Karl L. Hassan v. Andrew M. Saul, No. 2:2019cv04988 - Document 21 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Autumn D. Spaeth. The decision of the Social Security Commissioner is AFFIRMED, and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Judgment shall be entered accordingly. (see document for further details) (hr)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Karl L. Hassan v. Andrew M. Saul Doc. 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARL L. H., an Individual, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. Case No. 2:19-0 4988 ADS MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER 14 ANDREW M. SAUL, Com m issioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 I. IN TROD U CTION Plaintiff Karl L. H.1 (“Plaintiff”) challenges the Defendant Com m issioner of Social 19 Security’s (hereinafter “Com m issioner” or “Defendant”) denial of his application for 20 supplem ental security incom e (“SSI”). Plaintiff contends that the Adm inistrative Law 21 J udge (“ALJ ”) im properly rejected his testim ony concerning pain and lim itations he 22 23 24 1 Plaintiff’s nam e has been partially redacted in com pliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recom m endation of the Com m ittee on Court Adm inistration and Case Managem ent of the J udicial Conference of the United States. -1Dockets.Justia.com 1 suffers. For the reasons stated below, the decision of the Com m issioner is affirm ed, and 2 this m atter is dism issed with prejudice.2 3 II. FACTS RELEVAN T TO TH E APPEAL 4 A review of the entire record reflects certain uncontested facts relevant to this 5 appeal. Plaintiff’s SSI application alleges disability based on “schizo effective bipolar 6 type, depression, glaucom a and ADHD.” (Adm inistrative Record “AR” 10 0 ). In his 7 Work History Report, Plaintiff stated that his condition lim its his ability to work as 8 “[t]he bipolar causes disruption in focus an d I suffer from racing thoughts, difficulties 9 concentrating, hard to com plete tasks, insom nia. I have problem s with shoulder. 10 Problem with left eye. I have nerve dam age that affects m y hands and posture. I have 11 an injury to lower back, hip and knee.” (AR 410 ). When asked at the Adm inistrative 12 hearing what prevents him from returning to work, Plaintiff testified that his m ental and 13 em otional problem s affect his ability to stay focused and hold a job, that “the voices are 14 the biggest thing” and that he “hears voices every day.” (AR 55, 59). Plaintiff further 15 testified that what prevents him physically from returning to work is that his “hands ball 16 up” and that he “drops things.” (AR 57). 17 Plaintiff’s reported work history is lim ited and often sporadic. Prior to filing for 18 social security benefits in March of 20 13, Plaintiff’s em ploym ent records indicate he last 19 worked in 20 0 9, with no incom e reported for the years 20 10 thru 20 15. (AR 321-24, 20 335). Plaintiff earned a total of $ 246.89 in 20 0 9 at a com pany called Defense Finance & 21 Accounting Service, located in Cleveland, Ohio. (AR 322). In 20 0 8, Plaintiff earned a 22 23 24 2 The parties filed consents to proceed before the undersigned United States Magistrate J udge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), including for entry of final J udgm ent. [Docket(“Dkt.”) Nos. 11, 12]. -2- 1 total of $ 17,272.46, $ 12,957.26 at the Departm ent of Veterans Affairs and $ 4315.20 at a 2 com pany called Behavioral Health Services Inc., located in Gardena, California. (AR 3 322, 324). In 20 0 7, Plaintiff earned a total of $ 10 ,163.20 , $ 4,198.48 at the Departm ent 4 of Veterans Affairs and $ 5,964.72 at a com pany called Volt Managem ent Corporation in 5 Orange, California. (AR 322, 324). Plaintiff has no reported incom e for the years 20 0 3 6 thru 20 0 6. In 20 0 2, Plaintiff earned $ 367.25 at Lakewood Eye Physicians and 7 Surgeons, Inc. and in 20 0 1, Plaintiff earned $ 1,10 2.0 0 at Philip A. Mischenko, D.O. in 8 Tem ple City, California. (AR 321). Finally, in 20 0 0 , Plaintiff