C.D. Cal. · No. 2:26-cv-09801
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trader Joes Companysource ↗ filed by Valenti Law APC · No. 2:26-cv-09801 · 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾Comparable rulings split: Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations but vacated the injunction for implementation gaps, while Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs failed to prove proposed modifications were 'reasonable.' Outcome likely turns heavily on specificity of alleged barriers and remedy sought. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) matters most — courts require plaintiffs to prove effectiveness/reasonableness of requested accessibility fix, a common failure point in retail ADA suits. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead a concrete, provably effective architectural/service remedy, as in Lowell v. Lyft. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $8K–$200K No settlement or verdict data specific to this defendant/theory; estimate relies on statutory Unruh Act anchor and small-class assumption typical of retail ADA accessibility suits. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | C.D. Cal. | 2026-09-01 | $8K–$200K rough EV |