Cases 1 - 10 of 50
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 1:2024cv01669
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
DIAZ v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv00492
Plaintiff:
ARMANDO DIAZ
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
United States of America v. Diaz-Rogel
as 23-1977
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
ARMANDO DIAZ-ROGEL
Diaz v. City of Merced et al
as 1:2023at00029
Plaintiff:
Armando Diaz
Defendant:
City of Merced, Cody McComb, Nicolas Dejon and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Diaz v. City of Merced et al
as 1:2023cv00065
Plaintiff:
Armando Diaz
Defendant:
City of Merced, Cody McComb, Nicolas Dejon and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
REYES v. GREER et al
as 3:2022cv00367
Plaintiff:
EDUARDO DANIEL REYES
Defendant:
ANTHONY PAUL GREER, ARMANDO DIAZ, GREG ALLEN and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2022cv00092
Petitioner:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Respondent:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
In re: New York City Board of
as 20-2952
Plaintiff / Appellee:
Armando Diaz
Plaintiff:
Mayling Ralph, Elsa Gulino, Peter Wilds and others
Defendant / Appellant:
Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York
Defendant:
New York State Education Department
Armando Diaz-Chavez v. U.S. Attorney General
as 20-12726
Respondent:
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Petitioner:
ARMANDO DIAZ-CHAVEZ
Barry John Montgomery, Jr. v. County of Los Angeles et al
as 2:2018cv05645
Defendant:
Armando Diaz, Does 1 to 25, inclusive, Austin Embleton and others
Plaintiff:
Barry John Montgomery, Jr.
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441 Notice of Removal - Civil Rights Act
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.
