newspaper
judicial-watch
Diaz Tejada v. Cruz et al
25-cv-10090
Advertisement
description
Case Summary
Plaintiff Diaz Tejada filed suit against Cruz and additional defendants under docket 25-cv-10090. The docket reflects a proposed consent to jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge at entry 13, placing the case in its earliest procedural stages. The consent to magistrate jurisdiction filing suggests the parties may be open to having a magistrate judge handle the case through final judgment, which is common in lower-stakes civil disputes. The identities of the defendants and the nature of the underlying claims are not detailed in available docket information.
No timeline activity recorded yet. This page will grow as rulings and filings land.
Key Issues
- • Consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction
- • Early procedural stage with limited record
- • Nature of claims against Cruz and co-defendants unclear
- • Potential for streamlined resolution before a magistrate
smart_toy
Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records.
How we verify our work.
Advertisement
Case Timeline
3 events
info
Other
April 20, 2026
2:25-cr-00680-1 USA v. Ruiz et al
A document was filed under seal.
info
Other
April 20, 2026
2:25-cr-00680-2 USA v. Ruiz et al
A document was filed under seal.
info
Other
April 20, 2026
1:25-cv-10090 Diaz Tejada v. Cruz et al
All parties filed a proposed consent to have a U.S. Magistrate Judge handle the case through final judgment in Diaz Tejada v. Cruz et al, No. 1:25-cv-10090. This is a voluntary waiver of the right to a District Judge — once the presiding judge accepts it, a Magistrate Judge takes full control of the docket.
Advertisement
newspaper
3 articles
Press Coverage
newspaper
newspaper
1:25-cv-10090 Diaz Tejada v. Cruz et al
Proposed Consent to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge ( 13
Apr 20, 2026
1 min read
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more
Sources tracked
2 outlets · 3 articles
Timeline events
3 records on file
Last updated
2 hours, 1 minute 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.