Harris v. Astue
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, A DIRECTED VERDICT, AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Alsup denying 21 Motion for Default Judgment (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2010)
Harris v. Astrue
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 SHANA HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. / ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT, A DIRECTED VERDICT, AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT No. C 10-03377 WHA FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, a directed verdict, and for summary judgment, which is based entirely upon the Commissioner's late filing of an answer in this social security appeal, is DENIED. As explained in the order filed on October 26, 2010, the delay in the Commissioner's filing of an answer was caused by an administrative mix-up following the transfer of this action from a different district where plaintiff initially (and improperly) filed her appeal (Dkt. No. 19). Given this explanation, the October 26 order excused the Commissioner's untimely filing and the answer was deemed filed that same day. The administrative record was then filed on October 28. The instant motion was then received by the Clerk on October 29. This social security appeal will proceed and be resolved on the merits. In this connection, plaintiff is reminded that a motion for summary judgment or for remand must be filed and served within 30 days of service of the Commissioner's answer and administrative record.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 1, 2010.
WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?