Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Feb. 13, 2020

United States v. Ortiz

Judge
Nelson Roman
Docket
7:18-cv-07738
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Civil ProcedureSocial SecurityPro Se
In one sentence

United States v. Ortiz: Judge Roman denied the government’s request to pause the case and ordered a case-management plan by March 6, 2020.

Who this affects

The government and Ortiz were directed to continue litigating or resolving the case and to submit a case-management plan. Ortiz, who was representing himself, was to receive a mailed copy of the order.

What happened

In United States v. Ortiz, the government sued to recover overpaid Social Security disability benefits. The government said it had been negotiating with Ortiz, who was representing himself, about a settlement or payment plan.

The government asked the court to pause the case for three months instead of dismissing its claim for failure to prosecute. It said it was gathering financial information from Ortiz to evaluate his ability to pay.

Judge Nelson S. Roman denied the request to pause the case. He directed the parties to confer, complete, and submit a case-management plan by March 6, 2020, and directed the Clerk to mail the order to Ortiz.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
United States v. Ortiz · No. 7:18-cv-07738
Judge
Nelson Roman
Date
Feb. 13, 2020

Background

The government brought this civil action to recover overpayments of Social Security disability benefits paid to Ortiz. The government stated that Ortiz was representing himself and that the parties had been discussing a settlement agreement or payment plan. The government had met with Ortiz and was seeking financial documents to evaluate his ability to pay and develop a proposal.

The court had previously ordered the government to explain why its claim should not be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). The government responded that the parties’ settlement efforts justified keeping the case open and asked the court to pause the action for three months, until May 11, 2020.

Ruling

The court denied the government’s application to stay the action. The endorsement does not state that the court dismissed the government’s claim. Instead, the court directed the parties to confer, complete, and submit a Case Management Plan by March 6, 2020. The Clerk was directed to mail a copy of the endorsement to the pro se plaintiff, show proof of service on the docket, and terminate the motion.

Effect of the Order

The order addressed case management and the government’s request to pause the proceedings; it did not decide whether the government was entitled to recover the alleged benefit overpayments. The opinion text identifies the defendant as Ortiz but does not provide a fuller name.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.