earned a total of 9 $ 16,649.0 2, $ 11,50 3.21 at a com pany called Fitness International located in Irvine, CA 10 11 and $ 5,145.81 at a com pany Optim ate, Inc. located in Arcadia, California. (AR 321). When asked of his em ploym ent history at the Adm inistrative hearing, Plaintiff 12 testified that he has worked as an optical assistant and as a drug and alcohol counselor, 13 after receiving a counseling certificate in this field. (AR 45-48). On Plaintiff’s 14 com pleted Work History Report and Disability Report, he stated that he has worked as a 15 food service worker for the Departm ent of Veteran Affairs from Septem ber 20 0 7- 16 J anuary 20 0 9, as a counselor for Behavioral Health Services from J une 20 0 8-August 17 20 0 8, as a general m anager at LA Fitness from May 20 0 0 -J anuary 20 0 1, and as a 18 salesm an for Optim ate from February 20 0 0 -May 20 0 0 . (AR 383, 398). 19 Plaintiff com pleted a Function Report in May 20 13 wherein he stated that he 20 cooks and cleans up after him self, does the laundry, shops, waters the yard and attends 21 AA m eetings. (AR 411-14) . Plaintiff reported no problem s in socializing and interacting 22 with others. (AR 414-15). In a subsequent Function Report he com pleted in October 23 20 13, Plaintiff also stated that he goes to the gym and walks on the treadm ill. (AR 439). 24 -3- 1 III. PROCEED IN GS BELOW 2 A. Pro ce d u ral H is to ry 3 Plaintiff protectively filed his application for SSI on March 7, 20 13, alleging 4 disability beginning October 1, 20 0 8. (AR 30 9-17). Plaintiff’s claim s were denied 5 initially on August 30 , 20 13 (AR 126-30 ), and upon reconsideration on Decem ber 20 , 6 20 13 (AR 134-38). A hearing was held before ALJ J am es D. Goodm an on August 16, 7 20 17.3 (AR 37-63). Plaintiff, represented by counsel, appeared and testified at the 8 hearing. (Id.) 9 On J une 25, 20 18, the ALJ found that Plaintiff was “not disabled” within the 10 m eaning of the Social Security Act.4 (AR 15-27). The ALJ ’s decision becam e the 11 Com m issioner’s final decision when the Appeals Council denied Plaintiff’s request for 12 review on April 11, 20 19. (AR 1-6). Plaintiff then filed this action in District Court on 13 J une 7, 20 19, challenging the ALJ ’s decision. [Dkt. No. 1]. 14 B. Su m m ary o f ALJ D e cis io n Afte r H e arin g 15 In the decision (AR 15-27), the ALJ followed the required five-step sequential 16 evaluation process to assess whether Plaintiff was disabled under the Social Security 17 Act.5 20 C.F.R. § 416.920 (a). At s te p o n e , the ALJ found that Plaintiff had not been 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 Plaintiff failed to appear at the first hearing scheduled, and two subsequent hearings were continued in order for Plaintiff to obtain representation. (AR 15). 4 Persons are “disabled” for purposes of receiving Social Security benefits if they are unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity owing to a physical or m ental im pairm ent expected to result in death, or which has lasted or is expected to last for a continuous period of at least 12 m onths. 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(1)(A). 5 The ALJ follows a five-step sequential evaluation process to assess whether a claim ant is disabled: Step one: Is the claim ant engaging in substantial gainful activity? If so, the claim ant is found not disabled. If not, proceed to step two. Step two: Does the claim ant have a “severe” im pairm ent? If so, proceed to step three. If not, then a finding of not disabled is appropriate. Step three: Does the claim ant’s im pairm ent or com bination of im pairm ents m eet or equal an im pairm ent listed in 20 C.F.R., Pt. 40 4, Subpt. P, App. 1? -4- 1 engaged in substantial gainful activity since March 7, 20 13, the application date. (AR 2 18). At s te p tw o , the ALJ found that Plaintiff had the following severe im pairm ents: (a) 3 status post left eye corneal transplant with bilateral cataracts; (b) bilateral inguinal 4 hernias status post-surgical repair; (c) history of right shoulder im pingem ent syndrom e 5 with degenerative labrum and rotator cuff tearing; (d) spondylosis of the lum bar spine; 6 (e) degenerative changes of the cervical spine; (f) status post right ankle avulsive 7 fracture and right hip arthrosis; (g) arthritis of the left acrom ioclavicular joint; (h) a 8 m ood disorder, not otherwise specified; and (i) polysubstance dependence in rem ission, 9 with relapse periods. (AR 18). 