D. Ariz. · No. 2:26-cv-07777
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority 1 Lending LLCsource ↗ filed by Kaufman PA · Judge Michael T. Liburdi · No. 2:26-cv-07777 · 47:227 Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $29.50M–$76M ▾TCPA rulings are split: Howard and Hulce dismissed on narrow technical grounds (voice/solicitation definitions), while League of Women Voters survived MTD on core robocall claims; a lending company's solicitation calls fit the surviving fact pattern better. 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, LLC $61M · ccAdvertising and Dr $32.42M Key precedent: League of Women Voters v. Kramer (D.N.H.) - TCPA robocall claim survived MTD where plaintiffs alleged concrete injury from unconsented calls, closer fact pattern than dismissed cases. Main risk: Dismissal if calls don't meet 'artificial/prerecorded voice' initiation standard per Howard v. RNC, or if texts framed as non-solicitation per Hulce Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $20K–$900K Small sample, no prior defendant history, class size inferred indirectly from lack of scale signals rather than actual call volume data. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 3 verdicts | Filing | Robocalls & Texts (TCPA) | D. Ariz. | 2026-10-22 | $29.50M–$76M comparable settlements |