Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02307/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02307-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GLENN VIERRA,

Plaintiff,

 v

JO ANNE B BARNHARDT, Commissioner

of Social Security

Defendant.

 /

No C 05-2307 VRW

 ORDER

Plaintiff Glenn Vierra commenced this action on June 7,

2005. On January 11, 2006, the government lodged the administrative

transcript with the court and, the following day, answered, thus

triggering a thirty-day time period in which plaintiff was to serve

and file his summary judgment motion. See Procedural Order for

Social Security Actions, Doc # 2. 

This court’s Local Rule 7-2 provides as follows regarding

the form of papers submitted on a motion: 

\\

\\

Case 3:05-cv-02307-VRW Document 28 Filed 11/06/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

(b) Form. In one filed document not exceeding

25 pages in length, a motion must contain:

(1) On the first page in the space opposite the

caption and below the case number, the noticed

hearing date and time;

(2) In the first paragraph, notice of the motion

including date and time of hearing;

(3) In the second paragraph, a concise statement

of what relief or Court action the movant seeks;

and

(4) In the succeeding paragraphs, the points and

authorities in support of the motion —— in

compliance with Civil LR 7-4(a).

(Emphasis added.) Local Rule 7-4, in turn, sets forth further

requirements regarding the form and content of briefs, quoted in

pertinent part below: 

(a) Content. [A] brief or memorandum of points and

authorities * * * must contain: 

(3) A statement of the issues to be decided;

(4) A succinct statement of the relevant facts; and

(5) Argument by the party, citing pertinent authorities.

After requesting and obtaining four extensions of time to

file his motion, plaintiff filed, on July 31, 2006, two documents:

(1) “Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

Judgment or remand,” Doc # 20, which runs to twenty-five pages not

including tables; and (2) “Statement of Facts and Statement of

Case,” Doc # 21, which runs to nine barely-legible pages. Of note,

plaintiff did not file a notice of motion, with the result that the

clerk’s office did not docket these submissions as a motion. 

Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel did not provide chambers copies to

the court as required by paragraph 1.4 of the standing order of the

undersigned judge. (Counsel filed a notice of motion on October 13

Case 3:05-cv-02307-VRW Document 28 Filed 11/06/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

and thereafter provided chambers copies of all previously-filed

papers after being directed to do so by the clerk’s office.) At no

time did plaintiff seek leave of court to exceed LR 7-2's page

limit. 

Plaintiff’s papers are not in compliance with the local

rules. Moreover, plaintiff’s counsel submitted papers in a

different case before the undersigned judge that were similarly

configured to avoid the page limits set forth in LR 7-2. See Moak

v Barnhart, 03-2951, Documents 13 (Statement of facts) and 14

(Memorandum). 

A search of the court’s electronic docket revealed that

plaintiff’s counsel, Candace Davenport, has represented plaintiffs

in ninty-nine social security appeals since 1994. She must

therefore be presumed experienced in federal court processes and

procedures. A review of the two pending cases before the court in

which the plaintiff is represented by Ms Davenport and the summary

judgment motion has been filed reveals similar brief-splitting to

avoid the page limits: in both Roland v Barnhart, 05-2147 SI and

Mead v Barnhart, 05-4793 SI, plaintiff’s separate memoranda and

statement of facts total forty-six pages, yet in neither case does

the docket reflect that leave to exceed the page limit was granted. 

The court now orders as follows: within twenty-one days

of the date of this order, plaintiff’s counsel shall (1) refile her

moving papers in compliance with the local rules; and (2) show

cause why she should not be referred to the court’s Standing

Committee on Professional Responsibility for possible disciplinary

action based on what appears to be a pattern of systematic

violation of the local rules. Failure to comply with this order in

Case 3:05-cv-02307-VRW Document 28 Filed 11/06/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

a timely manner may result in the imposition of appropriate

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-02307-VRW Document 28 Filed 11/06/06 Page 4 of 4