Case No.

21-16019

IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIDIA DUARTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER KILOKO KIJAKAZI

(FORMERLY ANDREW SAUL), et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Hon. Joseph C. Spero
USDC Case no. 3:20-cv-00151-JCS
_____________________________________________________________

APPELLANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED THE VOLUME

LIMITATION FOR THE OPENING BRIEF

Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2(a), Appellant hereby respectfully

requests permission to exceed the type-volume limitations set forth in Federal Rule

of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7) and Ninth Circuit Rule 32-1(a) by 14,493 words

for the opening brief, for a total of 28,493 words in the opening brief.
 1) The reasons for this request are set forth in the attached declaration and

include the following: The case involves six (6) years of administrative and

judicial litigation; The numerous complex legal errors, conflicting orders,

irregularities; 8 witnesses; a 2000-page administrative record and coordination

with the administrative appeal before the SSA in Virginia. Not surprisingly, Mrs.

Duarte encountered the same administrative ordeal described by others as a

bureaucratic nightmare. Oversight of Social Security Disability Benefits

Terminations, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government

Management of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate,

Ninety-seventh Congress, Second Session, May 25, 1982 · Issue 85, pp. 475,

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Oversight_of_Social_Security_Disability/

duH2hU0ZBRoC?hl=en&gbpv=0 The judicial record before the Northern District

of California includes two (2) mandamus cases, 11 orders, numerous motions, and

objections, comprising 700 pages. Appellant has diligently edited the opening

brief to address only the issues presented on appeal for efficiency. Nonetheless,

there is a substantial need for an over-length opening brief in light of the large

number and scope of the independent legal questions at issue, the consolidated

nature of the appeal and the range of briefs filed by or in support of appellee, and

the significance of the decision at issue.

2) Counsel for Appellant has consulted with counsel for Appellee. Appellee

1
does not oppose the relief requested in this motion.

3) The detailed declaration required by Ninth Circuit Rule 32-2(a) is attached

to this motion.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, Appellant respectfully requests permission for

the opening brief to exceed the word limitations.

Dated: December 10, 2021 ZOLA, WEGMAN & ASSOCIATES, APC

_________________ g
Emanuel Zola
Attorney for Appellant Elidia Duarte

ZOLA,WEGMAN, & ASSOCIATES

468 N. Camden Dr., Penthouse B, Beverly
Hills, CA 90210
Tele: (310) 285-1766
Fax: (310) 861-1627
Email: zola@zolawegman.com

2
 Case No. 21-16019

IN THE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELIDIA DUARTE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER KILOKO KIJAKAZI

(FORMERLY ANDREW SAUL), et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.
_____________________________________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Hon. Joseph C. Spero
USDC Case no. 3:20-cv-00151-JCS
_____________________________________________________________

DECLARATION OF EMANUEL ZOLA IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS’

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCEED THE VOLUME LIMITATION FOR
THE OPENING BRIEF

I am the attorney for the Appellant, have personal knowledge of the

following, and can testify competently if asked to do so:

1) Appellant’s case involves six (6) years of administrative and judicial litigation.

The numerous complex legal errors, conflicting orders, irregularities, 8

witnesses, a 2000-page administrative record and coordination with the

3
 administrative appeal before the SSA in Virginia. The judicial record before

the Northern District of California includes two (2) mandamus cases, 11 orders,

numerous motions, and objections, comprising 700 pages. The record includes

unpaid benefits spanning 15 years. Appellant has diligently edited the reply

brief to address only the issues presented on appeal for efficiency.

2) As a result, there is a substantial need for an over-length reply brief in light of

the large number and scope of the independent legal questions at issue, the

consolidated nature of the appeal and the range of briefs filed by or in support

of appellee and the significance of the decision at issue.

3) On 12/10/21 Counsel for Appellant has consulted with counsel for Appellee.

Appellee does not oppose the relief requested in this motion.

I swear under penalty of perjury that the above statements are true and

correct to the best of my knowledge and ability at the time that I made them in Los

Angeles, California on 12/10/2021.

Executed in Los Angeles, CA 12/10/2021

_________________ g
Emanuel David Zola, Esq.
Attorney for Appellant Mrs. Elidia Duarte