Hildreth v. Saul
Plaintiff: Dana Hildreth
Defendant: Andrew M. Saul
Interested Party: SSA Office of General Counsel
Case Number: 2:2019cv00058
Filed: July 17, 2019
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Presiding Judge: David D Noce
Nature of Suit: Social Security: DIWC/DIWW
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 405
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 14, 2019 Filing 8 FULL CONSENT has been received by Plaintiff Dana Hildreth, Defendant Andrew M. Saul. (KKS)
August 14, 2019 Filing 7 ENTRY of Appearance by Jane Rund for Defendant Andrew M. Saul. (Rund, Jane)
August 14, 2019 Filing 6 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Dana Hildreth. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Atty General served 8/6/19)(Overton, Kathleen)
August 14, 2019 Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Dana Hildreth. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Served Office of Regional Counsel 8/1/19)(Overton, Kathleen)
August 14, 2019 Filing 4 SUMMONS Returned Executed filed by Dana Hildreth. Defendant Andrew M. Saul served on 8/9/2019, answer due 10/8/2019. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Served US Atty 8/9/19)(Overton, Kathleen)
July 17, 2019 Filing 3 Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08, the assigned/referred magistrate judge is designated and authorized by the court to exercise full authority in this assigned/referred action or matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 3401, including any case budgeting matters. (CSAW)
July 17, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 2 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following provisions apply in this case, and will be modified only upon a showing of exceptional circumstances: This case is assigned to Track: 4. (SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS). Signed by Magistrate Judge David D. Noce on 7/17/19. (JAB)
July 17, 2019 Filing 1 Social Security COMPLAINT with receipt number AMOEDC-7338205, in the amount of $400 Non-Jury Demand,Yes or No - No,, filed by Dana E. Hildreth. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Original Filing Form, #3 Summons Atty General, #4 Summons US Atty, #5 Summons Office of Regional Counsel)(Overton, Kathleen)
July 17, 2019 Case Opening Notification: 3 Summons(es) issued. The summons were emailed to attorney Kathleen E. Overton. All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Click #here for the instructions. Judge Assigned: U.S. Magistrate Judge David D. Noce. (BAK)

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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hildreth v. Saul
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Interested party: SSA Office of General Counsel
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 ]
Plaintiff: Dana Hildreth
Represented By: Kathleen E. Overton
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: Jane Rund
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?