Vance v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, CV-17-2795-PHX-DMF. (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20181023742
Visitors: 26
Filed: Sep. 20, 2018
Latest Update: Sep. 20, 2018
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH M. FINE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 28). Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342 , 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). Defendant argues that the Court's Order for remand did not properly consider a material issue. Because Defendant has satisfied the requirements of LRCiv. 7.2(g), the Court will permit Plaintiff to respond. IT IS THEREFORE
Summary: ORDER DEBORAH M. FINE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 28). Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342 , 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). Defendant argues that the Court's Order for remand did not properly consider a material issue. Because Defendant has satisfied the requirements of LRCiv. 7.2(g), the Court will permit Plaintiff to respond. IT IS THEREFORE O..
More
ORDER
DEBORAH M. FINE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 28). Motions for reconsideration should be granted only in rare circumstances. Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F.Supp. 1342, 1351 (D.Ariz. 1995). Defendant argues that the Court's Order for remand did not properly consider a material issue. Because Defendant has satisfied the requirements of LRCiv. 7.2(g), the Court will permit Plaintiff to respond.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff may respond to Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration within 21 days of the date of this Order. Defendant may reply within 7 days after the response is filed.
Source: Leagle
