Acosta v. Colvin

Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Plaintiff: Mario Cruz Acosta
Case Number: 3:2013cv00989
Filed: March 5, 2013
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: San Francisco
Presiding Judge: Elizabeth D. Laporte
Nature of Suit: Social Security: RSI Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
February 20, 2014 20 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER by Judge Elizabeth D Laporte granting 17 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 19 Motion for Summary Judgment and Remanding the Case for Further Proceedings. (knmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/20/2014)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Acosta v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Represented By: Daniel Paul Talbert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mario Cruz Acosta
Represented By: Nancy Katherine McCombs
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.