Gillis v. Saul
| Stephanie Gillis |
| Commissioner Andrew M. Saul |
| 1:2021cv03185 |
| June 14, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois |
| John Z Lee |
| Maria Valdez |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 205 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 10, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 12
MOTION by Defendant Andrew M. Saul for extension of time to file answer regarding complaint #1 Unopposed (Attachments: #1 Declaration)(Hancock, Virginia)
|
|
Filing 11
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:In light of the reassignment, the status hearing set for 7/8/21 is stricken. (ca, )
|
|
Filing 10
MINUTE entry before the Honorable Maria Valdez: This matter has been reassigned to Magistrate Judge Maria Valdez for ruling on final disposition of this case. The Parties are directed to review the LR 16.4 Scheduling in Social Security Cases available at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov and this Court's Standing Order in Social Security Cases. No further order will be entered regarding setting dates for a briefing schedule.Mailed notice (lp, )
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER REASSIGNING Case to the Honorable Maria Valdez, pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(C) for all further proceedings, parties having consented to the reassignment. Honorable John Z. Lee no longer assigned to the case. Signed by Honorable John Z. Lee on 6/18/2021. (lma, )
|
|
Filing 8
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee: The parties filed a joint consent to proceed before the Magistrate Judge, this case will be reassigned. Notices mailed. (psm, )
|
|
Filing 7
JOINT CONSENT to Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge (Hancock, Virginia)
|
|
Filing 6
DESIGNATION of Virginia Ovitz Hancock as U.S. Attorney for Defendant Andrew M. Saul (Hancock, Virginia)
|
|
Filing 5
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John Z. Lee:The Court grants Plaintiff's in forma pauperis petition #2 and therefore Plaintiff need not pay the filing fee.Pursuant to Local Rule 4(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(a)(2), the defendant is to file its answer and administrative record no later than 8/17/21. Plaintiff's opening brief is due 9/7/21; Defendant's response brief is due 9/21/21; Plaintiff's reply brief is due 10/5/21. Ruling by mail. Counsel should note that these dates modify the briefing schedule set forth in Local Rule 16.4. Counsel are further directed to meet and confer prior to the date the answer and administrative record are filed to determine whether: (a) the parties will agree to consent to the exercise of jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge and (b) an agreed remand order is necessary. If the parties consent to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, the appropriate form to execute and file with the court may be found at the following location: http://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/home/PUBLIC/Forms/consent.pdf.Status hearing set for 7/8/21 at 9:00 a.m. A joint status report is due by 1/19/21. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the related General Orders, the Court finds that it is necessary to conduct the status hearing via telephone conference. The call-in number is 888-273-3658 and the access code is 1637578. Counsel of record will receive a separate email at least 12 hours prior to the start of the telephonic hearing with instructions on how to join the call. All persons granted remote access to proceedings are reminded of the general prohibition against photographing, recording, and rebroadcasting of court proceedings. Violation of these prohibitions may result in court-imposed sanctions, including removal of court issued media credentials, restricted entry to future hearings, denial of entry to future hearings, or any other sanctions deemed necessary by the Court. All participants should review the Court's standing order regarding telephone conferences that is on Judge Lee's website, which can be found at: https://www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/judge-info.aspx?4Qf5zc8loCI5U7rfMP9DHw==. (ca, )
|
|
Filing 4
ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiff Stephanie Gillis by Neil H. Good (Good, Neil)
|
|
Filing 3
CIVIL Cover Sheet (Good, Neil)
|
|
Filing 2
APPLICATION by Plaintiff Stephanie Gillis for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Good, Neil)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT filed by Stephanie Gillis; (Good, Neil)
|
|
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable John Z. Lee. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (jg, )
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Gillis 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: Stephanie Gillis | |
| Represented By: | Neil H. Good |
| 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: Commissioner Andrew M. Saul | |
| Represented By: | Virginia Ovitz Hancock |
| 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.
