Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 6, 2020

Lajara v. Commissioner of Social Security

Judge
Lewis Liman
Docket
1:20-cv-00880
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
4
Social SecurityCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Lajara v. Commissioner of Social Security, Judge Liman ordered Jacqueline M. Lajara to respond to a proposed remand settlement.

Who this affects

Jacqueline M. Lajara, who was identified as representing herself, and the Commissioner of Social Security. The order required Lajara to respond to the defendant’s proposed settlement by August 15, 2020.

What happened

Lajara v. Commissioner of Social Security concerned the defendant’s offer to send the case back to the Social Security agency for more proceedings.

The defendant made settlement offers on June 2 and June 17, 2020. The order states that Jacqueline M. Lajara had not responded.

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered Lajara to respond to the settlement proposal by August 15, 2020. The order did not state that the proposed remand had been completed.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lajara v. Commissioner of Social Security · No. 1:20-cv-00880
Judge
Lewis Liman
Date
July 6, 2020

Background

The defendant offered to settle by remanding, or sending back, the case to the Commissioner of Social Security for further administrative proceedings. The offers were made on June 2 and June 17, 2020. The order states that Jacqueline M. Lajara had not responded. The attached proposed stipulation identified Lajara as representing herself and proposed a remand under sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).

What the Court Ordered

Judge Lewis J. Liman ordered Lajara to respond to the defendant’s settlement proposal by August 15, 2020. The order itself does not state that the case was remanded or that judgment was entered. The attached document is titled “Stipulation and Order of Remand,” but the July 6 order specifically directs Lajara to respond to the proposal.

Classification

This was a procedural order because the court addressed the response to a settlement proposal rather than deciding the merits of Lajara’s Social Security claim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.