Marilou Vea v. Nancy A. Berryhill
Marilou Maratas Vea |
Commissioner Social Security and Nancy A. Berryhill |
2:2019cv02043 |
March 19, 2019 |
US District Court for the Central District of California |
Suzanne H Segal |
Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV |
42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on April 23, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 14 NOTICE TO COURT REGARDING ESERVICE OF CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD OF MARILOU VEA filed by Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill. (mj) (Wiesbrock, Stacy) |
Filing 13 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Tova D Wolking counsel for Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill. Tova Wolking is no longer counsel of record for the aforementioned party in this case for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security. (Wolking, Tova) |
Filing 12 Notice of Appearance or Withdrawal of Counsel: for attorney Stacy Wiesbrock counsel for Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill. Adding Stacy Wiesbrock as counsel of record for Acting Commissioner of Social Security for the reason indicated in the G-123 Notice. Filed by Defendant Acting Commissioner of Social Security. (Attorney Stacy Wiesbrock added to party Nancy A. Berryhill(pty:dft))(Wiesbrock, Stacy) |
Filing 11 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: ALL PARTIES having consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, this case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal for all further proceedings. Please use the case number CV19-2043 SS on all documents subsequently filed to ensure the proper routing of all filings. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. TEXT ONLY ENTRY. (sn) |
Filing 10 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), filed by Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill. (Attorney Tova D Wolking added to party Nancy A. Berryhill(pty:dft))(Wolking, Tova) |
Filing 9 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), (Rosales, Steven) |
Filing 8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Marilou Maratas Vea, upon Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill served on 4/3/2019, answer due 8/1/2019. Service of the Summons and Complaint were Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1)(Rosales, Steven) |
Filing 7 ORDER RE: PROCEDURES IN SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL (CROSS MEMORANDA FORMAT) by Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. Plaintiff will file an appropriate proof of service no later than 90 days of the date of this Order. (see document for further details) (hr) |
Filing 6 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill. (et) |
Filing 5 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Josephine L. Staton and referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal. (et) |
Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Marilou Maratas Vea, (Rosales, Steven) |
Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Marilou Maratas Vea. (Rosales, Steven) |
Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Marilou Maratas Vea. (Rosales, Steven) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-23402243 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Marilou Maratas Vea. (Attorney Steven G Rosales added to party Marilou Maratas Vea(pty:pla))(Rosales, Steven) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.