Russell R. Miller v. Michael J. Astrue

Justia Dockets & Filings Ninth Circuit California Central District Russell R. Miller v. Michael J. Astrue

Russell R. Miller v. Michael J. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Russell R. Miller
Defendant:	Michael J. Astrue
Case Number:	2:2008cv08226
Filed:	December 15, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Office:	Western Division - Los Angeles Office
County:	Ventura
Presiding Judge:	King
Presiding Judge:	Chapman
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWW)
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
February 2, 2010	Filing 19 ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman. Fees awarded to Brian C. Shapiro in the amount of $ $4000.00. Based upon the parties Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Act Fees, IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner shall pay to Brian C. Shapiro, as Plaintiffs assignee and subject to the reservation of rights, the amount of four thousand dollars, ($4,000), as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), subject to the terms of the above-referenced Stipulation. (jy)
January 28, 2010	Filing 16 OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman: IT IS ORDERED that: (1) plaintiffs request for relief is granted; and (2) the Commissioners decision is reversed, and the action is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and Judgment shall be entered accordingly. See order for further details. (jy)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 2, 2010

Filing 19 ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman. Fees awarded to Brian C. Shapiro in the amount of $ $4000.00. Based upon the parties Stipulation for the Award and Payment of Equal Access to Justice Act Fees, IT IS ORDERED that the Commissioner shall pay to Brian C. Shapiro, as Plaintiffs assignee and subject to the reservation of rights, the amount of four thousand dollars, ($4,000), as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d), subject to the terms of the above-referenced Stipulation. (jy)

January 28, 2010

Filing 16 OPINION AND ORDER by Magistrate Judge Rosalyn M. Chapman: IT IS ORDERED that: (1) plaintiffs request for relief is granted; and (2) the Commissioners decision is reversed, and the action is remanded to the Social Security Administration for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion and Order, pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and Judgment shall be entered accordingly. See order for further details. (jy)

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: Russell R. Miller 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: Russell R. Miller
Represented By:	Brian C Shapiro
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?