(SS) Hernandez v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA YVONNE JOANNE HERNANDEZ, Case No. 1:20-cv-00527-SAB 8 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING OR SHOW CAUSE 9 v. WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE DEEMED UNOPPOSED COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, TEN-DAY DEADLINE Defendant.

13 Yvonne Joanne Hernandez (“Plaintiff”) filed this action seeking judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Defendant”) denying her application for disability benefits. (ECF No. 1.) On April 14, 2020, the scheduling order issued in this matter.

16 (ECF No. 5.)

17 Plaintiff filed her opening brief on March 18, 2021. (ECF No. 16.) Pursuant to the scheduling order, Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s opening brief was to be filed within thirty days after the filing of Plaintiff’s opening brief. (ECF No. 5 at 3.) The scheduling order provided that violation of the order may result in the issue of sanctions pursuant to Local Rule 110. (Id. at 4.) More than thirty days have passed and Defendant has not nor filed a response nor sought an extension of time to do so.

23 Local Rule 110 provides that “[f]ailure of counsel or of a party to comply with these Rules or with any order of the Court may be grounds for imposition by the Court of any and all sanctions . . . within the inherent power of the Court.” The Court has the inherent power to control its docket and may, in the exercise of that power, impose sanctions where appropriate, including dismissal of the action. Bautista v. Los Angeles County, 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within ten (10) days from the date of | service of this order, Defendant shall either file an opposition to Plaintiffs opening brief or a | written response to show cause why Plaintiff's opening brief should not be deemed unopposed.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee | Dated: _ April 21, 2021 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE