(SS) See v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NAICHOU SEE, Case No. 1:19-cv-00436-BAK 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL, MICHAEL DONALDSON, TO SHOW CAUSE IN 13 v. WRITING WHY MONETARY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT ISSUE FOR FAILURE TO COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER AND EXTENDING PLAINTIFF’S DEADLINE TO SECURITY, 15 FILE AN OPPOSITION TO COUNSEL’S MOTION Defendant.

DEADLINE: APRIL 5, 2022 18 Plaintiff Naichou See filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying their application for disability benefits pursuant to the Social Security Act. (ECF No. 1.) On December 30, 2019, the Court remanded the action pursuant to the parties’ stipulation and entered judgment for Plaintiff. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) On January 29, 2020, the parties filed a stipulated request for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), which the Court granted. (ECF Nos. 23, 24.)

24 On February 23, 2022, Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Donaldson, filed a motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 406(b). (ECF No. 25.) The Court ordered Mr. Donaldson to serve a copy of the motion on Plaintiff; ordered any objections to the motion be filed by April 5, 2022 (and directed counsel to electronically file any such objections for Plaintiff); ordered the Commissioner to file a response, if any, by April 21, 2022; and ordered Mr. Donaldson to serve a copy of the order and the motion for attorney’s fees on Plaintiff and file proof of service by March 28, 2022. (ECF No. 28.) The deadline to file proof of service has expired and Mr. Donaldson has not filed proof of service with the Court.

4 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 Cnty., 216 F.3d 837, 841 (9th Cir. 2000).

10 The Court shall require Mr. Donaldson to show cause why monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to file a proof of service of his fees motion in compliance with the Court’s March 22, 2022 order. Further, in an abundance of caution and because it is unclear at this time whether counsel’s motion was properly served on Plaintiff, the Court shall extend Plaintiff’s deadline to oppose the pending fees motion.

15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. Plaintiff’s counsel, Michael Donaldson, shall show cause in writing no later than 17 April 5, 2022, why monetary sanctions should not issue for the failure to file a 18 proof of service regarding his motion for attorneys’ fees and the Court’s March 22, 19 2022 order, as required by that order. Failure to comply with the instant order will 20 result in the issuance of sanctions; and /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1 2. Plaintiff's deadline to file objections to counsel’s attorneys’ fees motion is 2 extended to April 20, 2022. Any objections shall be filed electronically by 3 Plaintiffs counsel.

5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee | Dated: _ March 31, 2022 ; 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE