Parquet v. Social Security

Filing 16

ORDER by Judge D. Lowell Jensen granting 14 Motion to Dismiss and Suggestion of Death. Court orders that this action be dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own fees, costs and expenses. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/11/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EUNICE PARQUET, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, ) Commissioner, Social Security) ) Defendant. ) ______________________________) No. C—96-01855 DLJ ORDER 8 9 On August 30, 2011, defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and 11 Suggestion of Death on the Record. For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Defendant informs the Court that 12 plaintiff is deceased and that there are no qualified survivors to 13 continue the suit. Defendant therefore requests that the Court 14 dismiss the pending action. 15 I. Background 16 According to Social Security Administration Records, Plaintiff 17 applied in 1987 for disability benefits. Her original request was 18 19 denied. Plaintiff filed a second application in 1990. She received 20 a partially favorable decision in 1994 and began receiving benefits 21 then but she also sought review in the Federal Court. 22 23 On January 16, 1997, this Court granted the Commissioner’s request for remand, pursuant to sentence six of section 205(g) of 24 the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). On remand, in November 25 26 1997, Plaintiff again received a partially favorable decision. See 27 Exhibit A ¶ 6, Declaration of William Zuroff. Plaintiff requested 28 review and had another hearing on August 3, 1998. On September 17, 1998, an ALJ issued a res judicata dismissal. See Exhibit A. 1 Again according to Social Security records, plaintiff received 2 Title 2 benefits until they were suspended in July, 2009. 3 died on July 11, 2009. Plaintiff The Social Security Administration contends 4 that plaintiff has no survivors entitled to her benefits and seeks 5 6 an order of dismissal from this Court. 7 II. Discussion 8 In a sentence six remand case, the Court retains jurisdiction 9 following the remand. See Melkonyan v. Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89 (1991); 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 Carol v. Sullivan, 802 F.Supp 295, 300 (C.D.Cal. 1992)(“[A] sentence six remand, because of clear language in the social security 12 statute, implies and necessarily involves a reservation of the 13 14 jurisdiction for the future and contemplates further proceedings in 15 the district court and a final judgment at the conclusion thereof. A 16 sentence six remand judgment. . . is therefore always interlocutory 17 and never a ‘final’ judgment.”)(paraphrasing and quoting from 18 Melkonyan). 19 Normally, the parties would move the Court to reopen the case 20 after completion of remand proceedings for the purpose of dismissal 21 or entry of judgment. Here, however, because Plaintiff 22 23 died before the Court was requested to resolve its sentence six 24 jurisdiction, the Commissioner has requested that the Court reopen 25 and immediately dismiss the action with prejudice, each party to 26 bear its own fees, costs, and expenses. 27 There being nothing in the record to indicate that such 28 2 1 dismissal is not warranted and no filings before this Court at any 2 time since 1999, good cause appearing, the Court HEREBY 3 ORDERS that this action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE, each party to 4 bear its own fees, costs, and expenses. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED 8 9 Dated: October 11, 2011 _________________________ D. Lowell Jensen United States District Judge 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?