Ott v. Saul
| Laurie Ott |
| Andrew M. Saul |
| Social Security Administration |
| 3:2020cv00321 |
| March 11, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Connecticut |
| Kari A Dooley |
| Sarah A L Merriam |
| Stefan R Underhill |
| Social Security: SSID Tit. XVI |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 0405 dc |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 26, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER granting #10 Motion to Stay. The Commissioner shall file a status report on or before June 10, 2020 regarding the Commissioner's resumption of operations and/or ability to prepare the transcript of proceedings necessary to adjudicate this matter. Signed by Judge Kari A. Dooley on 5/8/2020. (D'Amato, Joseph)
|
|
Filing 10
MOTION to Stay Proceedings by Andrew M. Saul.Responses due by 5/29/2020 (Attachments: #1 Exhibit)(Nicol, Fitzhugh)
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER OF TRANSFER. Absent consent to a Magistrate Judge, the cases is reassigned to Judge Kari A. Dooley for all further proceedings. Signed by Clerk on 4/8/2020.(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 8
REMINDER: STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 3/18/2020. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Anastasio, F.)
|
|
Filing 7
NOTICE of Appearance by Fitzhugh Nicol on behalf of Andrew M. Saul (Nicol, Fitzhugh)
|
|
Filing 6
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to proceed without payment of fees and costs, which motion includes a sworn statement as to plaintiff's current financial circumstances. See Doc. #2 . Plaintiff has completed the required information. She asserts that she is unable to afford to pay fees and costs, having minimal family income and no liquid assets. See generally Doc. #2 -1 at 1-4. Specifically, plaintiff indicates that she is unemployed, and her husband earns $1,800 per month. See id. at 2. She states that she and her husband own a home with approximately $50,000 in equity, but also support one adult child who is in college, have only $1,000 in the bank, and have monthly obligations totaling about $4,800. See id. at 1-4. Plaintiff also states that she relies on her mother for financial support. See id. at 3-4. At this stage, such allegations are sufficient to establish that plaintiff is unable to pay the ordinary filing fees required by the Court. 28 U.S.C. 1915(a)(1). Accordingly, plaintiff's #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. It is so ordered. Signed by Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam on 3/16/2020. (Scholfield, D.)
|
|
Filing 5
ELECTRONIC FILING ORDER FOR COUNSEL - PLEASE ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS IN THIS ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/11/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 4
STANDING SCHEDULING ORDER Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/11/2020.(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 3
STANDING ORDER ON SOCIAL SECURITY APPEALS Signed by Judge Stefan R. Underhill on 03/11/2020. (Attachments: #1 Consent Form)(Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Laurie Ott. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit)(Yelner, Olia)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Andrew M. Saul, filed by Laurie Ott.(Yelner, Olia) Modified to update party on 3/11/2020 (Anastasio, F.).
|
|
Answer deadline updated for Andrew M. Saul to 5/11/2020. (Fazekas, J.)
|
|
Judge Stefan R. Underhill and Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam added. Motions referred to Sarah A. L. Merriam (Oliver, T.)
|
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 Connecticut District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
