Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03504/USCOURTS-cand-5_13-cv-03504-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 865
Nature of Suit: Social Security - RSI (405(g))
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

STEVEN M. GOLDSTEIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting 

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Case No. 5:13-cv-03504 HRL

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR REMAND AND 

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS 

FOR REVERSAL ORDER AND 

JUDGMENT

[Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 25, 31]

Defendant moves for remand pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) sentence six, citing the 

agency’s inability to locate the record of the administrative proceedings re plaintiff’s claim for 

benefits. Defendant requests an opportunity to reconstruct the record; or, if the record cannot be 

reconstructed, then defendant says she will remand the matter to an administrative law judge to 

reconstruct the record, hold a new hearing, and issue a decision. Plaintiff opposes the motion and 

separately moves for judgment on the merits, arguing that defendant did not answer his complaint. 

Upon consideration of the moving and responding papers,1 the court grants defendant’s motion 

and denies plaintiff’s motions.

Given the pendency of defendant’s request for remand, it would have made no sense for 

defendant to proceed to join the issue and file an answer. Plaintiff’s motions for a reversal order 

 1 Plaintiff filed an unauthorized sur-reply with respect to defendant’s remand motion. The court 

nevertheless has fully considered all of plaintiff’s filings.

Case 5:13-cv-03504-HRL Document 34 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

and judgment are denied.

Plaintiff contends that remand is not warranted because defendant has cited no new 

evidence. He is, however, conflating the requirements for the two different types of remand 

authorized by § 405(g) sentence six. Sentence six remands may be ordered in two situations: 

“where the Secretary requests a remand before answering the complaint, or where new, material 

evidence is adduced that was for good cause not presented before the agency.” Shalala v. 

Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 297 n.2, 113 S. Ct. 2625, 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993); see also Melkonyan v. 

Sullivan, 501 U.S. 89, 100 & n.2, 111 S. Ct. 2157, 115 L.Ed.2d 78 (1991) (same); Akopyan v. 

Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002) (same). Only the first type of sentence six remand is 

at issue here.

Moreover, this court finds good cause for defendant’s request. Congress clearly has stated 

that good cause for remand may be found where difficulties, such as an inaudible hearing tape or 

lost files, arise. See H.R.Rep. No. 96-944, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 59 (1980). Plaintiff’s arguments 

about defendant’s duty to compile an administrative record do not persuade this court otherwise 

and do not subvert or invalidate Congress’ clearly stated intent. While plaintiff argues that 

defendant provided meaningful review of his claims at the administrative level, meaningful review 

by this court is not possible without a proper record.

Defendant’s motion for remand therefore is granted. This matter is remanded pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 405(g) sentence six.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2015

______________________________________

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 5:13-cv-03504-HRL Document 34 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 3
3

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

Northern District of California

5:13-cv-03504-HRL Notice has been electronically mailed to:

Lynn M. Harada Lynn.Harada@ssa.gov, ODAR.OAO.COURT.1@ssa.gov, 

sf.ogc.ndca@ssa.gov

Steven Michael Goldstein GoldyCISSP@hotmail.com

Case 5:13-cv-03504-HRL Document 34 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 3