Robin Peacock v. Michael J Astrue
Plaintiff: Robin Peacock
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Case Number: 2:2008cv00587
Filed: January 29, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Office: Western Division - Los Angeles Office
County: Los Angeles
Presiding Judge: Christina A. Snyder
Presiding Judge: John Charles Rayburn
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
November 24, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 24 ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian. Fees awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $ 1950.00. (kca)
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: Robin Peacock 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 ]
Plaintiff: Robin Peacock
Represented By: Bill LaTour
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J Astrue
Represented By: Assistant US Attorney LA-SSA
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?