Frimpong v. Saul
MOTION by Defendant Andrew Marshall Saul for judgment (Uncontested) (Ling, Ernest)
Case: 1:19-cv-04666 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:1154
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social
No. 19 C 4666
DEFENDANT’S UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF
JUDGMENT UNDER RULE 58 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Defendant Andrew Saul, Commissioner of Social Security, by John R. Lausch, Jr., United
States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, requests that the court enter a separate
judgment order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 following its October 26, 2020 order (Dkt. 41) denying
Commissioner’s motion to reconsider, and in support states as follows:
The court denied the Commissioner’s motion to reconsider its order remanding the
case to the Commissioner for an award of benefits, but did not enter a separate judgment order
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
Entry of a separate judgment order under Rule 58 is necessary for the matter to be
remanded to the Commissioner for an award of benefits under Title 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (a “sentence
No prejudice will result should the court grant defendant’s motion because plaintiff’s
counsel has represented that he has no objection thereto.
Case: 1:19-cv-04666 Document #: 42 Filed: 11/20/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:1155
WHEREFORE, the defendant Commissioner requests that the court enter a separate Rule
58 judgment order remanding the matter to the Commissioner for an award of benefits.
JOHN R. LAUSCH, Jr.
United States Attorney
By: s/ Ernest Y. Ling
ERNEST Y. LING
Assistant United States Attorney
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Regional Chief Counsel
MEREDITH D. SCHACHT
Assistant Regional Counsel
Social Security Administration
Office of the General Counsel, Region V
200 W. Adams St., Suite 3000
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(877) 800-7578, ext. 19409
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?