From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hawk v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 29, 2012
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00575-AP (D. Colo. May. 29, 2012)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00575-AP

05-29-2012

JACQUELINE HAWK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

For Plaintiff : Diane K. Bross For Defendant: JOHN F. WALSH United States Attorney WILLIAM G. PHARO Assistant United States Attorney District of Colorado Stephanie Lynn F. Kiley Special Assistant United States Attorney


JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES

1. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES

For Plaintiff:

Diane K. Bross

For Defendant:

JOHN F. WALSH

United States Attorney

WILLIAM G. PHARO

Assistant United States Attorney

District of Colorado

Stephanie Lynn F. Kiley

Special Assistant United States Attorney

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: March 6, 2012 B. Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: March 12, 2012 C. Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: May 11, 2012

4. STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD

To the best of her knowledge, Counsel for Plaintiff states that the record is complete and accurate. To the best of her knowledge, Counsel for Defendant states that the 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

Counsel for Plaintiff states: To the best of her knowledge, this case does not involve unusual claims or defenses. Counsel for Defendant states: To the best of her knowledge, this case does not involve unusual claims or defenses.

7. OTHER MATTERS

There are no other matters anticipated.

8. BRIEFING SCHEDULE

The parties respectfully request the following briefing schedule: A. Plaintiffs Opening Brief Due: July 10, 2012 B. Defendant's Response Brief Due: August 9, 2012 C. Plaintiffs Reply Brief (If Any) Due: August 24, 2012

9. STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

A. Plaintiffs Statement:

Plaintiff does not request 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:

____________________

Diane K. Bross, Esq. # 31656

JAMES F. WALSH

United States Attorney

WILLIAM G. PHARO

Assistant United States Attorney

District of Colorado

____________________

Stephanie Lynn F. Kiley

Assistant Regional Counsel

Attorneys for Defendant.


Summaries of

Hawk v. Astrue

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
May 29, 2012
Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00575-AP (D. Colo. May. 29, 2012)
Case details for

Hawk v. Astrue

Case Details

Full title:JACQUELINE HAWK, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: May 29, 2012

Citations

Civil Action No. 1:12-cv-00575-AP (D. Colo. May. 29, 2012)