Santiago v. Barnhart

Santiago v. Barnhart

Case Number:	2:2006cv03052
Filed:	December 20, 2006
Court:	US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office:	Phoenix Division Office
Presiding Judge:	Robert C Broomfield
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
May 20, 2010	Filing 42 ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d) - Pursuant to the parties' 41 Stipulation, Pla is awarded atty fees in the amount of $5,400.00. This amount represents compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Pla by cnsl in connection with this civil action. The parties' stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Pla's request for EAJA atty fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Dft under the EAJA. Payment shall constitute a complete release from and bar to any and all claims Pla may have relating to EAJA fees in connection with this action. Any payment shall be made payable to Pla and delivered to Pla's cnsl. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Pla's cnsl to seek Social Security Act atty fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406, subject to the provisions of the EAJA. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 5/17/10. (SAT)
February 10, 2010	Filing 36 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granted with respect to error in the ALJ's disability determination, but denied to the extent that she seeks a remand for an award of benefits. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED denying 24 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Commissioner's decision denying benefits is vacated. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/9/10.(LSP)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 20, 2010

Filing 42 ORDER GRANTING ATTORNEY'S FEES PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, 28 U.S.C. 2412(d) - Pursuant to the parties' 41 Stipulation, Pla is awarded atty fees in the amount of $5,400.00. This amount represents compensation for all legal services rendered on behalf of Pla by cnsl in connection with this civil action. The parties' stipulation constitutes a compromise settlement of Pla's request for EAJA atty fees, and does not constitute an admission of liability on the part of Dft under the EAJA. Payment shall constitute a complete release from and bar to any and all claims Pla may have relating to EAJA fees in connection with this action. Any payment shall be made payable to Pla and delivered to Pla's cnsl. This award is without prejudice to the rights of Pla's cnsl to seek Social Security Act atty fees under 42 U.S.C. § 406, subject to the provisions of the EAJA. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 5/17/10. (SAT)

February 10, 2010

Filing 36 ORDER granting in part and denying in part 16 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granted with respect to error in the ALJ's disability determination, but denied to the extent that she seeks a remand for an award of benefits. IT IS F URTHER ORDERED denying 24 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Commissioner's decision denying benefits is vacated. This matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Order. Signed by Judge Robert C Broomfield on 2/9/10.(LSP)

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

Search for this case: Santiago v. Barnhart
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?