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)

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