1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RICHARD L. ORTIZ, Case No. 21-cv-02293-JD

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. 9 Re: Dkt. No. 20 10 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Defendant. 11

12 13 Plaintiff Richard Ortiz asks for summary judgment to reverse the Acting Commissioner of 14 the Social Security Administration’s (Kilolo Kijakazi’s) decision denying Ortiz’s application for 15 benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. Dkt. No. 20. The parties agree that the Court 16 should remand the matter, see Dkt. No. 25 at 2; Dkt. No. 26 at 2, and the Court has independently 17 concluded the same. The only question is whether the remand should be for an award of benefits 18 to Ortiz, or for a re-evaluation of his application by the Commissioner. Dkt. No. 26 at 2. 19 In our circuit, an ALJ’s decision to deny benefits “will only be disturbed if it is not 20 supported by substantial evidence or it is based on legal error” that is not harmless. Burch v. 21 Barnhart,

(9th Cir. 2005); Dam v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., Case No. 19-CV-2131- 22 JD,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 14, 2020); Howard v. Saul, Case No. 3:18-CV- 23 2570-JD,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2019). The parties agree that such error is 24 present here in the ALJ’s determination that Ortiz engaged in substantial gainful activity. See Dkt. 25 No. 20 at 5; Dkt. No. 21 at 5. Given that there are a number of factual disputes in this case, the 26 Court is not prepared to find that this is a rare circumstance where further administrative 27 proceedings “would serve no useful purpose.” Garrison v. Colvin,

(9th Cir. 1 Ortiz did not engage in substantial gainful activity, then the ALJ must go through the remaining 2 steps in the evaluation process to determine whether Ortiz is entitled to benefits. See Zavalin v. 3 Colvin,

(9th Cir. 2015). This case has already been remanded once before, Tr. 4 897-904, and should be evaluated carefully at each step going forward. 5 Consequently, summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 is granted in 6 || favor of Ortiz, and the case is remanded for further administrative proceedings under 42 U.S.C. 8 7 || 405(g). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: September 6, 2022 10 11 JAME NATO 12 UnitedfJ tates District Judge

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28