Lidster v. Astrue
Plaintiff: Rodney D. Lidster
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 3:2010cv02097
Filed: October 7, 2010
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Presiding Judge: Dana M. Sabraw
Presiding Judge: Nita L. Stormes
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
January 3, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 17 ORDER denying 13 Plaintiff's 13 Motion for Summary Judgment and granting 16 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 1/3/12. (lao)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lidster 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: Rodney D. Lidster
Represented By: Thomas Garrett Roche
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: U S Attorney CV
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?