civil-litigation federal-courts court-watch

Hrazdan Corporation Sues Mercedes-Benz USA Over Unspecified Claims

25-cv-00220 C.D. Cal.
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Hrazdan Corporation sued Mercedes-Benz USA in the Central District of California over unspecified claims. The court has issued an order on a motion to dismiss, signaling early dispositive motion practice.

Latest development

2:25-cv-00220 Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc et al

Order · May 6, 2026

A Motion was filed.

description View filing

Key Issues

  • motion to dismiss
  • unspecified claims
  • Central District of California
smart_toy Juryvine case summary generated from primary court records. How we verify our work.
fact_check

Docket Snapshot

account_balance

Court

C.D. Cal.

Central District of California · 9th Circuit · CA

tag

Docket

Not captured

Civil

timeline

Stage

Active litigation

Active

event

Filed

Date unavailable

Not in the available feed

new_releases

Latest Filing

1:25-cv-00220 HERITAGE FOUNDATION et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Other · May 11, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

2 articles

2 sources tracked

groups

Participants

3 Defendants, 1 Government Agency, 3 Plaintiffs, +1 more

8 linked entities

gavel

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 11, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes U.S. Department of Justice, Mercedes-Benz USA LLC, Monolithic Power Systems Inc and others.

Press monitoring has found 2 related articles from 2 distinct sources.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 4 days, 20 hours ago

Hrazdan Corporation Sues Mercedes-Benz USA Over Unspecified Claims is an active civil matter in Central District of California under docket 25-cv-00220.

The dispute currently identifies 2:25-cv-00220 Hrazdan Corporation and 2:25-cv-00220 Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System on one side and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Monolithic Power Systems Inc on the other. The case is currently organized around Notice filed, Ongoing case, Multiple plaintiffs.

The available docket gives enough signal to track the case, but not enough to overstate the merits. This page will become more useful as filings, orders, hearings, and party appearances add detail.

On May 6, 2026, the docket recorded a order: A Motion was filed. On April 27, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The court issued a notice in the case of Hrazdan Corporation et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, indicating that a document has been filed.

This notice is a routine update to the case docket. The filing is likely a non-substantive document, such as a notice of.

The next thing to watch is whether the latest order produces a substantive order, a scheduling change, a settlement signal, or a filing that clarifies the parties' positions.

smart_toy Juryvine case narrative generated from the full docket timeline. How we verify our work.

update What Changed This Week

1 event
gavel
Order 6 days ago
A Motion was filed.
receipt_long Source (filing) expand_more

Order on Motion to Dismiss ( 57

Open original open_in_new

Juryvine summaries are generated from court records. Expand "Source" on any row to see the underlying filing.

About This Court

Central District of California (C.D. Cal.) is a federal district court in the 9th Circuit, CA.

Advertisement

Case Timeline

3 events
info
Other May 11, 2026

1:25-cv-00220 HERITAGE FOUNDATION et al v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

The parties filed a joint status report.

gavel
Order May 6, 2026

2:25-cv-00220 Waterford Township General Employees Retirement System v. Monolithic Power Systems Inc et al

A Motion was filed.

info
Other April 27, 2026

2:25-cv-00220 Hrazdan Corporation et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC

The court issued a notice in the case of Hrazdan Corporation et al v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, indicating that a document has been filed. This notice is a routine update to the case docket. The filing is likely a non-substantive document, such as a notice of appearance or a request for an extension.

Advertisement
show_chart

Coverage Timeline

newspaper

Press Coverage

2 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

2 outlets · 2 articles

Timeline events

3 records on file

Last updated

2 days, 22 hours 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.