Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01642/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01642-0/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 (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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Diana Mendoza, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner

of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-13-1642-PHX-LOA

ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Stay of Proceedings. (Doc.

16) Plaintiff requests a stay because a case arising from her initial application for social

security disability benefits, which was denied at the administrative level and affirmed by

another judge in this District Court, is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals. The opening brief and answering brief have been filed in the Court of Appeals and

a reply brief is due on April 14, 2014. (See Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-

16325)

The instant action pending before the undersigned Magistrate Judge arises from a

second application for social security disability benefits. The second application covers the

time period from when the Administrative Law Judge denied the first application, April 14,

2010, to the present. Plaintiff claims that a favorable decision by the Court of Appeals on the

first case will likely resolve the instant action. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks a stay of this

Case 2:13-cv-01642-DKD Document 17 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 2
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 2

action until the case before the Court of Appeals is resolved, plus sixty additional days.

Alternatively, Plaintiff requests a forty-five day extension of time to file the opening brief

in the instant case. Defendant’s counsel does not object to the motion.

“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its

power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-07 (1997). The party

requesting the stay bears the burden of demonstrating its need. Id. “However, while it is the

prerogative of the district court to manage its workload, case management standing alone is

not necessarily a sufficient ground to stay proceedings.” Dependable Highway Express, Inc.,

v. Navigators Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007). Moreover, indefinite stays are

disfavored. Id.

Here, the Court finds a stay of indefinite duration until the Court of Appeals rules on

Plaintiff’s first case is unwarranted. The Court will, however, grant Plaintiff’s alternative

request for relief and extend the deadline to file an opening brief in the instant action. The

Court will extend the deadline by sixty days. Plaintiff may seek a further extension if the

Court of Appeals matter is not resolved before the next deadline.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Stay of Proceedings, doc. 16, is

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The request for a stay is denied. The alternative

request for an extension of the deadline to file the opening brief is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the deadline for Plaintiff to file an opening brief

is extended to Monday, May 19, 2014.

DATED this 19th day of March, 2014.

Case 2:13-cv-01642-DKD Document 17 Filed 03/19/14 Page 2 of 2