E.D. Pa. · No. 5:26-cv-07365
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LPsource ↗ filed by Garibian Law Offices PC · No. 5:26-cv-07365 · 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $2.40M–$100M ▾Comparable FCRA furnisher rulings like Minano v. DLJ Mortgage show courts routinely dismiss claims lacking private right of action or insufficient pleading, while Askins v. CRST shows bare disclosure violations can survive on standing grounds. Outcomes for debt-buyer/furnisher defendants like Resurgent are highly fact-dependent on which FCRA/FDCPA subsection is pled. Comparable settlements $2.40M–$100M median $5.85M · n=10 Equifax $100M · Equifax $30M · Equifax Informatio $30M Per member (realized): ~$102 median · $25–$500 (n=3) Comparable verdict: TransUnion $60M · TransUnion, LLC $40M Key precedent: Minano v. DLJ Mortgage Capital, Inc. (D.D.C.) — closely analogous furnisher-liability FCRA claims dismissed for lack of private right of action and insufficient pleading, a common posture for entities like Resurgent. Main risk: Dismissal of core FCRA counts for lacking private right of action or insufficient factual allegations, as in Minano, leaving only narrower FDCPA claims. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): –$1.25M Small, heterogeneous comparable set with no direct Resurgent precedent; class size is speculative absent explicit certification data, so estimate is a wide directional range, not a precise projection. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 2 verdicts | Filing | Consumer Credit (FCRA/FDCPA) | E.D. Pa. | 2026-09-24 | $2.40M–$100M comparable settlements |