reopening, the parties stipulate that the case shall be dismissed.

14
Respectfully submitted,

15
16

Dated: November 20, 2018

/s/ Richard Whitaker
(As authorized via email on 11/20/2018)
RICHARD WHITAKER
Attorney for Plaintiff

Dated: November 20, 2018

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT
United States Attorney
DEBORAH LEE STACHEL
Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX
Social Security Administration

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By:

/s/ In Seon Jeong
IN SEON JEONG
Special Assistant U.S. Attorney
Attorneys for Defendant

ORDER

1
2

Pursuant to stipulation, it is so ordered.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Dated: November 26, 2018