← Records

Gibbs v. Acrisure Mortgage LLC

D.S.C. · No. 1:26-cv-03744

Full docket on CourtListener ↗

No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).

Our records for this case (1)

MatterTypePractice areaCourtDateValue
Acrisure Mortgage LLCsource ↗
filed by Dave Maxfield, Attorney, LLC · Judge Mary Geiger Lewis · No. 1:26-cv-03744 · 15:1691 Equal Credit Opportunity Act · view case timeline →
Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M ▾
Privacy/wiretap claims show split outcomes: Bayhealth and Gunnar (remand) survived pleading stage, while Cisneros and Santoro were dismissed on statutory exemptions or standing grounds. No case directly involves mortgage-call recording, adding uncertainty to Acrisure's specific exposure.
Comparable settlements $47.50M–$725M median $63.75M · n=10
Meta $725M · Google LLC $135M · Google LLC and Alp $68M
Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$30 (n=3)
Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M
Key precedent: Gunnar Optiks (7th Cir.) - shows wiretap/privacy claims often survive MTD when factual questions about consent/exclusions remain unresolved.
Main risk: Dismissal via statutory exemption or lack of individualized harm, as in Cisneros (BIPA financial-institution exemption) and Santoro (Meta Pixel dismissed)
Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $125K–$2.50M
Small, non-mortgage-specific comparable set; class size and per-member figures are rough proxies, not case-specific data. · grounded in 8 rulings, 10 settlements, 3 verdicts
FilingPrivacy & WiretapD.S.C.2026-08-28$47.50M–$725M
comparable settlements