Spiteri v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Cathleen Spiteri
Defendant: Carolyn W. Colvin
Case Number: 4:2016cv01937
Filed: April 12, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Francisco Office
County: San Mateo
Presiding Judge: Edward M. Chen
Nature of Suit: Disability Insurance
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 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
December 23, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 25 ORDER granting 19 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 20 Motion for Summary Judgment. (Beeler, Laurel) (Filed on 12/23/2016)
April 14, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 5 Motion for Pro Hac Vice. (bpf, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/14/2016)
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: Spiteri v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Cathleen Spiteri
Represented By: Gina Chuei-Yu Kung
Represented By: Karl E Osterhout
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: Carolyn W. Colvin
Represented By: Daniel Paul Talbert
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?