Vicari v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Michael J. Vicari
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 5:2009cv05238
Filed: November 5, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Jose Office
County: Santa Clara
Presiding Judge: Jeremy Fogel
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
January 23, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 52 ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY'S FEES 49 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 1/23/2013)
October 4, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER RE SUPPLEMENTAL FEE REQUEST 45 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 10/4/2012)
September 6, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 44 ORDER AMENDING PRIOR ORDER AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 37 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 9/6/2012)
August 31, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 43 STIPULATION AND ORDER re 41 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER filed by Michael J. Vicari. Signed by Judge Susan Illston on August 31, 2012. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/31/2012)
July 25, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 36 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT 24 28 (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 7/25/2012)
May 15, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 29 ORDER Extending Deadlines Signed by Judge Illston on 5/14/12. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the parties, through their respective counsel of record, that Defendant shall have a second extension of time of 7 days to respond to Plaintiffs Mot ion for Attorneys Fees. Due to the heavy workload of the prior counsel for Defendant, this case was reassigned to counsel for Defendant Ann L. Maley on May 4, 2012. Ms. Maley was out of the office at the time of the reassignment and returned on May 8, 2012. Accordingly, counsel for Defendant needs a brief extension to draft the opposition. With the seven-day extension, Defendants response will be due May 17, 2012. The parties request that all other deadlines be adjusted accordingly. (tfS, COURT STAFF).
March 8, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER DENYING CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND REMANDING FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 3/8/2012)
February 13, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 2/13/2012)
August 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 14 STIPULATION AND ORDER (approving 13 ). Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 8/17/2010. (jflc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/17/2010)
July 19, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 12 STIPULATION AND ORDER FOR A FIRST EXTENSION FOR DEFENDANT TO FILE ANSWER AND CERTIFIED ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD re 8 . Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on 7/1/10. (dlm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/19/2010)
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: Vicari v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael J. Vicari
Represented By: Harvey Peter Sackett
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 ]
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
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?