C.D. Cal. · No. 2:26-cv-10862
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mei-Fu Inc.source ↗ filed by The Strojnik Law Firm · Judge Michelle Williams Court · No. 2:26-cv-10862 · 42:12101 Americans With Disabilities Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $65K–$530K ▾ADA accessibility claims split in comparables: Holmes v. Bax affirmed ADA violations while Lowell v. Lyft and Billesdon affirmed dismissal of ADA claims for insufficient proof of effective modification. Outcome likely turns on specificity of the accessibility barrier alleged and remedy feasibility. 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, Inc. (2d Cir.) — plaintiff bears burden to show proposed modification is effective; failure to do so dooms ADA claims at pleading/summary stage. Main risk: Dismissal for failure to plead a concrete, effective accommodation, as in Lowell v. Lyft and the reversed portions of Billesdon. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $4K–$600K Web signals are largely irrelevant/noisy (unrelated Mei Fu entities); class size and defendant identity are highly uncertain, limiting reliability of this estimate. · grounded in 7 rulings, 3 settlements, 0 verdicts | Filing | ADA / Accessibility | C.D. Cal. | 2026-09-22 | $65K–$530K comparable settlements |