S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-06606
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M&S Skin Care, LLCsource ↗ filed by Joseph & Norinsberg, LLC · No. 1:26-cv-06606 · 42:12188 Americans With Disabilities Act - Civil Enforcement Actions · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾ADA Title III accessibility suits like this typically survive motions to dismiss if a plausible barrier is alleged, per Price v. Diab's affirmance of ADA liability on default judgment. However, ADA provides no compensatory damages, only injunctive relief and fees, capping monetary exposure. Key precedent: Price v. Diab establishes prevailing plaintiffs recover attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. §12205, driving settlement pressure even without damages. Main risk: Mootness if defendant remediates site pre-judgment, cutting off injunctive relief and reducing fee exposure, as often occurs in ADA tester suits Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5K–$25K Web signals conflate small defendant LLC with unrelated large retailer (Marks & Spencer); no direct settlement or verdict data exists for this theory/defendant. · grounded in 2 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-08-03 | $5K–$25K rough EV |