10 At s te p th re e , the ALJ found that Plaintiff “does not have an im pairm ent or 11 com bination of im pairm ents that m eets or m edically equals the severity of one of the 12 listed im pairm ents in 20 CFR Part 40 4, Subpart P, Appendix 1 (20 CFR 416.920 (d), 13 416.925 and 416.926).” (AR 19). The ALJ then found that Plaintiff had the Residual 14 Functional Capacity (“RFC”) 6 to perform m edium work as defined in 20 CFR 15 416.967(c) 7, “except he is lim ited to occasional work with sm all objects and no m ore 16 than sim ple repetitive tasks.” (AR 19). 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 If so, the claim ant is autom atically determ ined disabled. If not, proceed to step four. Step four: Is the claim ant capable of perform ing his past work? If so, the claim ant is not disabled. If not, proceed to step five. Step five: Does the claim ant have the residual functional capacity to perform any other work? If so, the claim ant is not disabled. If not, the claim ant is disabled. Lester v. Chater, 81 F.3d 821, 828 n.5 (9th Cir. 1995). 6 An RFC is what a claim ant can still do despite existing exertional and nonexertional lim itations. See 20 C.F.R. § 416.945(a)(1). 7 “Medium work involves lifting no m ore than 50 pounds at a tim e with frequent lifting or carrying of objects weighing up to 25 poun ds. If som eone can do m edium work . . . he or she can also do sedentary and light work.” 20 C.F.R. § 416.967(c); see also Manzo v. Berryhill, 20 18 WL 50 99264, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 20 18). -5- At s te p fo u r, based on Plaintiff’s RFC, the ALJ found that Plaintiff could 1 2 perform his past relevant work as a kitchen helper. (AR 25-26). At s te p five , 3 considering Plaintiff’s age, education, work experience and RFC, the ALJ also found that 4 Plaintiff “rem ains capable of m aking a successful adjustm ent to other work that exists in 5 significant num bers in the national econom y.” (AR 27). Accordingly, the ALJ 6 determ ined that Plaintiff had not been under a disability, as defined in the Social 7 Security Act, since March 7, 20 13, the date Plaintiff filed his application. (Id.). 8 IV. 9 10 11 AN ALYSIS A. Is s u e o n Ap p e al Plaintiff raises one issue for review: whether the ALJ properly considered his testim ony. [Dkt. No. 20 (J oint Subm ission), 4]. 12 B. Stan d ard o f Re vie w 13 A United States District Court m ay review the Com m issioner’s decision to deny 14 benefits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 40 5(g). The District Court is not a trier of the facts but 15 is confined to ascertaining by the record before it if the Com m issioner’s decision is 16 based upon substantial evidence. Garrison v. Colvin, 759 F.3d 995, 10 10 (9th Cir. 20 14) 17 (District Court’s review is lim ited to only grounds relied upon by ALJ ) (citing Connett v. 18 Barnhart, 340 F.3d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 20 0 3)). A court m ust affirm an ALJ ’s findings of 19 fact if they are supported by substantial evidence and if the proper legal standards were 20 applied. Mayes v. Massanari, 276 F.3d 453, 458-59 (9th Cir. 20 0 1). An ALJ can satisfy 21 the substantial evidence requirement “by setting out a detailed and thorough sum m ary 22 of the facts and conflicting clinical evidence, stating his interpretation thereof, and 23 m aking findings.” Reddick v. Chater, 157 F.3d 715, 725 (9th Cir. 1998) (citation 24 om itted). -6- 1 “[T]he Com m issioner’s decision cannot be affirm ed sim ply by isolating a specific 2 quantum of supporting evidence. Rather, a court m ust consider the record as a whole, 3 