Hart v. Commissioner of Social Security
| Danielle Rose Hart |
| Commissioner of Social Security |
| Social Security Administration |
| 7:2021cv03104 |
| April 9, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Nelson Stephen Roman |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 405 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 COMPLAINT against Social Security Administration. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-24534581)Document filed by Danielle Rose Hart..(Chisholm, Drew) |
| ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT PLEADING. Notice to Attorney Drew Chisholm to RE-FILE Document No. #5 Amended Complaint. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the wrong event type was used to file the pleading; the initial pleading must be filed correctly before an Amended pleading could be accepted. If attorney wishes to amend, refile the initial pleading first and the Amended pleading after. If also filing an Amended pleading, the PDF must be titled to correspond with the event type used (Amended Complaint). Re-file the pleading using the event type Complaint found under the event list Complaints and Other Initiating Documents - attach the correct signed PDF - select the individually named filer/filers - select the individually named party/parties the pleading is against. (jgo) |
| Filing 5 FILING ERROR - WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU - AMENDED COMPLAINT amending #1 Complaint, against Commissioner of Social Security.Document filed by Danielle Rose Hart. Related document: #1 Complaint,..(Chisholm, Drew) Modified on 5/10/2021 (jgo). |
Filing 4
STANDING ORDER IN RE MOTIONS FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS IN SOCIAL SECURITY CASES (See 16-MISC-171 Standing Order filed April 28, 2016). ORDERED that in all Social Security cases hereafter filed under 42 U.S.C. 405(g) and 42 U.S.C. 1383(c)(3), the defendant shall within 90 days after service file the certified transcript of administrative proceedings, which shall constitute the defendants' answer, or otherwise move against the complaint that unless otherwise ordered by the judge to whom the case is assigned, in cases where the plaintiff is represented by counsel, the plaintiff shall file a motion for judgment on the pleadings within 60 days of the date on which the defendant files the certified transcript of the administrative proceedings that in cases where the plaintiff is appearing pro se, the defendant shall file its motion for judgment on the pleadings within 60 days of the date on which the certified transcript of administrative proceedings have been filed. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on April 20, 2016) (sj)
|
| Case Designated ECF. (sj) |
| Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause is so designated. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73(b)(1) parties are notified that they may consent to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge. Parties who wish to consent may access the necessary form at the following link: #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/AO-3.pdf. (sj) |
| CASE OPENING INITIAL ASSIGNMENT NOTICE: The above-entitled action is assigned to Judge Nelson Stephen Roman. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned District Judge, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/judges/district-judges. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. Please download and review the ECF Rules and Instructions, located at #https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions..(sj) |
| >>>NOTICE REGARDING PRO HAC VICE MOTION. Regarding Document No. #3 MOTION for Drew Alexander Chisholm to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-24379366. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff.. The document has been reviewed and there are no deficiencies. (vba) |
| ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING PARTY MODIFICATION. Notice to attorney Drew Chisholm. The party information for the following party/parties has been modified: Danielle Rose Hart; Commissioner of Social Security. The information for the party/parties has been modified for the following reason/reasons: party role was entered incorrectly. (sj) |
| ***NOTICE TO ATTORNEY REGARDING DEFICIENT PLEADING. Notice to Attorney Drew Chisholm to RE-FILE Document No. #1 Complaint. The filing is deficient for the following reason(s): the wrong party/parties whom the pleading is against were selected. Re-file the pleading using the event type Complaint found under the event list Complaints and Other Initiating Documents - attach the correct signed PDF - select the individually named filer/filers - select the individually named party/parties the pleading is against. (sj) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Drew Alexander Chisholm to Appear Pro Hac Vice . Filing fee $ 200.00, receipt number ANYSDC-24379366. Motion and supporting papers to be reviewed by Clerk's Office staff. Document filed by Danielle Rose Hart. (Attachments: #1 Certificate of Good Standing, #2 Text of Proposed Order, #3 Affidavit).(Chisholm, Drew) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed..(Chisholm, Drew) |
| Filing 1 FILING ERROR - DEFICIENT PLEADING - FILED AGAINST PARTY ERROR COMPLAINT against Danielle Rose Hart. (Filing Fee $ 402.00, Receipt Number ANYSDC-24379175)Document filed by Danielle Rose Hart..(Chisholm, Drew) Modified on 4/12/2021 (sj). |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
