C.D. Cal. · No. 8:26-cv-02022
Full docket on CourtListener ↗
No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).
| Matter | Type | Practice area | Court | Date | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harris and Harris, LTD.source ↗ filed by Seraph Legal, PA · Judge Fred W. Slaughter · No. 8:26-cv-02022 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $2.20M–$7.40M ▾Fraase affirmed a furnisher's 'reasonable procedures' defense under §1681e(b), while Minano dismissed most FCRA furnisher claims for lack of private right of action; outcomes are highly fact-dependent on which FCRA provision is pled against Equifax as a CRA vs furnisher. Comparable settlements $2.20M–$7.40M median $3.62M · n=4 Trader Joe's $7.40M · Sprouts $5M · RentGrow $2.25M Per member (realized): ~$102 median · $102–$102 (n=1) Key precedent: Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital — shows courts readily dismiss FCRA claims lacking private right of action or factual specificity, a recurring risk for Equifax-style defendants. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead specific inaccuracy/reasonable-procedures failure, as in Minano and Fraase. This defendant: Multiple pending FCRA filings against Equifax (McClary, Ali) suggest repeat exposure and possible consolidated/class treatment. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $45K–$13.50M Single-plaintiff filing; true class size and certification unresolved, so EV range is wide and low-confidence. · grounded in 10 rulings, 4 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | C.D. Cal. | 2026-07-27 | $2.20M–$7.40M comparable settlements |