Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01908/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01908-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 42:205 Denial Social Security Benefits

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Counsel for Carolyn Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, requests a stay in this 

action “until Congress has restored appropriations.” (Doc. 16). As counsel notes, “the Appropriations 

Act that had been funding the Department of Justice expired and appropriations to the Department 

lapsed” on September 30, 2013. (Doc. 16 at 1). As a result, “Department of Justice attorneys and 

employees of the Social Security Administration are prohibited from working, even on a voluntary 

basis, except in very limited circumstances, including ‘emergencies involving the safety of human life 

or the protection of property.’” Id. at 1-2 (quoting 31 U.S.C. § 1342). 

The Supreme Court explained the “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent 

in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for 

itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-255 (1936). To 

evaluate whether to stay an action, the Court must the weigh competing interests that will be affected 

by the grant or refusal to grant a stay. CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962). Among 

SERGIO RAMERIZ URQUIZO,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CAROLYN COLVIN, 

Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01908 - JLT

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTIONS

TO STAY

(Doc. 16)

Case 1:12-cv-01908-JLT Document 17 Filed 10/02/13 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

these competing interests are: (1) the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay; (2) 

the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward; and (3) the orderly 

course of justice measured in terms of simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of 

law which could be expected to result from a stay. Id. (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55)).

The party seeking a stay “bears the burden of establishing its need.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 

681, 708 (1997) (citing Landis, 299 U.S. at 255). The Supreme Court explained, “If there is even a fair 

possibility that the stay . . . will work damage to some one else,” the party seeking the stay “must make 

out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 255. The decision whether to grant or 

deny a stay is committed to the Court’s discretion. Dependable Highway Express, Inc. v. Navigators 

Ins. Co., 498 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir. 2007).

In this action, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on September 11, 2013 (Doc. 15), 

and Defendant’s response to the motion is due no later than October 11, 2013. (See Doc. 7-1 at 4). 

However, counsel for Defendant is precluded from working on this action “until Congress has restored 

appropriates to both the Department of Justice and Social Security Administration.” (Doc. 16 at 2). 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Ms. Haley, does not oppose the entry of a stay. Id. It does not appear Plaintiff 

would suffer any damage upon the entry of a stay, and Defendant’s counsel has set forth “a clear case 

of hardship” with the inability to respond to the motion for summary judgment.

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s motion to stay (Doc. 16) is GRANTED;

2. The matter is STAYED pending a resolution from Congress; and

3. Defendant SHALL file a status report within seven days of the restoration of funding to 

the Department of Justice and Social Security Administration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2013 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01908-JLT Document 17 Filed 10/02/13 Page 2 of 2