D. Colo. · No. 1:26-cv-05136
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oneflight International, Inc.source ↗ filed by Potts Law Firm LLP · No. 1:26-cv-05136 · 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $200M–$688M ▾No directly on-point false-advertising rulings exist in the comparable set; most cited cases (Cocom, Martinez, Guthrie) involve arbitration, wage, or UCL class-cert issues rather than deceptive-ad claims. Defendant's reported flight suspensions and $150M at-risk prepayments suggest factual basis for misrepresentation claims but also insolvency risk undermining recovery. Comparable settlements $200M–$688M median $237.50M · n=10 Merck & Co. Inc. a $688M · Toyota Industries $436M · Toyota Industries $299.50M Per member (realized): ~$2,500 median · $2,500–$2,500 (n=1) Comparable verdict: Papaya $420M · VPX, Inc. $293M Key precedent: Guthrie v. Transamerica — shows courts often deny class cert on advertising claims needing individualized reliance proof, a risk here. Main risk: Individualized reliance/damages issues (as in Guthrie) and defendant's apparent financial distress limiting collectible recovery. This defendant: Second false-advertising filing (Jinnah v. Oneflight) suggests a recurring pattern of consumer complaints. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $62K–$6.25M Comparables are largely unrelated to false advertising theory or defendant's industry/scale; estimate highly speculative given small, distressed defendant. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 9 verdicts | Filing | False Advertising | D. Colo. | 2026-10-09 | $200M–$688M comparable settlements |