weighing both evidence that supports and evidence that detracts from the Secretary’s 4 conclusion.” Aukland v. Massanari, 257 F.3d 10 33, 10 35 (9th Cir. 20 0 1) (citations and 5 internal quotation m arks om itted). “‘Where evidence is susceptible to m ore than one 6 rational interpretation,’ the ALJ ’s decision should be upheld.” Ryan v. Com m ’r of Soc. 7 Sec., 528 F.3d 1194, 1198 (9th Cir. 20 0 8) (citing Burch v. Barnhart, 40 0 F.3d 676, 679 8 (9th Cir. 20 0 5)); see Robbins v. Soc. Sec. Adm in., 466 F.3d 880 , 882 (9th Cir. 20 0 6) (“If 9 the evidence can support either affirm ing or reversing the ALJ ’s conclusion, we m ay not 10 substitute our judgm ent for that of the ALJ .”). However, the Court m ay review only “the 11 reasons provided by the ALJ in the disability determ ination and m ay not affirm the ALJ 12 on a ground upon which he did not rely.” Orn v. Astrue, 495 F.3d 625, 630 (9th Cir. 13 20 0 7) (citation om itted). 14 Lastly, even if an ALJ errs, the decision will be affirm ed where such error is 15 harm less, that is, if it is “inconsequential to the ultim ate nondisability determ ination,” 16 or if “the agency’s path m ay reasonably be discerned, even if the agency explains its 17 decision with less than ideal clarity.” Brown-Hunter v. Colvin, 80 6 F.3d 487, 492 (9th 18 Cir. 20 15) (citation omitted); Molina v. Astrue, 674 F.3d 110 4, 1115 (9th Cir. 20 12). 19 C. W h e th e r th e ALJ Pro p e rly Evalu ate d Plain tiff’s Te s tim o n y 20 Plaintiff asserts that the ALJ im properly rejected his subjective com plaints of the 21 pain and lim itation he suffers from his severe im pairm ents, which lim it and prevent him 22 from perform ing work on a sustained basis. Defendant contends that the ALJ 23 appropriately found Plaintiff’s sym ptom s and lim itations allegations not fully supported 24 by the record. -7- 1 2 1. Legal Standard for Evaluating Claim ant’s Testim ony A claim ant carries the burden of producing objective m edical evidence of his or 3 her im pairm ents and showing that the im pairm ents could reasonably be expected to 4 produce som e degree of the alleged sym ptom s. Benton ex rel. Benton v. Barnhart, 331 5 F.3d 10 30 , 10 40 (9th Cir. 20 0 3). Once the claim ant m eets that burden, m edical 6 findings are not required to support the alleged severity of pain. Bunnell v. Sullivan, 7 947 F.2d 341, 345 (9th Cir. 1991) (en banc); see also Light v. Soc. Sec. Adm in., 119 F.3d 8 789, 792 (9th Cir. 1997) (“claim ant need not present clinical or diagnostic evidence to 9 support the severity of his pain”) (citation omitted)). Defendant does not contest, and 10 thus appears to concede, that Plaintiff carried his burden of producing objective m edical 11 evidence of his im pairm ents and showing that the im pairm ents could reasonably be 12 expected to produce som e degree of the alleged sym ptom s. 13 Once a claim ant has m et the burden of producing objective m edical evidence, an 14 ALJ can reject the claim ant’s subjective complaint “only upon (1) finding evidence of 15 m alingering, or (2) expressing clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Benton, 331 16 F.3d at 10 40 ; see also Social Security Ruling (SSR) 16-3p (findings “m ust contain 17 specific reasons for the weight given to the individual’s sym ptom s, be consistent with 18 and supported by the evidence, and be clearly articulated so the individual and any 19 subsequent reviewer can assess how the adjudicator evaluated the individual’s 20 sym ptom s”). To discredit a claim ant's sym ptom testim ony when the claim ant has 21 provided objective m edical evidence of the im pairm ents which m ight reasonably 22 produce the sym ptom s or pain alleged and there is no evidence of m alingering, the ALJ 23 “m ay reject the claim ant’s testim ony about the severity of those sym ptom s only by 24 providing specific, clear and convincing reasons for doing so.” Brown-Hunter, 80 6 F.3d -8- 1 at 489 (“we require the ALJ to specify which testim ony she finds not credible, and then 2 provide clear and convincing reasons, supported by evidence in the record, to support 3 that credibility determ ination”); Laborin v. Berryhill, 867 F.3d 1151, 1155 (9th Cir. 20 17). 