M.D. Fla. · No. 6:26-cv-01954
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dillard's, Inc.source ↗ filed by Sconzo Law Office, P.A. · No. 6:26-cv-01954 · Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Case comparables ▾Lowell v. Lyft shows courts require plaintiffs to prove proposed modifications are effective, a burden many ADA accessibility claims fail to meet, while Holmes v. Bax shows ADA claims can survive summary judgment when well-supported. Outcome likely turns on specificity of alleged barriers and remedial feasibility. Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft, Inc. (2d Cir.) — dismissal affirmed because plaintiffs failed to prove effectiveness of proposed accommodation, a common pitfall in ADA accessibility suits. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead a concrete, provably effective remedy, as in Lowell v. Lyft. This defendant: Prior Price v. Dillard's ADA filing suggests recurring accessibility litigation exposure for this defendant. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $5K–$75K No settlement or verdict data specific to this theory/defendant; estimate relies on general ADA Title III remedy structure and thin comparable set. · grounded in 7 rulings, 0 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | M.D. Fla. | 2026-09-02 | $5K–$75K rough EV |