Weidner v. Saul
Plaintiff: Michael Weidner
Defendant: Andrew Marshall Saul and Andrew M. Saul
Case Number: 1:2021cv01511
Filed: March 18, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Presiding Judge: Susan E Cox
Nature of Suit: Social Security: RSI Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 205
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
May 12, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 12 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Defendant's motion for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint #11 is granted. Defendant shall answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's complaint by 7/16/2021 and deliver a courtesy copy to Room 1024. Pursuant to Local Rule 8.1(b), the Social Security Administration's filing of the certified administrative record, in and of itself, shall suffice as the agency's answer to the complaint. Plaintiff's opening brief is due on or before 9/14/2021. Defendant's response brief is due on or before 10/29/2021. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due on or before 11/12/2021. Mailed notice (np, )
May 11, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 11 MOTION by Defendant Andrew M. Saul for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint #1 Agreed (Attachments: #1 Declaration)(Donohue, Megan)
April 6, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 10 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Susan E. Cox: Defendant shall answer or otherwise plead to Plaintiff's complaint by 5/21/2021 and deliver a courtesy copy to Room 1024. Pursuant to Local Rule 8.1(b), the Social Security Administration's filing of the certified administrative record, in and of itself, shall suffice as the agency's answer to the complaint. Plaintiff's opening brief is due on or before 7/21/2021. Defendant's response brief is due on or before 9/7/2021. Plaintiff's reply, if any, is due on or before 9/21/2021. Mailed notice (np, )
April 1, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 ORDER REASSIGNING Case to the Honorable Susan E. Cox, pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(C) for all further proceedings, parties having consented to the reassignment. Honorable Judge Andrea R. Wood no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Honorable Andrea R. Wood on 4/1/21. (aee, )
March 25, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 8 JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (Schultz, Barry)
March 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 DESIGNATION of Megan Elizabeth Donohue as U.S. Attorney for Defendant Andrew Marshall Saul (Donohue, Megan)
March 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 COMPLAINT filed by Michael Weidner; (bg, )
March 22, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 5 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Andrea R. Wood: Plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #4 is granted. The Court finds that Plaintiff is unable to pay the costs and fees associated with filing this action and thus the filing fee is waived. The Clerk is directed to docket Plaintiff's complaint. This matter is before the Court for review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security. The parties should promptly consult with each other to determine whether they will consent to the reassignment of this case to the magistrate judge for all further proceedings. If the parties consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, they should file a joint statement of consent pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(a). Otherwise, pursuant to Local Rule 16.4, Plaintiff shall file a brief in support of reversing or remanding the decision subject to review within 60 days after the filing of the answer to the complaint and/or the administrative record. Within 45 days thereafter, the Commissioner shall file its motion to affirm the decision subject to review and its brief in support. Plaintiff's reply brief, if any, is due 14 days thereafter. Mailed notice (dal, )
March 19, 2021 Opinion or Order CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Andrea R. Wood. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Susan E. Cox. Case assignment: Random assignment. (mxo, )
March 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 4 APPLICATION by Plaintiff Michael Weidner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Schultz, Barry)
March 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Michael Weidner by Barry Alan Schultz (Schultz, Barry)
March 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Schultz, Barry)
March 18, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Michael Weidner; (Attachments: #1 AC decision)(Schultz, Barry)

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 Illinois Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Weidner v. Saul
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Michael Weidner
Represented By: Barry Alan Schultz
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: Andrew Marshall Saul
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: Andrew M. Saul
Represented By: Megan Elizabeth Donohue
Represented By: AUSA-SSA
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?