San Pedro v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a joint motion in a Social Security disability case. It granted the motion, reversing the Commissioner's decision and remanding the case to the Agency to further develop the record and issue a new decision.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Joint Motion and Remand“The Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. Upon remand, the Agency will vacate the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and remand the case to the Agency to further develop the record and issue a new decision.” | agree with court The order reflects a joint motion, which typically indicates that the parties have agreed on the outcome or the procedural path forward. In Social Security cases, a joint motion to remand is a common mechanism to resolve disputes without a full trial on the merits, often used when the record is incomplete or there are procedural errors that can be cured by the Agency. The court's decision to grant the motion and remand for further development of the record is a standard and appropriate exercise of discretion in such circumstances. |
Entry of Final Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff“Final judgment in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner and remanding this action to the Agency.” | agree with court Entering judgment in favor of the plaintiff upon a remand is standard practice in Social Security cases. It formally concludes the district court's jurisdiction over the current appeal and allows the case to proceed back to the administrative level. The citation to the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) and *Akopyan v. Barnhart* correctly identifies the plaintiff as a prevailing party entitled to seek attorney's fees, which is a legal consequence of the remand. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is a standard judgment form for a Social Security remand. It correctly identifies the procedural outcome (granting the joint motion, remanding to the Agency) and the legal consequences (prevailing party status for EAJA fees). It relies on the correct statutory and case law authorities for the fee provision. However, it does not provide any reasoning for *why* the joint motion was granted or what specific deficiencies in the ALJ's decision necessitated the remand. This is typical for a joint motion order, as the parties have already agreed on the resolution, but it leaves the substantive legal basis for the remand unstated in the document itself.
Opinion
©) United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Eleonor Pablo San Pedro Civil Action No. — 22-cv-00324-KSC Plaintiff, V. Kilolo Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE Social Security Defendant.
Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: The Court GRANTS the Joint Motion. Upon remand, the Agency will vacate the decision of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and remand the case to the Agency to further develop the record and issue a new decision. Final judgment in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant, reversing the final decision of the Commissioner and remanding this action to the Agency. The entry of judgment will begin the running of the thirty-day period for which plaintiff, as the prevailing party, may make a timely application for attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002).
Date: 10/5/22 CLERK OF COURT JOHN MORRILL, Clerk of Court By: s/ L. Sotelo L. Sotelo, Deputy