Erb v. Berryhill, 1:17-cv-01398-GSA. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190410b20
Visitors: 15
Filed: Apr. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 08, 2019
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE PROOF OF SERVICE (Doc. 5) GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Susan Laura Erb ("Plaintiff") ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying her application for unspecified disability benefits pursuant to Social Security Act. The Scheduling Order in the above-captioned case provides, in pertinent part: Within thirty (30) days after service of the administrativ
Summary: ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE PROOF OF SERVICE (Doc. 5) GARY S. AUSTIN , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Susan Laura Erb ("Plaintiff") ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying her application for unspecified disability benefits pursuant to Social Security Act. The Scheduling Order in the above-captioned case provides, in pertinent part: Within thirty (30) days after service of the administrative..
More
ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE PROOF OF SERVICE
(Doc. 5)
GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Susan Laura Erb ("Plaintiff") ("Plaintiff") seeks judicial review of a final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security ("Commissioner" or "Defendant") denying her application for unspecified disability benefits pursuant to Social Security Act. The Scheduling Order in the above-captioned case provides, in pertinent part:
Within thirty (30) days after service of the administrative record, appellant shall serve on respondent a letter brief outlining the reasons why he/she contends that a remand is warranted. The letter brief shall succinctly set forth the relevant issues and reasons for the remand. The letter brief itself shall NOT be filed with the court and it shall be marked "confidential." A separate proof of service reflecting that the letter brief was served on respondent shall be filed with the court.
Doc. 5 at 2, ¶ 3 (October 11, 2018) (emphasis added).
The administrative record in this case was filed on February 11, 2019. AR 9. Although more than thirty (30) days have passed since Defendant lodged the administrative record in this court, Plaintiff has failed to file proof of timely service on Defendant.
Accordingly, Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to file proof of service of the confidential letter brief within five (5) days of this order. In the event that Plaintiff fails to file proof of service within five days, the court may dismiss this case for failure to prosecute or impose other sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
