S.D.N.Y. · No. 1:26-cv-07270
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lutron Electronics Co., Inc.source ↗ filed by Gottlieb & Associates · Judge Andrew Lamar Carter Jr. · No. 1:26-cv-07270 · 42:12101 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) affirmed dismissal of ADA claims where plaintiffs failed to prove proposed modifications effective, a standard SDNY courts will likely apply; conversely Holmes v. Bax shows ADA claims can survive summary judgment when factual violations are well-documented. No case here is a direct website-accessibility analog, so outcome is fact-dependent. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) - binding circuit precedent placing burden on plaintiff to prove reasonable accommodation/modification effectiveness, key hurdle in SDNY ADA suits. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to show a proposed accessibility fix would be effective, as in Lowell v. Lyft, or mootness if defendant remediates quickly (Burton). Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): –$125K No direct website-accessibility precedent or defendant-specific settlement data; estimate highly speculative given small, non-analogous comparable set. · grounded in 6 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D.N.Y. | 2026-08-25 | –$125K rough EV |