E.D. Pa. · No. 2:26-cv-07319
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABSOLUTE RESOLUTIONS INVESTMENTS, LLCsource ↗ filed by Credit Law Office · Judge Antonio M. Pozos · No. 2:26-cv-07319 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $2.25M–$100M ▾Comparable FCRA/FDCPA rulings split: Minano dismissed most furnisher claims for lack of private right of action, while Askins and Wright show courts allowing statutory violations to proceed. Debt-buyer specific claims (Wright v. PRA) suggest documentation/standing defenses are a live risk for Absolute Resolutions. Comparable settlements $2.25M–$100M median $3.25M · n=10 Equifax $100M · TransUnion $8.31M · Trader Joe's $7.40M Per member (realized): ~$102 median · $25–$500 (n=3) Comparable verdict: TransUnion $60M · TransUnion, LLC $40M Key precedent: Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital (D.D.C.) — shows FCRA furnisher claims often dismissed absent private right of action, a likely defense for a debt buyer like Absolute Resolutions. Main risk: Dismissal of FCRA claims for lack of private right of action or failure to plead concrete injury, as in Minano and Soul v. Christiansen. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $6K–$500K Small, heterogeneous comparable set; defendant is a niche debt buyer with no prior litigation history on record, so class size and outcome are highly uncertain. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-23 | $2.25M–$100M comparable settlements |