Goldstein v. Colvin

Filing 38

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 35 plaintiff's "Motion to Quash Closure of Case and Remand Order"; denying 36 plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. (hrllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
STEVEN M. GOLDSTEIN,

12

Case No. 5:13-cv-03504 HRL

Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting
Commissioner of Social Security,

15

Defendant.

16
17

ORDER (1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
“MOTION TO QUASH CLOSURE OF
CASE AND REMAND ORDER”; AND
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION
[Re: Dkt. Nos. 35, 36]

On January 12, 2015, this court issued an order remanding this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

18

§ 405(g), sentence six. Plaintiff objects to that order, arguing that no final judgment should be

19

entered on a sentence-six remand and that this litigation should not have been terminated. This

20

court has not entered a judgment of any sort in this matter. Nor has this litigation been terminated.

21

This matter has only been administratively closed to reflect that, during the pendency of the

22

remand proceedings, this case is not on this court’s docket of active litigation. The administrative

23

closure is without prejudice to have the matter re-opened following the completion of the remand

24

proceedings, as may be appropriate. Plaintiff’s “Motion to Quash” is denied. 1

25
26
1

27
28

The docket reflects that plaintiff noticed this motion for a January 27, 2015 hearing. The motion
was not properly noticed in compliance with this court’s Civil Local Rules. And, in any event, the
matter is deemed suitable for determination without oral argument. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

Plaintiff also moves for reconsideration of the remand order, 2 arguing that the court erred

2

in its interpretation of § 405(g), sentence six and wrongfully relied on certain cases. Essentially,

3

plaintiff disagrees with the way in which courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth

4

Circuit, have interpreted § 405(g) with respect to sentence six remands. Nevertheless, the law

5

accurately is stated in this court’s January 12 remand order, and the portions of the cases upon

6

which this court relied support the propositions for which they were cited. Plaintiff otherwise

7

reiterates arguments he previously raised and which this court considered and found unpersuasive.

8

Civ. L.R. 7-9(c) (“No motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration may repeat any oral or

9

written argument made by the applying party in support of or in opposition to the interlocutory

10

order which the party now seeks to have reconsidered. Any party who violates this restriction

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

shall be subject to appropriate sanctions.”). Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated: January 21, 2015
______________________________________
HOWARD R. LLOYD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally improper. Litigants seeking reconsideration are required to
seek leave from the court before filing such motions. Civ. L.R. 7-9(a). This court nevertheless
has considered plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration in its entirety.
2

1
2

5:13-cv-03504-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:
Lynn M. Harada [e-mail], [e-mail],
[e-mail]

3
Steven Michael Goldstein

[e-mail]

4
5
6
7
8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3