Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02343/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-02343-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (SSID)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 09cv02343 JLS(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSIE PRECIADO,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner

of Social Security,

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 09cv02343 JLS(RBB)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ECF NO. 20] 

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 21, 2009, Plaintiff Rosie Preciado filed a

Complaint against Michael J. Astrue, Defendant Commissioner of

Social Security, challenging the denial of Preciado’s claim for

supplemental security income benefits [ECF No. 1]. Defendant filed

an Answer [ECF No. 15] and the Administrative Record [ECF No. 16]

on January 3, 2011.

On March 3, 2011, Preciado’s Motion for Summary Judgement,

along with an attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, was

Case 3:09-cv-02343-JLS-RBB Document 31 Filed 11/22/11 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court construes this filing as Defendant’s Reply.

2 09cv02343 JLS(RBB)

filed [ECF No. 20]. Defendant’s Notice and Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment were filed on April 25, 2011 [ECF Nos. 25-26]. 

The Cross-Motion is essentially the same document as the

Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment,

which was filed on April 26, 2011 [ECF No. 27]. Preciado’s

Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment was

filed along with a Memorandum of Points and Authorities on May 3,

2011 [ECF No. 28]. The Defendant filed an Opposition to Plaintiff

Rosie Preciado’s Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment with an exhibit on May 9, 2011 [ECF No. 30].1 

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment

is suitable for resolution on the papers, pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7.1(d)(1) [ECF No. 29]. This Court has reviewed Preciado’s

Motion for Summary Judgment and attachment, Defendant’s CrossMotion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion,

and Preciado’s Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion. For the

reasons set forth below, the Court recommends DENYING Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment. The Court will issue a separate

report and recommendation as to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for

Summary Judgment. 

II. DISCUSSION

In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Preciado argues that the

ALJ erred in determining that she had past relevant work experience

to find that she was not disabled. (Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. Attach. #1

Mem. P. & A. 3-7, ECF No. 20.) The Plaintiff contends that her

prior earnings do not rise to the level of substantial gainful

Case 3:09-cv-02343-JLS-RBB Document 31 Filed 11/22/11 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3 09cv02343 JLS(RBB)

activity (“SGA”), and she therefore has no past relevant work

experience. (Id. at 4-5, 7.)

In opposition, Defendant reproduces Plaintiff’s income and

earnings for the past fifteen years to demonstrate that she indeed

does have past relevant work experience meeting or exceeding SGA

levels. (Def.’s Opp’n Pl.’s Mot. Summ. J. 5, ECF No. 27.) The

Commissioner notes that Preciado mistakenly relies on only her

earnings from 2004 through 2007. (Id.) Yet, the relevant period

for determining whether Plaintiff has past relevant work experience

is the fifteen years preceding the May 2009 administrative hearing. 

(Id. at 4-5.)

In her Opposition to Defendant’s Cross-Motion for Summary

Judgment, Preciado concedes that her Motion is based on a

“fundamental mis-reading of the record that the Commissioner has

now highlighted.” (Pl.’s Opp’n Def.’s Mot. Summ. J. Attach. #1

Mem. P. & A. 1, ECF No. 28.) The Plaintiff acknowledges that the

Court should deny her Motion for Summary Judgment. (Id.) Even so,

she argues that the Court should also deny Defendant’s Cross-Motion

for Summary Judgment, and remand the matter for further

proceedings. (Id.) 

In light of Preciado’s concession, as well as the evidence in

the record demonstrating that the Plaintiff engaged in past

relevant work at SGA levels, the district court should DENY

Preciado’s Motion for Summary Judgment. 

III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons stated above, the Court recommends DENYING

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 20]. 

This Report and Recommendation will be submitted to the United

States District Court Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the

Case 3:09-cv-02343-JLS-RBB Document 31 Filed 11/22/11 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4 09cv02343 JLS(RBB)

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Any party may file written

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties on or

before December 6, 2011. The document should be captioned

“Objections to Report and Recommendation.” Any reply to the

objections shall be served and filed on or before December 13,

2011. The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the

district court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir.

1991).

Dated: November 22, 2011 ______________________________

 Ruben B. Brooks

United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Judge Sammartino

All Parties of Record 

Case 3:09-cv-02343-JLS-RBB Document 31 Filed 11/22/11 Page 4 of 4