Cases 1 - 10 of 19
JORDAN v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 9:2023cv20292
Plaintiff:
CHRIS JORDAN
Defendant:
3M COMPANY, 3M OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY LLC, AEARO HOLDING LLC and others
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos et al
as 5:2023cv02928
Plaintiff:
Satish Ramachandran
Defendant:
City of Los Altos, Kirk Ballard, Jon Biggs and others
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Act
JORDAN v. 3M COMPANY
as 3:2022cv23340
Plaintiff:
CHRIS JORDAN
Defendant:
3M COMPANY
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332 Diversity-Product Liability
JORDAN v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 8:2020cv98983
Defendant:
AEARO HOLDING LLC, AEARO INTERMEDIATE LLC, AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC and others
Plaintiff:
CHRIS JORDAN
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1332
JOHNSON et al v. 3M COMPANY et al
as 3:2019cv03072
Plaintiff:
FRANCISCO AVILA, JACOB ZIMMERMAN, JOSHUA THOMPSON and others
Defendant:
3M COMPANY and AEARO TECHNOLOGIES LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Johnson et al v. 3M Company et al
as 0:2019cv02057
Plaintiff:
Francisco Avila, Jacob Zimmerman, Joshua Thompson and others
Defendant:
3M Company and Aearo Technologies, LLC
Cause Of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Floyd v. Stated Apparel LLC et al
as 4:2019cv00141
Plaintiff:
Andrew Floyd
Defendant:
Chris Jordan and Stated Apparel LLC
Cause Of Action: 29 U.S.C. § 201
Ramachandran v. City of Los Altos et al
as 5:2018cv01223
Defendant:
City of Los Altos, Kirk Ballard, Greg Anderson and others
Plaintiff:
Mr. Satish Ramachandran and Satish Ramachandran
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Plaintiff v. Defendant
as 3:2015cv00561
Defendant:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Plaintiff:
Plaintiff v. Defendant
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights (Employment Discrimination)
Newman v. Edmonson et al
as 2:2014cv00292
Plaintiff:
Sidney Newman
Defendant:
Michael Edmonson, Chris Jordan and William Latham
Cause Of Action: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
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.
