James Harasch v. Martin O'Malley

Good Law
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaApril 25, 20252:24-cv-05631California5,014 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JAMES H.1, Case No. 2:24-cv-05631-GJS

12 Plaintiff

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND

13 v. ORDER

14 LELAND DUDEK, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, 15 Defendant. 16

17 18 Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking review of the denial by the Social Security 19 Administration (“SSA”) – sued through its Acting Commissioner of Social Security 20 (“Commissioner”) – of Plaintiff’s applications for Supplemental Security Income 21 and Child’s Insurance Benefits. The parties filed briefs addressing the disputed 22 issue in the case [Dkt. 11 and 14]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), both parties have 23 consented to the undersigned for all purposes. [Dkt. 16.] The Court has taken the 24 parties’ briefing under submission without oral argument. For the reasons discussed 25 below, the Court finds that this matter should be affirmed. 26 27 1 In the interest of privacy, this Order uses only the first name and the first 28 initial of the last name of the non-governmental party. 1 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.