Rector v. Astrue

Plaintiff: Mark V. Rector
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Case Number: 3:2013cv00168
Filed: January 22, 2013
Court: California Southern District Court
Office: San Diego Office
County: San Diego
Presiding Judge: Roger T. Benitez
Referring Judge: Bernard G. Skomal
Nature of Suit: Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI
Cause of Action: 42:206 Social Security Benefits
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 26, 2014 19 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment; and Granting Defendant's 15 Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 2/26/2014. (knb)

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: Rector v. Astrue
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Mark V. Rector
Represented By: Manuel Deeter Serpa
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Michael J. Astrue
Represented By: Jeffrey T. Chen
Represented By: Thomas C Stahl
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 [ 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.