Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00796/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00796-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
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

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAXWELL GRANT,

Plaintiff,

v.

NANCY BERRYHILL ACTING 

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL 

SECURITY,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00796-SVK 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. No. 15

On July 11, 2019, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation extending the time for the 

Commissioner to respond to the Complaint until August 12, 2019. Dkt. 12. However, the 

Commissioner did not file a response by that deadline. On August 23, 2019, the Commissioner 

filed a motion for leave to file a motion to dismiss, acknowledging that the Commissioner had 

failed to file a timely response to the Complaint. Dkt. 15. 

Plaintiff opposes the motion for leave. Dkt. 16. Much of Plaintiff’s opposition brief is 

directed to the merits of the proposed motion to dismiss. See, e.g., id. at 2-4 (arguing that 60-day 

time to file Complaint should be tolled). However, Plaintiff also argues that the Commissioner’s 

motion to dismiss is untimely. Id. at 2.

Having considered the parties’ submissions, the Court GRANTS the Commissioner’s 

request for leave to file a motion to dismiss. By September 4, 2019, the Commissioner shall file

on ECF the motion to dismiss in the same form as attached as Exhibit B to its motion for leave. 

The briefing schedule on the motion is as follows:

Plaintiff’s opposition due September 13, 2019

Commissioner’s reply due September 20, 2019

There will be no extensions granted to the above schedule, and the Court will inform the 

Case 5:19-cv-00796-SVK Document 17 Filed 08/30/19 Page 1 of 2
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

parties if a hearing is required.

Plaintiff may include any argument concerning the timeliness of the motion to dismiss in 

his opposition to the motion. Any challenge to the timeliness of the motion to dismiss should 

address the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med. Svcs., Inc., which states 

that “[t]his circuit allows a motion under Rule 12(b) any time before the responsive pleading is 

filed.” 855 F.2d 1470, 1474 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Bechtel v. Liberty Nat’l Bank, 534 F.2d 1335, 

1340-41 (9th Cir. 1976)).

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 30, 2019

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00796-SVK Document 17 Filed 08/30/19 Page 2 of 2