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, )
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
Alexess.rea@ssa.gov
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
kandkpc@comcast.net
Attorney(s) for Plaintiff
Alexess D. Rea
Special Assistant United States Attorney
1001 Seventeenth St.
Denver, CO 80202
303-844-7101
Alexess.rea@ssa.gov
-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?