Caddell v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Dale J. Caddell
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 4:2012cv00689
Filed: February 10, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: Oakland Office
County: Alameda
Presiding Judge: Donna M. Ryu
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42:405
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
November 16, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 21 Order by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu granting 20 Stipulation.(dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/16/2012)
August 27, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 8/27/2012. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/27/2012)
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: Caddell 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: Dale J. Caddell
Represented By: Steven Gilberto Rosales
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
Represented By: Sundeep Ravindra Patel
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?