S.D. Fla. · No. 1:26-cv-25971
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EL Car Wash, LLCsource ↗ filed by Adams & Associates, P.A. · Judge David S. Leibowitz · No. 1:26-cv-25971 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾Comparables are mostly employment/WAV ADA cases, not physical-barrier Title III suits like this one; Lowell v. Lyft shows courts will dismiss when plaintiffs can't prove effective remedy, while Holmes v. Bax shows ADA claims can survive summary judgment. Neither is a close analog to a S.D. Fla. car-wash accessibility 'tester' suit. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) — shows courts scrutinize whether plaintiff's proposed accommodation/remedy is plausible, a recurring hurdle in ADA Title III barrier suits. Main risk: Standing/mootness challenges (11th Cir. is skeptical of tester standing post-Trichell/Laufer), which could end the case pre-merits regardless of the barrier's merits. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2K–$8K Small, mismatched comparable set (mostly non-Title III ADA cases); no settlement or verdict data specific to physical accessibility car-wash suits; estimate highly speculative. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-08-31 | $2K–$8K rough EV |