Cases 1 - 10 of 16
Meahl v. The Davey Tree Expert Company, et al.
as 5:2024cv00074
Plaintiff:
Richard C. Meahl
Defendant:
The Davey Tree Expert Company and Llomar Andres Perez Escalera
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Auto Negligence
Hindalong v. The Davey Tree Expert Company et al
as 5:2023cv00662
Plaintiff:
Nancy Hindalong
Defendant:
The Davey Tree Expert Company, Llomar Andres Perez-Escalera and Llomar Andres Perez Escalera
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
Jewell v. The Davey Tree Expert Company et al
as 5:2023cv00663
Plaintiff:
Carolyn Jewell
Defendant:
The Davey Tree Expert Company and Llomar Andres Perez-Escalera
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Notice of Removal
USA v. Freddy Andres Perez
as 21-14469
Plaintiff / Appellee:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Defendant / Appellant:
FREDDY ANDRES PEREZ
PEREZ v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2021cv67173
Plaintiff:
RICARDO ANDRES PEREZ
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
PEREZ v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 7:2020cv92167
Defendant:
3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
ANDRES PEREZ
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
ABBOTT et al v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv01063
Plaintiff:
ERNEST CHARLES III, KENNETH JONES, ROBERT GEORGE and others
Defendant:
3M COMPANY and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
Perez-Pelaez v. United States of America
as 1:2018cv00031
Petitioner:
David Andres Perez-Pelaez
Respondent:
United States of America
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2255
In re: David Perez-Pelaez
as 17-14121
Petitioner:
In re: DAVID ANDRES PEREZ-PELAEZ
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
In re: David Perez-Pelaez
as 17-13530
Petitioner:
In re: DAVID ANDRES PEREZ-PELAEZ
Successive Habeas Respondent:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
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.
