Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05871/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05871-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:1383 Review of HHS Decision

---

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 DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—C-02-05871 RMW

SPT

E-Filed: 9/27/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARIA ALVAREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant.

No. C-02-05871 RMW

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

[Re Docket No. 18]

On August 29, 2006 the court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted

defendant's motion for summary judgment. See August 29, 2006 Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion

for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment ("August

29, 2006 Order"). That same day the court entered judgment against plaintiff in favor of defendant. 

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the August 29, 2006 Order. 

Under Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), leave to file a motion for reconsideration may be granted

before entry of judgment adjudicating all of the claims and rights and liabilities of all the parties in a

case. Because judgment has been entered in this case, the court instead treats plaintiff's motion as

one to amend judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). Rule 59(e) provides that "Any motion to

alter or amend a judgment shall be filed no later than 10 days after entry of the judgment." 

Plaintiff's motion raises a proper issue for consideration under Rule 59(e). "A postjudgment motion

Case 5:02-cv-05871-RMW Document 20 Filed 09/27/06 Page 1 of 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—C-02-05871 RMW

SPT 2

will be considered a Rule 59(e) motion where it involves 'reconsideration of matters properly

encompassed in a decision on the merits.'" McCalla v. Royal MacCabees Life Ins. Co., 369 F.3d

1128, 1130 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting Osterneck v. Ernst & Whinney, 489 U.S. 169, 174 (1989)). 

Plaintiff's motion was timely filed within ten days after entry of judgment. 

In support of its motion plaintiff cites Stout v. Commissioner of Social Security, 454 F.3d

1050 (9th Cir. July 25, 2006) which held that "where the ALJ's error lies in a failure to properly

discuss competent lay testimony favorable to the claimant, a reviewing court cannot consider the

error harmless unless it can confidently conclude that no reasonable ALJ, when fully crediting the

testimony, could have reached a different disability determination." In her motion for summary

judgment, plaintiff argued that the ALJ ignored statements in the report of Leota Kanellis, a lay

witness. The court found that the statements in Kanellis's report were not favorable to plaintiff

because they contradicted plaintiff's own statements about the effect of her impairments. In

particular, Kanellis's statements indicated that plaintiff was capable of more than plaintiff's own

statements described. See August 29, 2006 Order at 9-10 (noting that Kanellis's statements indicate

that "plaintiff lives in a housing program with friends, that she has no problems caring for her own

personal needs, can perform limited chores with weight belts and does not shop, that plaintiff needs

no assistance to go outside, and that plaintiff's social activities have not changed since her condition

began"). Therefore, the court found that Kanellis's statements were consistent with the ALJ's finding

that plaintiff was capable of light work and not favorable to plaintiff's argument that she was capable

only of sedentary work.

For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes that amendment of its August 29, 2006

judgment is not warranted. Plaintiff's motion is denied. 

DATED: 9/25/06

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:02-cv-05871-RMW Document 20 Filed 09/27/06 Page 2 of 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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION—C-02-05871 RMW

SPT 3

THIS SHALL CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THIS ORDER WAS PROVIDED TO:

Counsel for plaintiff:

James Hunt Miller

P.O. Box 10891

Oakland, CA 94610

Counsel for defendant:

Kevin V. Ryan

Joann M. Swanson

Sara Winslow

Office of the United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102

Date: 9/27/06 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:02-cv-05871-RMW Document 20 Filed 09/27/06 Page 3 of 3