E.D.N.Y · No. 2:26-cv-05873
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Louisville Ladder, Inc.source ↗ filed by Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC · Judge Steven I. Locke · No. 2:26-cv-05873 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $200M–$740M ▾None of the cited comparables involve false-advertising products claims directly on point; most concern data breach, arbitration, or wage law, limiting predictive value. Two prior Louisville Ladder false-advertising filings (Magro, Braun) suggest a recurring litigation pattern rather than a one-off dispute. Comparable settlements $200M–$740M median $274.75M · n=10 DiDi Global Inc. $740M · Merck & Co. Inc. a $688M · Toyota Industries $436M Per member (realized): ~$2,500 median · $2,500–$2,500 (n=1) Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · Vital Pharmaceutical $293M Key precedent: Cetorelli v. Duell Action Builders is closest analog (consumer deceptive-practices claim surviving with damages award), showing such claims can succeed when marketing misrepresentation is well-pled. Main risk: Weak factual/legal fit with available comparables; case may be dismissed early if plaintiffs can't show actionable misstatement distinct from generic ladder marketing. This defendant: Multiple prior false-advertising suits (Magro, Braun) against Louisville Ladder suggest repeat exposure to similar claims. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $80K–$22.50M Highly speculative: no case-specific facts, revenue, or class data; benchmark n=1 and unrelated product category weaken precision. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 9 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | E.D.N.Y | 2026-09-22 | $200M–$740M comparable settlements |