3:25-cv-16879 DEMENT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Case Summary
Dement filed a case against the Commissioner of Social Security, with recent docket activity involving an order on a motion to dismiss. This suggests preliminary challenges to the legal sufficiency of the claims or jurisdictional issues.
Stage
Active litigation
Timeline
28 events
Coverage
28 articles
Sources
1
Key Issues
- • Motion to dismiss
- • Social Security benefits
- • Administrative law
Case Timeline
20 events3:25-cv-06046 Bagwell v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case of Bagwell v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff submitted their opening brief, which outlines their main arguments and reasons why the court should rule in their favor. This step is crucial as it sets the foundation for the legal debate and informs the court of the key issues at stake.
3:25-cv-06024 Krueger v. Commissioner of Social Security
In the case of Krueger v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff submitted a reply brief, which is a response to the defendant's arguments. This step is part of the legal process where each side presents their points to support their case. It matters because the reply brief helps clarify the plaintiff's position and can influence the court's decision.
3:25-cv-16879 DEMENT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case Dement v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court issued an order regarding a request to extend the deadline for filing certain documents. This means the court has decided whether to allow more time for one party to submit their paperwork. Such extensions can impact the pace and scheduling of the case.
2:25-cv-16334 PORIGOW v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Porigow v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court granted an extension of time to file a document. This means one party was given extra time beyond the original deadline to submit necessary paperwork. Such extensions help ensure all parties have adequate time to prepare their case.
1:25-cv-04426 KRZYWONOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Krzywonos v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court granted an extension of time to file a document. This means one party was allowed more time to submit necessary paperwork. Extensions like this help ensure all parties have adequate time to prepare their cases properly.
3:25-cv-16241 SOTO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court granted an extension of time for one of the parties to file a required document. This means the party has more time to submit important paperwork, which can affect the progress of the case. Extensions help ensure that all necessary information is properly reviewed before the case moves forward.
1:25-cv-06237 DAVIDSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Davidson v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court granted an extension of time for one of the parties to file a required document. This means the party has more time to submit their paperwork, which can help ensure all necessary information is properly reviewed. Extensions like this are common and help maintain fairness in the legal process.
1:26-cv-00568 BATIE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case DEMENT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, a related filing was made in another case, BATIE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, involving the plaintiff's brief. This indicates ongoing legal arguments where plaintiffs present their positions to the court. Such briefs are crucial as they outline the plaintiffs' claims and reasoning for why the court should rule in their favor.
3:25-cv-17760 SUDOL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY et al
In the case of Sudol v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court issued an order regarding the plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, which means asking to waive court fees due to inability to pay. The order either granted or denied this request, determining whether the plaintiff can continue the case without paying fees upfront. This decision affects the plaintiff's ability to access the court system despite financial hardship.
2:26-cv-03846 RANDALL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
A summons was issued in the case Randall v. Commissioner of Social Security, indicating that the Social Security Administration (SSA) has been formally notified to respond to the lawsuit. This step is crucial as it officially starts the legal process and requires the SSA to participate in the case.
1:26-cv-03875 RODENBACH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Rodenbach v. Commissioner of Social Security, a Notice of Judicial Preferences was filed, indicating the court's guidelines or priorities for handling the case. This helps streamline the legal process by clarifying how the case will be managed. It matters because it sets expectations for both parties and can impact the timeline and procedures of the case.
1:26-cv-03860 BROOKS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case Brooks v. Commissioner of Social Security, a summons was issued to the Social Security Administration (SSA). This means the court has formally notified the SSA that it must respond or participate in the legal proceedings. This step is essential to ensure the SSA is involved in the case and can provide necessary information or defense.
1:19-cv-17787 FAIRHURST v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Fairhurst v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court issued an order regarding a motion for attorney fees. This means the court decided on whether and how much the lawyer representing Fairhurst should be paid for their work. Such decisions affect how legal costs are managed in social security cases.
2:25-cv-16171 MIKULAS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Mikulas v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiff submitted a reply brief, which is a document responding to arguments made by the opposing party. This step is part of the legal process where the plaintiff reinforces their position and addresses any points raised by the defendant. It helps the court understand the plaintiff's perspective before making a decision.
1:24-cv-06638 SANTOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Santos v. Commissioner of Social Security, the court issued an order regarding a motion to dismiss. This means the court decided whether the case should be thrown out before going to trial based on the arguments presented. Such decisions are crucial as they determine if the plaintiff's claims have enough legal basis to proceed.
3:25-cv-16962 MAYERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
A new case titled MAYERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY with the number 3:25-cv-16962 was filed, separate from the existing case DEMENT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY (3:25-cv-16879). This indicates another individual is challenging a decision made by the Social Security Administration. It matters because it shows ongoing legal disputes involving Social Security determinations.
2:25-cv-18709 CAPONE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Capone v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiffs submitted their brief to the court. This document outlines their arguments and evidence supporting their claim. It is a key step in the legal process as it helps the judge understand the plaintiffs' position.
2:25-cv-18117 FATUZZO et al v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Fatuzzo et al v. Commissioner of Social Security, the plaintiffs submitted their reply brief. This document responds to arguments made by the defendant and aims to strengthen the plaintiffs' position. Reply briefs are important as they allow the plaintiffs to address any new points raised and clarify their arguments before the court makes a decision.
3:25-cv-12083 SCHROEDER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
A hearing was scheduled or rescheduled for the case Schroeder v. Commissioner of Social Security, along with deadlines for motions and Reports and Recommendations (R&R). This procedural update ensures that both parties know the timeline for submitting documents and preparing for the hearing. It helps keep the case moving forward efficiently.
2:25-cv-13165 SOTO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
In the case of Soto v. Commissioner of Social Security, the defendants submitted their response brief. This document presents the defendants' arguments and positions in response to the claims made by the plaintiff. Such briefs are crucial as they help the court understand both sides before making a decision.
Press Coverage
3:25-cv-06046 Bagwell v. Commissioner of Social Security
Brief - Opening ( 16
3:25-cv-06024 Krueger v. Commissioner of Social Security
Brief - Reply ( 17
3:25-cv-16879 DEMENT v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File ( 13
2:25-cv-16334 PORIGOW v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Extension of Time to File Document ( 7
1:25-cv-04426 KRZYWONOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Extension of Time to File Document ( 8
3:25-cv-16241 SOTO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Extension of Time to File Document ( 9
1:25-cv-06237 DAVIDSON v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Extension of Time to File Document ( 8
1:26-cv-00568 BATIE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiffs Brief ( 5
3:25-cv-17760 SUDOL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY et al
Order Granting/Denying In Forma Pauperis ( 8
2:26-cv-03846 RANDALL v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Summons Issued SSA ( 3
1:26-cv-03875 RODENBACH v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Notice of Judicial Preferences
1:26-cv-03860 BROOKS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Summons Issued SSA ( 2
1:19-cv-17787 FAIRHURST v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Order on Motion for Attorney Fees ( 33
2:25-cv-16171 MIKULAS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiffs Reply Brief ( 11
1:24-cv-06638 SANTOS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Order on Motion to Dismiss ( 21
3:25-cv-16962 MAYERS v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
2:25-cv-18709 CAPONE v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiffs Brief ( 7
2:25-cv-18117 FATUZZO et al v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Plaintiffs Reply Brief ( 10
3:25-cv-12083 SCHROEDER v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Set/Reset Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings
2:25-cv-13165 SOTO v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY
Defendants Response Brief ( 11