Cases 1 - 10 of 14
Jeff Baoliang Zhang v. Steve Escovar
as 2:2024cv00504
Plaintiff:
Jeff Baoliang Zhang
Defendant:
Steve Escovar
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jeff Zhang v. County of Los Angeles, et al
as 23-55353
Plaintiff / Appellant:
JEFF BAOLIANG ZHANG, Ph.D
Defendant / Appellee:
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, at TTCF and DOES, 1 through 20
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 2:2022cv01704
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus
Jeff Baoliang Zhang v. County of Los Angeles et al
as 2:2022cv08365
Plaintiff:
Jeff Baoliang Zhang
Defendant:
County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Shriffs at TTCF and Does 1 through 20
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jeff Zhang v. Stuart Sherman
as 21-55493
Petitioner / Appellant:
JEFF BAOLIANG ZHANG, Ph.D
Respondent / Appellee:
STUART SHERMAN, Warden
Jeff Baoliang Zhang v. Stu Sherman
as 2:2018cv09361
Petitioner:
Jeff Baoliang Zhang
Respondent:
Stu Sherman
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
NOT USED
as 2:2017cv02747
Plaintiff:
Omix Ada, Inc.
Defendant:
Qingdao Hairunkaiyuan Auto Parts Co., LTD a/k/a Shangdong Kaiyuan vehickle Parts Co., LTD and Xianghe Baoliang Metal Products., Ltd., a/k/a Beijing Yunliang Shunda Trade Co., Ltd
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Omix Ada, Inc. v. Qingdao Hairunkaiyun Auto Parts Co., LTD. et al
as 2:2017cv02851
Defendant:
Qingdao Hairunkaiyun Auto Parts Co., Ltd. and Xianghe Baoliang Metal Products Co., Ltd
Plaintiff:
Omix Ada, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
Omix Ada, Inc. v. Qingdao Hairunkaiyun Auto Parts Co., LTD. et al
as 2:2017cv02748
Defendant:
Qingdao Hairunkaiyun Auto Parts Co., Ltd. and Xianghe Baoliang Metal Products Co., Ltd
Plaintiff:
Omix Ada, Inc.
Cause Of Action: 35 U.S.C. § 271 Patent Infringement
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.
