Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security

Justia Dockets & Filings Second Circuit New York Southern District Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security

Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security

Plaintiff:	Shane Laden
Defendant:	Commissioner of Social Security
Case Number:	1:2017cv10050
Filed:	January 9, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	White Plains Office
Presiding Judge:	Nelson Stephen Roman
Presiding Judge:	Lisa Margaret Smith
Nature of Suit:	Supplemental Security Income
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 405
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 5, 2022	Filing 60 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 54 Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Shane Laden, 59 Report and Recommendations. For the reasons stated above, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Krause's R & R in its entirety. Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to a fee award of $54,184.78. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 54. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 12/5/2022) (ate)
May 10, 2021	Filing 45 ORDER: In light of the Carr decision, and to promote efficiency and judicial economy, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding whether this case should to be remanded to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a constitutionally app ointed ALJ different from the ALJ who previously heard and adjudicated Plaintiff's claim for benefits. On or before June 1, 2021, Plaintiff must submit a letter of no longer than five pages setting forth whether or not Plaintiff believes this ca se should be remanded at this time. Plaintiff must submit a letter either requesting remand (along with any legal argument in support of that position) or notifying the Court that Plaintiff does not request remand. If necessary, on or before June 8, 2021, Defendant may submit a letter of no more than five pages in response. Should Plaintiff elect not to request a remand on the Appointments Clause issue at this stage, this may constitute a waiver of the Appointments Clause challenge in all furthe r proceedings, including appeals. A decision not to request a remand will not prejudice the Plaintiff in any way before this Court, nor will it affect the timing of this Court's decision on the pending motions in this matter should the case remain in federal court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 5/10/2021) (ks)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 5, 2022

Filing 60 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION for 54 Motion for Attorney Fees filed by Shane Laden, 59 Report and Recommendations. For the reasons stated above, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Krause's R & R in its entirety. Plaintiff's counsel is entitled to a fee award of $54,184.78. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion at ECF No. 54. (Signed by Judge Nelson Stephen Roman on 12/5/2022) (ate)

May 10, 2021

Filing 45 ORDER: In light of the Carr decision, and to promote efficiency and judicial economy, the parties are directed to meet and confer regarding whether this case should to be remanded to the Commissioner for a new hearing before a constitutionally app ointed ALJ different from the ALJ who previously heard and adjudicated Plaintiff's claim for benefits. On or before June 1, 2021, Plaintiff must submit a letter of no longer than five pages setting forth whether or not Plaintiff believes this ca se should be remanded at this time. Plaintiff must submit a letter either requesting remand (along with any legal argument in support of that position) or notifying the Court that Plaintiff does not request remand. If necessary, on or before June 8, 2021, Defendant may submit a letter of no more than five pages in response. Should Plaintiff elect not to request a remand on the Appointments Clause issue at this stage, this may constitute a waiver of the Appointments Clause challenge in all furthe r proceedings, including appeals. A decision not to request a remand will not prejudice the Plaintiff in any way before this Court, nor will it affect the timing of this Court's decision on the pending motions in this matter should the case remain in federal court. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause on 5/10/2021) (ks)

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 New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Laden v. Commissioner of Social Security
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Shane Laden
Represented By:	Daniel Adam Osborn
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 of Social Security
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?