C.D. Cal. · No. 2:26-cv-11972
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Boot Barn Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Boot Barnsource ↗ filed by PLG Damage Attorneys · No. 2:26-cv-11972 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $29.50M–$76M ▾TCPA text/robocall claims show split outcomes: Howard v. RNC and Hulce v. Zipongo affirm dismissal on technical definitions, while League of Women Voters v. Kramer let TCPA claims survive MTD. No defendant-specific exemption (like Perrong's legislator carve-out) applies to a retailer like Boot Barn. Comparable settlements $29.50M–$76M median $36.20M · n=10 Caribbean Cruise L $76M · Dish Network $61M · US Coachways $49.90M Per member (realized): ~$20 median · $10–$500 (n=4) Comparable verdict: Dish Network, L.L.C. $61M · ccAdvertising and Dr $32.42M Key precedent: Howard v. RNC (9th Cir.) matters most since it's controlling 9th Cir. law on what counts as a prerecorded-voice text, directly relevant to C.D. Cal. venue. Main risk: Dismissal under 9th Circuit's narrow reading of 'artificial or prerecorded voice' calls/texts, as in Howard v. RNC. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $2M–$40M Small, noisy comparable set; actual class size and consent records unknown; outcome highly fact-dependent on text content and consent practices. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 3 verdicts | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | C.D. Cal. | 2026-10-14 | $29.50M–$76M comparable settlements |