Steen v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Suzie Steen
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 3:2007cv01395
Filed: March 9, 2007
Court: California Northern District Court
Office: San Francisco Office
County: Napa
Presiding Judge: Samuel Conti
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42:405 Review of HHS Decision (DIWC)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
May 26, 2009 30 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 26 Motion for Attorney Fees; granting 27 Motion for Attorney Fees (sclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/26/2009)
September 29, 2008 24 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER by Judge Samuel Conti granting 14 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment (sclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/29/2008)

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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Steen v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Suzie Steen
Represented By: David Joseph Linden
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Represented By: Elizabeth Firer
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 [ 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?