Perusek v. The Ensign Group, Inc.

C.D. Cal. · No. 8:26-cv-02963

No federal docket timeline hydrated for this case yet (state-court settlements have no RECAP docket).

Our records for this case (1)

Matter	Type	Practice area	Court	Date	Value
The Ensign Group, Inc.source ↗ filed by Rosen Law Firm PA · No. 8:26-cv-02963 · 12:22 Securities Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾ Healthcare privacy/tracking-tech claims show split outcomes: Doe v. Bayhealth and Integris Health allowed confidentiality/privacy claims to proceed, while Santoro v. Tower Health dismissed nearly identical Meta Pixel claims with prejudice. Outcome likely turns on specific statutory theory (wiretap vs. confidentiality) and jurisdictional nuances. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Doe v. Bayhealth Medical Ctr. — healthcare provider duty of confidentiality for tracking-tech disclosures survived MTD, most factually analogous to Ensign's likely pixel/tracking claims. Main risk: Dismissal with prejudice as in Santoro v. Tower Health, where Meta Pixel health-data-sharing claims failed and amendment was denied for undue delay Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $1M–$80M Small, heterogeneous comparable set mixing healthcare and biometric/tech cases; true class size and claim theory (CIPA wiretap vs. confidentiality) unconfirmed, driving wide uncertainty. · grounded in 9 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts	Filing	Privacy & Wiretap	C.D. Cal.	2026-10-08	$59.50M–$725M comparable settlements