Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cooke v. Colvin

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

June 7, 2013

PATRICIA COOKE, Plaintiff,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.[1]

BENJAMIN WAGNER, CSBN 163581 United States Attorney, DONNA L. CALVERT, SBN IL 619786 Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region IX Social Security Administration, ELIZABETH BARRY, CSBN 203314 Special Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Defendant.

SENGTHIENE BOSAVANH, Attorney for Plaintiff.

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO REOPEN THIS CASE

GARY S. AUSTIN, Magistrate Judge.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, to reopen the above-captioned matter. A previous order of remand, pursuant to sentence six of Section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), was entered on April 6, 2012, for the purpose of correcting errors in the administrative correct and of locating missing portions of the administrative record (Order on Remand, Doc. 17). On November 20, 2012, an administrative law judge (ALJ) held a subsequent hearing, at which Plaintiff testified, resulting in a January 11, 2013 decision and finding that Plaintiff is not disabled.

Under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), "[t]he court may, on motion of the Commissioner of Social Security made for good cause before the Commissioner files the Commissioner's answer, remand the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further action by the Commissioner of Social Security." 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). The remanding court retains jurisdiction when it remands under sentence six. See Shalala v. Schaefer , 509 U.S. 292, 297 (1993) ("[i]mmediate entry of judgment (as opposed to entry of judgment after postremand agency proceedings have been completed and their results filed with the court) is in fact the principal feature that distinguishes a sentence-four remand from a sentence-six remand"). In the instant case, this Court remanded pursuant to sentence six, and retains jurisdiction. See id. Given the subsequent unfavorable decision, reopening is appropriate.

The parties stipulate to reopen this matter for resolution before this Court.

ORDER

Upon are review of the stipulation, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to reopen this case. A new scheduling order will be issued setting deadlines in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.