Mirna Carpio v. Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 2:2009cv09100
Filed: December 10, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Wu
Presiding Judge: McDermott
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 7, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER AWARDING EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT ATTORNEY FEES PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C.§ 2412(d) by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott. IT IS ORDERED that EAJA fees are awarded in the amount of two thousand, 20 six hundred dollars and no cents ($2,600.00), and costs in the amount ofthree 21 hundred fifty dollars and no cents ($350.00), subject to the provisions of the EAJA 22 and subject to the terms of the stipulation between the parties. 16 (es)
January 25, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 15 JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott, In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order Reversing Decision of Commissioner and Remanding for Further Proceedings filed concurrently herewith, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security is REVERSED and this matter is REMANDED for further proceedings. 14 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (es)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mirna Carpio v. Michael J. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?