Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01319/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01319-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:402 Social Security Benefits

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LaQUESHA COLEMAN, ) 1:09cv1319 GSA

)

) ORDER DISCHARGING AMENDED

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiff, ) (Document 19)

)

)

)

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner, )

)

) 

Defendant. )

____________________________________)

On July 28, 2009, Plaintiff filed the present action for judicial review of the denial of her

Social Security benefits. On or about January 8, 2010, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On

January 11, 2010, this Court issued a minute order informing Plaintiff that any opposition to the

motion to dismiss must be filed by January 22, 2010. (Doc. 16). The minute order also informed

Defendant that its reply shall be filed on or before January 29, 2010. On or about January 13, 2010,

Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion. Defendant did not file a reply.

On February 2, 2010, the Court issued an amended order to show cause based on Defendant’s

failure to file a reply pursuant to the Court’s minute order. On February 8, 2010, Defendant filed a

response to the amended order to show cause indicating that it did not file a reply because it thought

filing a reply was optional under Local Rule 230(d). Moreover, Defendant contends that Plaintiff

conceded that the complaint was untimely and the motion to dismiss explained why equitable tolling

1

Case 1:09-cv-01319-LJO-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/10/10 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

did not apply. Defendant’s response also includes its reply.

The Court is not persuaded by Defendant’s argument that the reply was optional. The minute

order issued on January 11, 2010, clearly stated that Defendant shall file a reply no later than January

29, 2010. However, Defendant promptly responded to the amended order to show cause and it has

now filed a response. Therefore, it appears Defendant’s failure to comply with this Court’s order

was inadvertent. Accordingly, the amended order to show cause is hereby DISCHARGED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 9, 2010 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01319-LJO-GSA Document 22 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 2