S.D. Fla. · No. 1:26-cv-26504
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H & M Fashion USA, Inc.source ↗ filed by Brasil , Brasil PA · Judge Rodolfo Armando Ruiz II · No. 1:26-cv-26504 · 42:12182 Americans with Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $65K–$530K ▾ADA Title III accessibility suits split on outcome — Lowell v. Lyft affirmed dismissal for failure to prove effective modification, while Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations at summary judgment; S.D. Fla. is a high-volume forum for these single-plaintiff tester suits. Comparable settlements $65K–$530K median $200K · n=3 Covenant Retiremen $530K · Association of Apa $200K · Home Depot U.S.A., $65K Key precedent: Lowell v. Lyft (2d Cir.) — shows plaintiffs bear burden proving proposed accessibility fix is reasonable/effective, a common defense angle here. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to show a reasonable, effective accommodation exists, as in Lowell v. Lyft Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2K–$15K No prior H&M records, no direct verdict comparables, and settlement data is from larger institutional cases, not single-plaintiff ADA testers — wide uncertainty. · grounded in 7 rulings, 3 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | S.D. Fla. | 2026-09-21 | $65K–$530K comparable settlements |