David Rogoff v. Commissioner of Social Security
| David Rogoff |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| 5:2019cv02235 |
| November 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Paul L Abrams |
| Dolly M Gee |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 16, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), filed by Defendant Commissioner of Social Security. (Attachments: #1 Proof of Service)(Attorney Jennifer Lee Tarn added to party Commissioner of Social Security(pty:dft))(Tarn, Jennifer) |
| Filing 8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff David Rogoff, upon Defendant Commissioner of Social Security served on 12/5/2019, answer due 2/3/2020. Service of the Summons and Complaint were Service was executed in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Due diligence declaration NOT attached. Registered or certified mail return receipt NOT attached. Original Summons NOT returned. (sbou) |
Filing 7
MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) DOCKET ENTRY: ORDER RE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. Plaintiff shall file two copies of the proof of service of the summons and complaint showing compliance with this Order no later than thirty (30) days after the date of this Order. (See document for details.) (Attachments: #1 Attachment 1, #2 Attachment 2) (sbou)
|
| Filing 6 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint - (Social Security) #1 as to defendant Commissioner of Social Security. (ch) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER RE REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams.IT IS ORDERED that the Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is hereby GRANTED. #3 (ch)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams. (car) |
| Filing 3 REQUEST to Proceed In Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support filed by plaintiff David Rogoff. (car) |
| Filing 2 CERTIFICATE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff David Rogoff, (car) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed against Defendant Commissioner of Social Security Case assigned to Judge Dolly M. Gee and referred to Magistrate Judge Paul L. Abrams, filed by plaintiff David Rogoff. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Summons) (car) |
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
| Search for this case: David Rogoff v. Commissioner of Social Security | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Commissioner of Social Security | |
| Represented By: | Assistant US Attorney LA-SSA |
| Represented By: | Assistant US Attorney LA-CV |
| Represented By: | Jennifer Lee Tarn |
| 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: David Rogoff | |
| 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.