4 The ALJ m ay consider at least the following factors when weighing the claim ant’s 5 credibility: (1) his or her reputation for truthfulness; (2) inconsistencies either in the 6 claim ant’s testim ony or between the claim ant’s testim ony and his or her conduct; (3) his 7 or her daily activities; (4) his or her work record; and (5) testim ony from physicians and 8 third parties concerning the nature, severity, and effect of the sym ptom s of which she 9 com plains. Thom as v. Barnhart, 278 F.3d 948, 958-59 (9th Cir. 20 0 2) (citing Light, 119 10 F.3d at 792). “If the ALJ ’s credibility finding is supported by substantial evidence in the 11 record, [the court] m ay not engage in second-guessing.” Id. at 959 (citing Morgan v. 12 Apfel, 169 F.3d 595, 60 0 (9th Cir. 1999)). 13 2. The ALJ provided Clear and Convincing Reasons Supported by Substantial Evidence 14 15 Having carefully reviewed the record, the Court finds that the ALJ provided 16 specific, clear and convincing reasons for discounting Plaintiff’s subjective com plaints. 8 17 The ALJ found that Plaintiff’s subjective com plaints were not consistent with the 18 evidence of record, including Plaintiff’s sporadic and isolated m edical treatment for his 19 physical ailm ents, inconsistent psychiatric records, m edical noncom pliance, and 20 Plaintiff’s activity level, including going to the gym and being arrested for and charged 21 with burglary after applying for benefits. (AR 19-25). 22 23 24 8 The ALJ did not m ake a finding of m alingering in his opinion. (AR 15-27). -9- 1 Im portant to note, the ALJ did not entirely reject Plaintiff’s testim ony concerning 2 his pain, sym ptom s, and level of lim itation. The ALJ stated that “due to the lack of 3 consistent m edical evidence, and the inconsistencies in his treatm ent, statem ents and 4 action, I am unable to afford [Plaintiff’s] allegations full w eight.” (AR 24). Rather, the 5 ALJ stated that: 6 7 8 in light of the objective m edical evidence . . . dem onstrating that the [Plaintiff] has several physical im pairm ents, and in light of the fact that he alleges that they are sym ptom atic, I afforded his allegations in this regard, partial w eight. I did so even though the state agency evaluating m edical consultant opines that the [Plaintiff’s] physical im pairm ents are nonsevere. 9 10 (AR 19) (em phasis added). Accordingly, the ALJ included lim itations in Plaintiff’s RFC 11 that he only “occasional[ly] work with sm all objects” and perform “no m ore than sim ple 12 repetitive tasks.” (AR 19). 13 The ALJ did a thorough review of Plaintiff’s m edical records and found that they 14 did not fully support Plaintiff’s allegations. The ALJ reviewed and cited to m edical 15 records of Plaintiff’s physical com plaints and noted that Plaintiff’s seeking out of 16 m edical treatm ent was sporadic and isolated and that the records did not dem onstrate 17 disabling conditions as alleged. (AR 19-21). The ALJ reviewed Plaintiff’s m edical 18 records of his neck, back, hip, ankle and shoulder issues, his hernia procedures and his 19 eye surgeries and treatm ent and found that the records did not dem onstrate that 20 Plaintiff would be unable to perform a range of m edium exertion, with the express 21 lim itations. (AR 20 -21). See Chaudhry v. Astrue, 688 F.3d 661, 672 (9th Cir 20 12) (the 22 ALJ ’s determ ination should not be second-guessed where reasonable and supported by 23 substantial evidence); Parra v. Astrue, 481 F.3d 742, 751 (9th Cir. 20 0 7) (finding that 24 proof of “conservative treatm ent is sufficient to discount a claim ant's testim ony -10 - 1 regarding severity of an im pairm ent”); Meanel v. Apfel, 172 F.3d 1111, 1114 (9th Cir. 2 1999) (finding that an ALJ can rely on a physician’s failure “ to prescribe… any serious 3 m edical treatm ent for [a claim ant’s] supposedly excruciating pain”). 