Shotorbani v. Kijakazi
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Karen S. Crawford (author)
Analysis
The parties jointly moved for remand to the Social Security Administration under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) after failing to resolve the case informally. The court granted the motion, vacated the Commissioner's decision, remanded the case for a new ALJ decision, and ordered the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Joint Motion for Voluntary Remand to Agency“Having reviewed the Complaint and the Joint Motion, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion.” | agree with court The court correctly grants the joint motion. Under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), sentence four, a district court has the authority to remand a case to the agency for further action when the parties consent. The order recites that the parties filed a joint motion, which is the requisite procedural mechanism for this type of remand. The decision follows directly from the statute and the parties' agreement. |
Vacating the Commissioner's Decision and Remanding for New ALJ Decision“The decision of the Commissioner in this matter is vacated and the matter is remanded to the Administration. Upon remand, the Appeals Council will remand the case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for a new decision, and instruct the ALJ to re-evaluate the evidence of record.” | agree with court This is the standard procedural consequence of a sentence four remand. The court properly vacates the final agency action to allow the agency to correct any errors or re-evaluate the record as agreed by the parties. The instruction to the ALJ to re-evaluate the evidence is consistent with the purpose of such remands. |
Ordering Entry of Judgment in Favor of Plaintiff“The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment in favor of plaintiff, and against defendant.” | agree with court In Social Security cases, when a case is remanded to the agency, the district court typically enters judgment in favor of the plaintiff. This is a standard practice to close the district court case while the agency proceedings continue. The order correctly directs the Clerk to do so. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory and case law authorities. It accurately reflects the standard procedure for a sentence four remand in a Social Security case. There are no gaps in the reasoning because the decision is based on the parties' joint motion, which is dispositive.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHERRELL S., Case No.: 23-cv-2174-KSC 12 Plaintiff, Order on Joint Motion For Voluntary 13 v. Remand to Agency Pursuant to Sentence Four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) 14 MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of and Entry of Judgment [Doc. No. 15] Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff filed this action challenging the final decision of the Commissioner of 18 Social Security denying plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Doc. No. 1. This Court directed the 19 parties to explore informal resolution of the matter through the meet-and-confer process. 20 See Doc. No. 9. The parties were unable to resolve the case initially, and plaintiff filed an 21 opening brief. Doc. Nos. 10, 13. However, on May 14, 2024, the parties jointly moved for 22 remand under sentence for of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). Doc No. 15 (the “Joint Motion”). 23 Having reviewed the Complaint and the Joint Motion, the Court GRANTS the Joint 24 Motion. The decision of the Commissioner in this matter is vacated and the matter is 25 remanded to the Administration. Upon remand, the Appeals Council will remand the case 26 to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) for a new decision, and instruct the ALJ to re- 27 evaluate the evidence of record. The Clerk of Court shall enter a final judgment in favor of 28 1 || plaintiff, and against defendant. The entry of judgment will begin the running of the thirty- 2 period for which plaintiff, as the prevailing party, may make a timely application for 3 || attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d)(1)(B); 4 || Akopyan v. Barnhart, 296 F.3d 852, 854 (9th Cir. 2002). 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 || Dated: May 14, 2024 JE. Le g Hori. Karen 8S. Crawford 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28