civil-litigation discovery copyright administrative-law federal-courts court-watch

Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar reassigned to new judge in Central District of California

26-cv-01651 C.D. Cal.
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al, docket number 26-cv-01651 in the Central District of California, has been reassigned to a different judge. This procedural change may affect case management and scheduling but does not alter the underlying claims or defenses.

Latest development

1:26-cv-01651 Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al

Order · April 21, 2026

The court issued an order.

description View filing

Key Issues

  • Case reassignment
  • Procedural change
  • 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

1:26-cv-01651 BYERS et al v. FENWICK & WEST LLP et al

Other · May 13, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

6 articles

6 sources tracked

groups

Participants

4 Defendants, 3 Plaintiffs, 1 Related Organization

11 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 13, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES LAND VIII LLC, Farber Bag & Supply Company, FENWICK & WEST LLP and others.

Press monitoring has found 6 related articles from 6 distinct sources.

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 2 weeks, 6 days ago

Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al is a civil case with a current docket number of 26-cv-01651. The case involves an Order Reassigning Case, which indicates that the case has been transferred to a different judge or court.

The court issued an order on April 21, 2026, but the details of the order are not yet clear. The case is currently active, but a judge has not yet been assigned. The transfer of the case suggests that the original judge may have recused themselves or that the case requires specialized knowledge or expertise.

The next step in the case will be the assignment of a new judge, who will review the case and determine the next course of action. The court's order on April 21, 2026, is likely to be a key document in understanding the reasoning behind the reassignment of the case.

The case is currently in a state of flux, and it is unclear what the long-term implications of the reassignment will be. The court's decision to reassign the case may be a response to a conflict of interest or a need for specialized knowledge.

The case will likely continue to be closely watched as the new judge takes on the case and determines the next steps. The court's order on April 21, 2026, is a significant development in the case, and it will be important to monitor the case for any further updates.

The reassignment of the case is a common occurrence in federal court, but it can still have significant implications for the parties involved. The case will likely continue to be active in the coming weeks and months as the new judge reviews the case and determines the next course of action.

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

About This Court

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

Advertisement

Case Timeline

7 events
info
Other May 13, 2026

1:26-cv-01651 BYERS et al v. FENWICK & WEST LLP et al

The case Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar was reassigned to a new judge in the Central District of California under docket number 1:26-cv-01651. This reassignment signals a change in judicial oversight, which could affect the case's management and scheduling. Juryvine is monitoring the case for further developments and will update as more filings or rulings emerge.

info
Other May 5, 2026

2:26-cv-01651 Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.243.208.249

The court granted a 14-day extension to file a document in the case Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 23.243.208.249. This extension was requested by the plaintiff, Strike 3 Holdings, LLC. The extension will allow the plaintiff more time to file the document.

info
Other May 4, 2026

1:26-cv-01651 Jimenez v. Bisignano

The court has received the SSA Administrative Record in the case of Jimenez v. Bisignano, which is a separate case from Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al. This record is likely being shared as part of the discovery process in the Ramos Ramirez case. The significance of this record is unclear without more context.

info
Other May 1, 2026

1:26-cv-01651 Rider v. Farber Bag & Supply Company et al

An Amended Complaint was filed.

info
Other April 30, 2026

3:26-cv-01651 EVANS v. PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES LAND VIII LLC et al

The court allowed a crossclaim to proceed in the case of Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al, referencing the docket number 3:26-cv-01651 EVANS v. PARAMOUNT PROPERTIES LAND VIII LLC et al. This means that the crossclaimant can now move forward with their claim against the defendants. The crossclaim is likely related to the original case.

info
Other April 22, 2026

5:26-cv-01651 United African-Asian Abilities Club, On Behalf Of Itself And Its Members et al v. Matthews, Trustee et al

The defendant filed their Answer to the Complaint.

gavel
Order April 21, 2026

1:26-cv-01651 Ramos Ramirez v. Baltasar et al

The court issued an order.

Advertisement
show_chart

Coverage Timeline

newspaper

Press Coverage

6 articles
settings_backup_restore Data provenance expand_more

Sources tracked

6 outlets · 6 articles

Timeline events

7 records on file

Last updated

2 days, 17 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.