civil-litigation federal-courts court-watch

Danville Group sues Airsys Cooling Technologies in Central District of California

26-cv-02348 C.D. Cal.
Active Active litigation Sign in to follow this case
Share mail
Advertisement
description

Case Summary

The Danville Group, Inc. v. Airsys Cooling Technologies, Inc. is a civil case with a current docket number of 26-cv-02348. The specifics of the case are not yet clear.

Latest development

4:26-cv-02348 The Danville Group, Inc. v. Airsys Cooling Technologies, Inc.

Order · April 29, 2026

The court issued an order.

description View filing

Key Issues

  • docket number 26-cv-02348
  • unknown specifics
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

5:26-cv-02348 Crespo-Berroteran v. Rios et al

Other · May 05, 2026

newspaper

Coverage

2 articles

2 sources tracked

groups

Participants

1 Defendant, 1 Plaintiff, 2 Related Organizations

5 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 05, 2026.

The visible party/entity graph currently includes Airsys Cooling Technologies Inc, The Danville Group, Inc and others.

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

chronic

The Story So Far

Updated 4 days, 23 hours ago

The Danville Group, Inc. v. Airsys Cooling Technologies, Inc. is an active civil matter in Central District of California under docket 26-cv-02348.

The dispute currently identifies 4:26-cv-02348 The Danville Group, Inc and 5:26-cv-02348 Crespo-Berroteran on one side and Airsys Cooling Technologies, Inc on the other. The case is currently organized around Federal jurisdiction and procedural posture, Current docket activity and next procedural step, Pending motions, orders, and near-term docket movement.

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 5, 2026, the docket recorded a other: The Danville Group, Inc. filed a Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) in the case of Crespo-Berroteran v. Rios et al, case number 5:26-cv-02348.

This filing is a standard form used to provide basic information about the case. is likely a party to the case, but the exact. On April 30, 2026, the docket recorded a order: The court issued an order.

The next thing to watch is whether the latest other 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.

About This Court

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

Advertisement

Case Timeline

2 events
info
Other May 4, 2026

5:26-cv-02348 Crespo-Berroteran v. Rios et al

The Danville Group, Inc. filed a Civil Cover Sheet (CV-71) in the case of Crespo-Berroteran v. Rios et al, case number 5:26-cv-02348. This filing is a standard form used to provide basic information about the case. is likely a party to the case, but the exact nature of their involvement is not specified.

gavel
Order April 29, 2026

4:26-cv-02348 The Danville Group, Inc. v. Airsys Cooling Technologies, Inc.

The court issued an order.

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

2 records on file

Last updated

3 days, 5 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.