Aram Liaghat-Ravesh case against UPS dismissed early in Central District of California
Case Summary
Plaintiff Aram Liaghat-Ravesh brought a civil suit against United Parcel Service of America and others in the Central District of California. The case was dismissed early, as indicated by the docket note referencing dismissal. The docket number is 25-cv-01638.
No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.
Key Issues
- • Employment law
- • Case dismissal
- • Procedural grounds
Docket Snapshot
Court
C.D. Cal.
Central District of California · 9th Circuit · CA
Docket
Not captured
Civil
Stage
Active litigation
Active
Filed
Date unavailable
Not in the available feed
Latest Filing
8:25-cv-01638 Aram Liaghat-Ravesh v. United Parcel Service of America et al
Other · May 12, 2026
Coverage
0 articles
0 sources tracked
Participants
1 Defendant, 1 Plaintiff
2 linked entities
Judge
Not assigned in feed
What the record shows
This case is tied to Central District of California, a federal district court in CA.
The newest docket activity we have is a other dated May 12, 2026.
The visible party/entity graph currently includes United Parcel Service of America, Aram Liaghat-Ravesh.
No independent press coverage is attached yet; this page is currently docket-led rather than media-led.
About This Court
Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) is a federal district court in the 9th Circuit, CA.
Case Timeline
1 event8:25-cv-01638 Aram Liaghat-Ravesh v. United Parcel Service of America et al
The court dismissed the case Aram Liaghat-Ravesh v. United Parcel Service of America et al, docket number 8:25-cv-01638. This means the lawsuit will not proceed further in this court. The dismissal could end the plaintiff's claims unless they appeal or refile.
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
0 outlets · 0 articles
Timeline events
1 record on file
Last updated
11 hours, 19 minutes ago
Juryvine aggregates docket entries from PACER/CourtListener, press coverage, and GDELT signals. Ingestion timestamps do not appear in the What Changed feed — that reflects real court activity only.