4 The ALJ also noted that “the record contains m ultiple reports of the [Plaintiff] 5 dem onstrating a persistent pattern of m edical noncom pliance.” (AR 22). 6 Noncom pliance with prescribed m edical care is a proper ground for the ALJ to have 7 given less than full weight to Plaintiff’s testim ony. See Tom m asetti v. Astrue, 533 F.3d 8 10 35, 10 39 (9th Cir. 20 10 ) (“The ALJ m ay consider m any factors in weighing a 9 claim ant’s credibility,” including “unexplained or inadequately explained failure to seek 10 11 treatm ent or to follow a prescribed course of treatm ent”). The ALJ also thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff’s m ental health records and found 12 that, despite Plaintiff’s claim s, they support Plaintiff being capable of perform ing sim ple 13 repetitive tasks. (AR 21-24). The ALJ stated that in reviewing the record as a whole, the 14 psychiatric records are fraught with inconsistency. (AR 21). The ALJ pointed to 15 inconsistencies in intellectual functioning scores and reported m ood conditions, noting 16 that “[a] m ental health source candidly adm its that, ‘the [Plaintiff’s] reported and 17 observed sym ptom s over the course of treatm ent pointed out that the [Plaintiff] has a 18 tendency of reporting increased and/ or exaggerated sym ptom s when SSI applications 19 have been denied.’” (AR 22). These inconsistencies in the m edical record is a proper 20 ground for the ALJ to have given only partial weight to Plaintiff’s testim ony. See 21 Thom as, 278 F.3d at 959 (ALJ m ay properly consider a claim ant’s inconsistent 22 statem ents and other inconsistencies in the record). 23 24 Furtherm ore, the ALJ took account of Plaintiff’s activities in weighing his testim ony of his lim itations, noting that the record contains num erous reports of -11- 1 Plaintiff attending a gym and that Plaintiff was arrested for and charged with burglary 2 after he applied for benefits. (AR 22). The ALJ stated that “[i]t is hard to reconcile this 3 activity with [Plaintiff’s] disability claim s.” (Id.). It was proper for the ALJ to consider 4 Plaintiff’s activities. An ALJ is perm itted to consider daily living activities in his 5 credibility analysis. See 20 C.F.R. § 40 4.1529(c)(3) (daily activities are a relevant factor 6 which will be considered in evaluating sym ptom s); see also Bray v. Com m ’r of Soc. Sec. 7 Adm in., 554 F.3d 1219, 1227 (9th Cir. 20 0 9) (“In reaching a credibility determ ination, 8 an ALJ m ay weigh inconsistencies between the claim ant’s testim ony and his or her 9 conduct, daily activities, and work record, am ong other factors”). Daily activities m ay be 10 considered to show that Plaintiff exaggerated her sym ptom s. See Valentine v. Astrue, 11 574 F.3d 685, 694 (9th Cir. 20 0 9) (ALJ properly recognized that daily activities “did not 12 suggest [claim ant] could return to his old job” but “did suggest that [claim ant’s] later 13 claim s about the severity of his lim itations were exaggerated.”). Furtherm ore, there was 14 no error on the part of the ALJ to consider Plaintiff’s burglary charge in assessing the 15 credibility of his testim ony. See Albidrez v. Astrue, 50 4 F. Supp.2d 814, 822 (C.D. Cal. 16 20 0 7) (finding the ALJ ’s adverse credibility finding supported by Plaintiff’s crim inal 17 history, which included burglaries and showing false identification to a police officer). 18 Based on these clear, convincing and specific reasons for partially rejecting 19 Plaintiff’s pain and lim itations testim ony and the substantial evidence to support his 20 determ ination, the Court concludes that the ALJ did not com m it error in discounting 21 Plaintiff’s testim ony. 22 23 24 -12- 1 2 V. CON CLU SION For the reasons stated above, the decision of the Social Security Com m issioner is 3 AFFIRMED, and the action is DISMISSED with prejudice. J udgment shall be entered 4 accordingly. 5 6 DATE: Septem ber 23, 20 20 7 8 / s/ Autum n D. Spaeth THE HONORABLE AUTUMN D. SPAETH United States Magistrate J udge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 -13-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
