DAEDA
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that while a stay is warranted, a ninety-day extension would cause undue delay, and thus granted a forty-five-day extension.
The Defendant, Commissioner of Social Security, sought a second stay of proceedings to produce a certified transcript of the record and file an answer…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Discretion To Stay Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Before the Court is Defendant’s Opposed Second Motion for Stay of Proceedings (Doc. 19) and Plaintiff Charles Daeda’s Objection (Doc. 21). Daeda is proceeding without counsel. For a second time, Defendant requests this action be stayed in order to produce a certified transcript of the record and file an answer. (Doc. 15). In the second motion, Defendant updates the Court on new measures implemented by the Commissioner to process the certified administrate record and attaches an updated affidavit of the executive director of the Social Security Administration’s Office of Appellate Operations. (Doc. 19, pp. 2-4; Doc. 19-1). In sum, the pandemic has impacted the agency’s operations and it has a backlog of actions awaiting certified transcripts, but the agency has implemented new measures to overcome the backlog. (Doc. 19, pp. 2-4). In opposition, Daeda argues Defendant did not provide any new information that would justify a continued stay. Daeda also argues that all issues raised by
Defendant are “self-limiting problems created by their own mismanagement of excessively denying disability benefits to many who are entitled. this is politics.” (Doc. 21, p. 2).
A court has broad discretion whether to stay a proceeding “as an incident to its power to control its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-707 (1997). The court must weigh the benefits of the stay against any harms of delay. Id. at 707. Here, the Commissioner has provided good cause to extend the deadline to file the certified transcript and answer. But the Court finds an additional ninety-day extension would cause undue delay. After considering the circumstances, the Court will extend Defendant’s deadline to file a certified transcript and to answer by forty-
five days. Accordingly, the Opposed Second Motion for Stay of Proceedings (Doc. 19) is GRANTED in part. The Court extends the deadline for Defendant to file a certified transcript and answer to May 10, 2021. No further extensions will be granted without a detailed and case-specific showing that the Commissioner made a diligent effort to comply with the Court’s deadline. DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on April 12, 2021.
Lida Ee Line [...]