Badillo v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Mary Badillo
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 3:2016cv06823
Filed: November 28, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Francisco Office
County: Alameda
Presiding Judge: Joseph C. Spero
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 205
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
July 27, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 21 ORDER by Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero granting 14 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 17 Commissioner's Motion for Summary Judgment; and remanding for an award of benefits. (jcslc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/27/2018)
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: Badillo v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
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: Mary Badillo
Represented By: Jerad Kent Nicholson
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?