Richard Gomez Mendoza v. Andrew Saul
| Richard Gomez Mendoza |
| Commissioner of Soci Andrew Saul and Andrew Saul |
| 5:2019cv01961 |
| October 12, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Karen E Scott |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 205 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 8, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: ALL PARTIES having consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, this case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott for all further proceedings. Please use the case number EDCV19-1961 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) |
| Filing 13 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), filed by Plaintiff Richard Gomez Mendoza. (Kuntz, William) |
| Filing 12 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 Jean M Turk added to party Andrew Saul(pty:dft))(Turk, Jean) |
| Filing 11 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Richard Gomez Mendoza, upon Defendant Andrew Saul served on 11/1/2019, answer due 3/2/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were executed upon the United States Attorneys Office by delivering a copy to C. Veloz, Title Unknown. Executed upon the Attorney Generals Office of the United States by delivering a copy to Carly Sase, Title Unknown,. Executed upon the officer agency or corporation by delivering a copy to Unknown Signer, Title Unknown, on behalf of General Counsel. Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt attached. Original Summons NOT returned. Case Management Orders were also served along with Complaint documents. (Attachments: #1 Certified Mail Return Receipts)(Kuntz, William) |
Filing 10
SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER RE PROCEDURES IN SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (jdo)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER RE PROCEDURES IN SOCIAL SECURITY APPEAL (JOINT SUBMISSION FORMAT) by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (jdo)
|
| Filing 8 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Andrew Saul. (jdo) |
|
Filing 7
ORDER by Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott: granting #3 REQUEST to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60). (jdo)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Otis D. Wright, II and referred to Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott. (esa) |
| Filing 5 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Richard Gomez Mendoza. (Kuntz, William) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Richard Gomez Mendoza, identifying Unitied States of America and Social Security Administration. (Kuntz, William) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Declaration in Support filed by Plaintiff Richard Gomez Mendoza. (Kuntz, William) |
| Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Richard Gomez Mendoza. (Kuntz, William) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT with In Forma Pauperis request, filed by Plaintiff Richard Gomez Mendoza. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A) (Attorney William M Kuntz added to party Richard Gomez Mendoza(pty:pla))(Kuntz, William) |
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.
