Danny Alan Payton v. Nancy A. Berryhill
| Danny Alan Payton |
| Commissioner Social Security and Nancy A. Berryhill |
| 8:2018cv02174 |
| December 7, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Maria A Audero |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XIV |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 20, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 13 NOTICE TO COUNSEL: ALL PARTIES having consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge, this case has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero for all further proceedings. Please use the case number SACV18-2174 MAA 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 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 Nancy A. Berryhill. (Attorney Michael K Marriott added to party Nancy A. Berryhill(pty:dft))(Marriott, Michael) |
| Filing 11 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), (Cho, Young) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Consent to Proceed before U S Magistrate Judge (non-AUSA) - Non-Final #9 . The following error(s) was/were found: Case number is incorrect or missing. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (sn) |
| Filing 9 CONSENT TO PROCEED before Magistrate Judge, in accordance with Title 28 Section 636(c) and F.R.CIV.P 73(b), (Cho, Young) |
| Filing 8 PROOF OF SERVICE Executed by Plaintiff Danny Alan Payton, upon Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill served on 12/26/2018, answer due 4/25/2019. 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)(Cho, Young) |
Filing 7
INITIAL CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER REGARDING PROCEDURES IN SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS by Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. Plaintiff shall serve the summons and complaint on the government promptly in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i) and 20 C.F.R. 423.1. Plaintiff shall file an appropriate proof of service within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. (See document for further details.) (sbou)
|
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Percy Anderson and referred to Magistrate Judge Maria A. Audero. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 60 DAY Summons Issued re Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 as to Defendant Nancy A. Berryhill. (ghap) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Interested Parties filed by Plaintiff Danny Alan Payton, (Cho, Young) |
| Filing 3 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Plaintiff Danny Alan Payton. (Cho, Young) |
| Filing 2 Request for Clerk to Issue Summons on Complaint (Attorney Civil Case Opening) #1 filed by Plaintiff Danny Alan Payton. (Cho, Young) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT Receipt No: 0973-22861787 - Fee: $400, filed by Plaintiff Danny Alan Payton. (Attorney Young Chul Cho added to party Danny Alan Payton(pty:pla))(Cho, Young) |
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.
