Gutierrez v. Astrue

Filing 11

JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES (ORDER). SS Plaintiffs Brief due by 8/23/2013. SS Defendants Brief due by 9/23/2013. SS Plaintiffs Reply Brief due by 10/14/2013. By Judge John L. Kane on 7/9/13. (mnfsl, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 13-cv-00053-AP ALVIN R. GUTIERREZ Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant. JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SOCIAL SECURITY CASES 1. APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL AND PRO SE PARTIES For Plaintiff: James R. Koncilja, Esq. Koncilja & Koncilja, P.C. 125 W. B Street Pueblo, CO 81003 719-543-9591 719-543-0247 (Fax) For Defendant: John F. Walsh United States Attorney J. Benedict Garcia United States Attorney’s Office District of Colorado United States Attorney -1- Alexess D. Rea Special Assistant United States Attorney Assistant Regional Counsel Office of the General Counsel Social Security Administration 1001 Seventeenth St. Denver, CO 80202 303-844-7101 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. B. Date Complaint Was Served on U.S. Attorney's Office: May 1, 2013 C. 4. Date Complaint Was Filed: January 10, 2013 Date Answer and Administrative Record Were Filed: June 20, 2013 STATEMENT REGARDING THE ADEQUACY OF THE RECORD. To the best of their knowledge, both parties state the record is complete and adequate. 5. STATEMENT REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE Neither party intends to submit additional evidence. 6. STATEMENT REGARDING WHETHER THIS CASE RAISES UNUSUAL CLAIMS OR DEFENSES Both parties state that this case does not involve unusually complicated or out of the ordinary claims. 7. OTHER MATTERS The Claimant filed his application for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act on June 16, 2004. Said application was denied by the Administrative Law Judge on February 23, 2007. The case was appealed to the United States District Court in 1:07-CV-02208 –REB. On December 15, 2008, said Court remanded the case back to the Administrative Law -2- Judge. A subsequent unfavorable decision was issued by the same Administrative Law Judge on July 28, 2010. On January 24, 2012, the Appeals Council remanded the claim and assigned it to a new Administrative Law Judge. A third unfavorable ruling was issued on August 14, 2012. On January 10, 2013 a Complaint was filed in the above captioned case. 8. BRIEFING SCHEDULE A. B. Defendant’s Response Brief Due: September 23, 203 C. 9. Plaintiff's Opening Brief Due: August 23, 2013 Plaintiff’s Reply Brief (If Any) Due: October 14, 2013 STATEMENTS REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT A. B. 10. Plaintiff's Statement: Plaintiff does not request oral argument Defendant's Statement: Defendant does not request oral argument CONSENT TO EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE A. B. 11. ( ) All parties have consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. ( X ) All parties have not consented to the exercise of jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. AMENDMENTS TO JOINT CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN 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. The parties agree that the Joint Case Management Plan may be altered or amended only upon a showing of good cause. DATED this 9th day of July, 2013. BY THE COURT: s/John L. Kane U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE -3- APPROVED: UNITED STATES ATTORNEY s/ James R. Koncilja s/ Alexess D. Rea James R. Koncilja 125 W. B. St. Pueblo, CO 81003 719-543-9591 Attorney(s) for Plaintiff Alexess D. Rea Special Assistant United States Attorney 1001 Seventeenth St. Denver, CO 80202 303-844-7101 -4-

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?