Dattilo v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Scott Leroy Dattilo
Defendant: Carolyn Colvin
Case Number: 5:2016cv05552
Filed: September 29, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of California
Office: San Jose Office
County: San Mateo
Presiding Judge: Lucy H. Koh
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 416
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
February 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 28 ORDER by Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd denying 21 plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment; granting 24 defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. The clerk shall enter judgment and close the file. (hrllc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2018)
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: Dattilo 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: Scott Leroy Dattilo
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: Carolyn 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 ]

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?