Cox v. King
| Christina Kay Cox |
| Comm'r of Soc. Michelle King and SSA (INTERESTED PARTY / NEF) |
| 3:2025cv01175 |
| February 5, 2025 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California |
| Susan Illston |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 205 Denial Social Security Benefits |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 5, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 SOCIAL SECURITY PROCEDURAL ORDER: (msr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2025) |
| Filing 2 Case assigned to Judge Susan Illston. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (kam2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/5/2025) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Michelle King ( Filing fee $ 405, receipt number ACANDC-20312877.). Filed by Christina Kay Cox. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Benavides, Francesco) (Filed on 2/5/2025) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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 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.
