Rogers v. Berryhill
Plaintiff: Gina Marie Rogers
Defendant: Nancy Berryhill
Case Number: 3:2017cv05519
Filed: September 22, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Francisco Office
County: Sonoma
Presiding Judge: Jacqueline Scott Corley
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 402
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
April 16, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON ISSUE OF TIMELINESS. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/19/2018. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2018)
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: Rogers v. Berryhill
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Gina Marie Rogers
Represented By: Josephine Mary Gerrard
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: Nancy Berryhill
Represented By: Michael Kramer Marriott
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?