Najjar v. Colvin
Plaintiff: Eqbal Najjar
Defendant: CAROLYN W COLVIN
Case Number: 2:2016cv13472
Filed: September 26, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Office: Detroit Office
County: Macomb
Presiding Judge: Bernard A. Friedman
Presiding Judge: David R. Grand
Nature of Suit: Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 205
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
March 3, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 21 MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting Plaintiff's 14 MOTION for Summary Judgment , and denying Defendant's 18 MOTION for Summary Judgment Signed by District Judge Bernard A. Friedman. (CMul)
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 Michigan Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Najjar v. Colvin
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Eqbal Najjar
Represented By: Randall Mansour
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: CAROLYN W COLVIN
Represented By: Ronald W. Makawa
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?