Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01828/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-01828-5/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 (DIWW)

---

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

Plaintiff’s counsel also indicates that he has made several attempts to determine from the 1

court whether or not oral argument is necessary. The court notes that there is no record of any previous

document filed by Plaintiff regarding whether oral argument is necessary. Ex parte telephone calls to

chambers are not an appropriate way for counsel to try to ascertain what actions the court does or does

not intend to take. The court has not yet reviewed the motion papers, and thus has not yet determined

whether or not it will dispense with oral argument. The court will make that determination and inform

the parties in due course.

ORDER, page 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MERCY L. REYES,

Plaintiff,

v.

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner,

Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: C 05-1828 PVT

ORDER RE PARTIES’ PROPOSED

STIPULATION AND ORDER

On May 18, 2007, the parties filed a stipulation and proposed order in which they request that

Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees be submitted without oral argument, or in the alternative that the

hearing on the motion be postponed until June 26, 2007. Based on the stipulation and the file herein,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys fees and costs

is CONTINUED to June 26, 2007.

 Plaintiff’s counsel asserts in a footnote that “the matter should not have been placed on the

calendar.” The court placed this matter on calendar as a courtesy to Plaintiff, who failed to properly

1

Case 5:05-cv-01828-PVT Document 30 Filed 05/18/07 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

28

ORDER, page 2

notice the motion under Civil Local Rule 7-2. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, nothing in the

Procedural Order for Social Security Cases filed herein (“Procedural Order”) relieved Plaintiff of the

requirements of Local Rule 7-2. The briefing schedule in the Procedural Order expressly applies

only to motions for summary judgment. Thus, absent placement of the motion on calendar,

Plaintiff’s filing of the motion for fees and costs triggered no obligation on the part of Defendant to

file any opposition to the motion, nor for the court to review it.

Dated: 5/18/07

 

PATRICIA V. TRUMBULL

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:05-cv-01828-PVT Document 30 Filed 05/18/07 Page 2 of 2