S.D. Fla. · No. 1:26-cv-25942
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mattress Firm, Inc.source ↗ filed by Adams & Associates, P.A. · No. 1:26-cv-25942 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾ADA Title III accessibility claims survive dismissal often but face a high bar on remedy scope, as seen in Lowell v. Lyft (plaintiff must prove modification effectiveness) and Holmes v. Bax (ADA claims affirmed but injunction vacated for remedy analysis). Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft, Inc. — shows courts require plaintiffs to substantiate that requested accessibility fixes are reasonable/effective, a likely fight point here. Main risk: Dismissal or narrowed injunctive relief if plaintiff cannot show proposed accessibility modifications are readily achievable/effective, per Lowell v. Lyft. This defendant: Prior Payero v. Mattress Firm settlement suggests recurring ADA accessibility exposure and pattern of resolving via settlement rather than litigating to judgment. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $3K–$75K Small, non-uniform comparable set mixes ADA contexts (transportation, employment, accommodation); no direct Mattress Firm accessibility rulings or settlement figures exist. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-08-28 | $3K–$75K rough EV |