From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Deegan v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Oct 22, 2012
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01945-AP (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01945-AP

10-22-2012

NANCY A. DEEGAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

Alan M. Agee, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff JOHN F. WALSH United States Attorney District of Colorado J. BENEDICT GARCIA Assistant United States Attorney David Blower Special Assistant United States Attorney Attorneys for Defendant.


JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES

1. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES

For Plaintiff:
Alan M. Agee, Esq.

For Defendant:

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

District of Colorado

J. BENEDICT GARCIA

Assistant United States Attorney

DAVID BLOWER

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Office of the General Counsel

2. STATEMENT OF LEGAL BASIS FOR SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

The Court has jurisdiction based on section 205(g) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

3. DATES OF FILING OF RELEVANT PLEADINGS

A. Date Complaint Was Filed: July 26, 2012
B. Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: August 6, 2012
C. Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: October 3, 2012

4. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD

The parties, to the best of their knowledge, state that the administrative record is complete and accurate.

5. STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE

The parties do not anticipate submitting additional evidence.

6. STATEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL CLAIMS

OR DEFENSES The parties, to the best of their knowledge, do not believe this case raises unusual claims or defenses.

7. OTHER MATTERS

There are no other matters anticipated.

8. BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Counsel for both parties agree to the following proposed briefing schedule:

A. Plaintiffs Opening Brief Due: December 3, 2012
B. Defendant's Response Brief Due: January 2, 2013
C. Plaintiffs Reply Brief (If Any) Due: January 17, 2013

9. STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs Statement: Plaintiff requests oral argument.
B. Defendant's Statement: Defendant does not request oral argument

10. CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE

All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge.

11. OTHER MATTERS

THE PARTIES FILING MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME OR CONTINUANCES MUST COMPLY WITH D.C.COLO.LCivR 7.1(C) BY SUBMITTING PROOF THAT A COPY OF THE MOTION HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE MOVING ATTORNEY'S CLIENT, ALL ATTORNEYS OF RECORD, AND ALL PRO SE PARTIES.

12. AMENDMENTS TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The parties agree that the Joint Case Management Plan may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause.

BY THE COURT:

John L. Kane

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
APPROVED: _________________
Alan M. Agee, Esq.
Attorney for Plaintiff

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

District of Colorado

J. BENEDICT GARCIA

Assistant United States Attorney

By: _________________

David Blower

Special Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Defendant.


Summaries of

Deegan v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Oct 22, 2012
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01945-AP (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2012)
Case details for

Deegan v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:NANCY A. DEEGAN, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Oct 22, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-01945-AP (D. Colo. Oct. 22, 2012)