Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01912/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01912-4/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 (DIWC)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATHANIEL COLEMAN, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE,

Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. /

No. C 06-1912 SI

ORDER DENYING DOCKET NO. 30

On July 5, 2007, Terri Vitt filed a “motion to consider whether cases should be related and

motion for Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 order.” (Docket No. 30). Defendant filed an opposition, and by order

filed July 24, 2007, the Court determined that this closed case is not related to Vitt v. Astrue, C 06-7184

CW, currently pending before Judge Wilken. It has come to the attention of the Court that after the

Court’s July 24, 2007 order, plaintiff filed a reply brief on August 13, 2007. In order to ensure that there

is no confusion in the record, the Court again DENIES plaintiff’s motion.

The Court determines that is this closed action is not related to Vitt v. Astrue because Terri Vitt

was never a proper plaintiff in this action. Plaintiff Nathaniel Coleman filed this action on March 13,

2006, challenging the ALJ’s decision not to reopen plaintiff Coleman’s 1997 application for social

security benefits. On July 31, 2006, plaintiff filed a “notice of permissive joinder” of Terri Vitt.

Plaintiff asserted that joinder was appropriate because the same ALJ adjudicated plaintiff’s and Vitt’s

social security cases. By order filed January 11, 2007, the Court granted defendant’s motion to sever

and dismiss Vitt, and dismissed Coleman’s action. As the Court noted in that order, “Plaintiff

Coleman’s and Vitt’s claims do not arise out of the same transaction; to the contrary, they filed separate

Case 3:06-cv-01912-SI Document 35 Filed 11/26/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1

 In fact, unbeknownst to the Court, plaintiff Vitt had already done so. On November 20, 2006

– after plaintiff Coleman filed his notice of permissive joinder, but before this Court ruled on

defendant’s motion to sever – Vitt filed Vitt v. Astrue, C 06-7184 CW. The Court notes that the same

lawyer represents Coleman in this action and Vitt in Vitt v. Astrue. However, it was not until July 5,

2007 – seven months after the action was filed, six months after Vitt was severed and dismissed from

the Coleman case, and days after the defendant in Vitt filed a motion to dismiss that action – that Vitt

filed a Notice of Related Case in Vitt, and the motion to relate cases and for relief pursuant to Rule 60

in this action. The defendant’s motion to dismiss in Vitt has been submitted for decision.

2

applications for disability benefits, and each application was adjudicated on its own merits.” January

11, 2007 Order at 9. The Court further stated that “[i]f Terri Vitt wishes to pursue her own claim, she

must file a separate action.” Id.1

The Court further finds that plaintiff Vitt – who was never a proper party in this action – has not

demonstrated any basis for relief from judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01912-SI Document 35 Filed 11/26/07 Page 2 of 2