Nguyen v. Astrue

Nguyen v. Astrue

Plaintiff:	Nhu Ngoc Nguyen
Defendant:	Michael S. Astrue
Case Number:	3:2010cv02349
Filed:	November 15, 2010
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of California
Office:	San Diego Office
County:	San Diego
Presiding Judge:	Larry Alan Burns
Presiding Judge:	Bernard G. Skomal
Nature of Suit:	Disability Insurance
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1383
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 17, 2017	Filing 15 ORDER Granting 14 Motion to Expedite; and Order Granting in Part 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Plaintiff's motion to expedite is granted with the issuance of this order. The Court grants in part Nguyen's motion for attorney's fees. The Court awards a total of $4,063.31 for combined attorney's fees and costs. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 7/14/2017. (lrf)
June 23, 2011	Filing 13 ORDER Re: Hearing on Attorney's Fees; and Order Re: Ex Parte Application to File Motion to Strike. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees suitable for decision without oral argument . Accordingly, the hearing on this matter is taken off calendar and this matter is taken under submission. No appearances will be required in this matter on Monday, June 27, 2011. The Ex Parte Motion 12 is construed as objections to the affidavit submitted in support of Plaintiff's reply. The Clerk is directed to terminate its status as a motion.Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/22/11.(ecs)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 17, 2017

Filing 15 ORDER Granting 14 Motion to Expedite; and Order Granting in Part 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney's Fees and Costs. Plaintiff's motion to expedite is granted with the issuance of this order. The Court grants in part Nguyen's motion for attorney's fees. The Court awards a total of $4,063.31 for combined attorney's fees and costs. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 7/14/2017. (lrf)

June 23, 2011

Filing 13 ORDER Re: Hearing on Attorney's Fees; and Order Re: Ex Parte Application to File Motion to Strike. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1), the Court finds 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Attorney Fees suitable for decision without oral argument . Accordingly, the hearing on this matter is taken off calendar and this matter is taken under submission. No appearances will be required in this matter on Monday, June 27, 2011. The Ex Parte Motion 12 is construed as objections to the affidavit submitted in support of Plaintiff's reply. The Clerk is directed to terminate its status as a motion.Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 6/22/11.(ecs)

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: Nguyen 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: Nhu Ngoc Nguyen
Represented By:	Alexandra T Manbeck
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 S. 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?