Edith Acevedo v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Edith Acevedo v. Nancy A. Berryhill

Plaintiff:	Edith Acevedo
Defendant:	Nancy A. Berryhill
Case Number:	2:2017cv01142
Filed:	February 13, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Paul L. Abrams
Presiding Judge:	Ronald S.W. Lew
Nature of Suit:	Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV

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
March 29, 2018	Filing 25 ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Re: Stipulation for Attorney Fees 24 . IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND THREE DOLLARS AND TWEN TY EIGHT CENTS ($4,703.28), and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($400.00), subject to the terms of the above-referenced Stipulation, to include the United States Department of the Treasury's Offset Program pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). Any payment shall be delivered to Plaintiff's counsel. (hr)
January 23, 2018	Filing 23 JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion filed concurrently herewith, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security Administration, is reversed and this case is remanded to defendant for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. 22 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ch)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 29, 2018

Filing 25 ORDER AWARDING EAJA FEES by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Re: Stipulation for Attorney Fees 24 . IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be awarded attorney fees under the EAJA in the amount of FOUR THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND THREE DOLLARS AND TWEN TY EIGHT CENTS ($4,703.28), and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1920, in the amount of FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS ($400.00), subject to the terms of the above-referenced Stipulation, to include the United States Department of the Treasury's Offset Program pursuant to Astrue v. Ratliff, 130 S.Ct. 2521 (2010). Any payment shall be delivered to Plaintiff's counsel. (hr)

January 23, 2018

Filing 23 JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion filed concurrently herewith, IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that the decision of the defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security Administration, is reversed and this case is remanded to defendant for further proceedings consistent with this Memorandum Opinion. 22 (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (ch)

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: Edith Acevedo v. Nancy A. Berryhill
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Edith Acevedo
Represented By:	James Sung Pi
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: Nancy A. Berryhill
Represented By:	Amanda Schapel
Represented By:	Assistant US Attorney LA-CV
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?