Dawn Deanna Erwin v. Andrew Saul
Plaintiff: Dawn Erwin
Defendant: Andrew Saul
Case Number: 2:2020cv05731
Filed: June 26, 2020
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Karen L Stevenson
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on November 19, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 18 MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER NOTIFYING PARTIES OF STAY AND ORDERING DEFENDANT TO NOTIFY PARTIES AND COURT OF THE DATE THE COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY RESUMES OPERATIONS by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson. On April 17, 2020, Order 20-074 of the Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Central District of California STAYED this case and directed that the stay shall remain in effect until one of the following occurs: (see document for further details). (hr)
August 21, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 17 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: ALL PARTIES having consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, this case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson for all further proceedings. Please use the case number CV20-5731 KES 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)
August 20, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 16 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), filed by Defendant Andrew Saul. (Attorney Michael K Marriott added to party Andrew Saul(pty:dft))(Marriott, Michael)
August 11, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 15 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), filed by Plaintiff Dawn Erwin. (Shapiro, Brian)
August 11, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 14 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Dawn Erwin, upon Defendant Andrew Saul served on 8/3/2020, answer due 12/1/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to Attorney General. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to General Counsel. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Civil Process Clerk. 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)(Shapiro, Brian)
July 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 13 SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE: PROCEDURES IN SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. *See document for details.* (es)
July 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 12 ORDER RE: PROCEDURES IN SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL (JOINT SUBMISSION FORMAT) by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott: See document for details. (es)
July 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 11 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Andrew Saul. (es)
July 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 10 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott: Granting #8 Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (es)
July 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 9 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Dawn Erwin. (Shapiro, Brian)
July 23, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 8 REQUEST to Amend Order on Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60) #7 filed by Plaintiff Dawn Erwin. (Shapiro, Brian)
July 6, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS #3 . Plaintiff shall pay the filing fee or file an amended request within 30 days or this case will be dismissed by Judge R. Gary Klausner (lc) Modified on 7/6/2020 (lc).
June 29, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge R. Gary Klausner and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (et)
June 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 5 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Dawn Erwin, (Shapiro, Brian)
June 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 4 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Dawn Erwin. (Shapiro, Brian)
June 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 3 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff Dawn Erwin. (Shapiro, Brian)
June 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Dawn Erwin. (Shapiro, Brian)
June 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT with In Forma Pauperis request, filed by Plaintiff Dawn Erwin. (Attorney Brian C Shapiro added to party Dawn Erwin(pty:pla))(Shapiro, Brian)

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: Dawn Deanna Erwin v. Andrew Saul
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Andrew Saul
Represented By: Michael K Marriott
Represented By: Assistant US Attorney LA-SSA
Represented By: Assistant US Attorney LA-CV
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 ]
Plaintiff: Dawn Erwin
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 ]

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?