Pierce v. Apfel

Filing 40

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Bernard Zimmerman denying 37 Motion to Relate Case (bzsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2010)

1 2 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 v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Defendant(s). ALLISON PIERCE, Plaintiff(s), ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No. C00-0742 BZ ORDER DENYING ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO RELATE CASES

Plaintiff's administrative motion to relate Pierce v. Astrue, C09-2713 to this case is DENIED. Plaintiff's motion is untimely. action on June 18, 2009. until January 7, 2010. Plaintiff filed the new

The motion to relate was not filed

Local Rule 3-12(b) requires that the Plaintiff has provided no Absent an adequate

motion be filed "promptly."

explanation for why she failed to do so.

explanation, permitting untimely requests to relate cases creates a risk that the motion will used for improper purposes. In any event, the action of which plaintiff now complains was taken many years after this Court's earlier ruling and by 1

1 2 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

a different Administrative Law Judge, such that the criteria of Local Rule 3-12(a)(2) are not satisfied. Dated: January 21, 2010 Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\PIERCE V. BARNHART.3\ORD DENYING REQUEST TO RELATE CASES.wpd

2