Castillo v. Colvin

Filing 31

ORDER by Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 25 Motion to Stay; denying without prejudice 26 Motion for Attorney Fees; denying as moot 29 Motion to Strike. The Court takes under submission 23 Motion to Alter Judgment. A case management conference will occur on March 18, 2016 at 2:00 pm if the case is not resolved by that date. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

CARLOS CASTILLO,

Case No. 14-cv-03140-JCS

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
STAY JUDGMENT, DENYING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES, DENYING AS
MOOT MOTION TO STRIKE, AND
SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

12

Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 25, 26, 29

8
v.
9
10

CAROLYN COLVIN,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendant.

13
The Court entered judgment in this social security case in favor of Plaintiff Carlos Castillo
14
and remanded to the Acting Commissioner of Social Security (Defendant Carolyn Colvin, the
15
16

“Commissioner”) for an award of benefits. See generally Order Granting Motion for Summary
Judgment (dkt. 20); Clerk’s Judgment (dkt. 21). The Commissioner filed a timely Motion to Alter

17
or Amend Judgment (dkt. 23) pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and
18
later filed a Motion to Stay Judgment (dkt. 25) pursuant to Rule 62(b). Castillo filed a Motion for
19
20

Attorneys’ Fees (dkt. 26), and the Commissioner filed a Motion to Strike (dkt. 29) arguing that
Castillo’s attorneys’ fees motion may not be filed until the time to appeal expires, which will

21
occur until sixty days after the Court resolves the pending Motion to Alter Judgment.

22
Without addressing at this time the merits of the Motion to Alter Judgment, the Court finds
23
that its pendency presents good cause for a stay of execution of judgment under Rule 62. The
24

Commissioner’s Motion to Stay is therefore GRANTED.

25
The Court further finds that interests of judicial economy would not be served by litigating
26
27
28

Castillo’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees while the judgment on which it relies is in doubt.
Depending on the outcome of the Commissioner’s Motion, Castillo’s Motion may no longer be

1

warranted, or Castillo may wish to revise its contents. The Court therefore DENIES Castillo’s

2

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees without prejudice. Castillo’s may renew his Motion within fourteen

3

days after the resolution of the Commissioner’s Motion to Alter Judgment.

4
5
6

The Court need not address whether the fees motion was procedurally improper and
accordingly DENIES the Commissioner’s Motion to Strike as moot.
Although Castillo has not filed a motion to strike, he asserts in response to the

7

Commissioner’s Motion to Strike that the Commissioner’s failure to notice a hearing date for any

8

of the Commissioner’s pending motions warrants dismissal of all of them, citing Civil Local Rule

9

7-2 and the Court’s standing order, which provides that failure to comply with local rules “may be
deemed sufficient grounds for . . . dismissal.” Response (dkt. 30) ¶ 2 (quoting the Court’s

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

standing order) (emphasis added here). Although perhaps not technically applicable to post-

12

judgment motions, Civil Local Rule 16-5 sets a general policy against oral argument in cases

13

based on review of an administrative record, unless the Court orders otherwise. The Court

14

declines to dismiss the Commissioner’s motions for failure to notice a hearing date and takes the

15

Motion to Alter Judgment under submission without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

16
17
18
19
20
21

A case management conference will occur on March 18, 2016 at 2:00 PM in Courtroom
G of the San Francisco federal courthouse if the case has not been fully resolved by that date.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 18, 2015
______________________________________
JOSEPH C. SPERO
Chief Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2