Ronne v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON TACOMA DIVISION 7 8 KEN A. RONNE, 9 Plaintiff, Case No. C20-5647-MLP 10 v. ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY 11 COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, 12 Defendant. 13 14 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Unopposed Motion to Stay (“Plaintiff’s 15 Motion”). (Dkt. # 16.) Plaintiff seeks review of Defendant’s decision denying his application for 16 disability benefits. (Dkt. # 6.) In his opening brief, Plaintiff argued that pursuant to Lucia v. 17 Securities and Exchange Commission, 138 S.Ct. 2044 (2018), this Court should remand this case 18 because the ALJ was not properly appointed under the Appointments Clause of the U.S. 19 Constitution. (Dkt. # 12 at 15-16.) Plaintiff noted he failed to raise this issue during his 20 administrative proceedings. (Id. at 16.) 21 Plaintiff requests a stay of this action because his Appointments Clause issue is now 22 pending before the United States Supreme Court. (Dkt. # 16 at 1.) On November 9, 2020, the 23 United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether a claimant seeking 1 disability benefits under the Social Security Act forfeits a challenge to the appointment of an 2 administrative law judge under the Appointments Clause of the United States Constitution by 3 failing to raise that issue during the administrative proceedings. See Carr v. Saul, 961 F.3d 1267 4 (10th Cir. 2020), cert. granted, 2020 WL 6551771 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2020) (No. 19-1442); Davis v. 5 Saul, 963 F.3d 790 (8th Cir. 2020), cert. granted, 2020 WL 6551772 (U.S. Nov. 9, 2020) (No. 6 20-105). 7 Accordingly, based on Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay (dkt. # 16), and that opposing counsel 8 has no opposition, it is hereby ORDERED that this matter is STAYED until the United States 9 Supreme Court has ruled on the consolidated cases of Carr and Davis, or until this Court orders 10 otherwise. 11 Within 14 days of the Supreme Court’s ruling, Plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief 12 addressing his position on the Appointments Clause issue. Within 14 days after the filing of 13 Plaintiff’s supplemental brief, Defendant shall file a supplemental brief responding to Plaintiff’s 14 brief and setting forth his position on the Appointments Clause issue. And within 14 days after 15 the filing of Defendant’s supplemental brief, Plaintiff may file a Reply Brief regarding the merits 16 of his case. 17 Dated this 3rd day of March, 2021. 18 A 19 MICHELLE L. PETERSON United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23