M.D. Fla. · No. 8:26-cv-03338
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New Port Richey-H LLCsource ↗ filed by Richard Celler Legal PA · No. 8:26-cv-03338 · 28:1331 Fed. Question: Employment Discrimination · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Pixel/tracking privacy claims against healthcare-adjacent defendants split sharply: Bayhealth and Rand v. Eyemart survived dismissal, while Tower Health and Nuance were dismissed outright, showing outcome hinges on specific statutory theory and consent facts. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $81.50M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Google LLC $135M Per member (realized): ~$29 median · $29–$29 (n=2) Comparable verdict: Google LLC $425.70M · Google LLC $425.65M Key precedent: Rand v. Eyemart Express (5th Cir.) - revived Wiretap Act/IIHI disclosure claims via Meta Pixel, closely matching a single-location consumer entity like this defendant. Main risk: Dismissal on consent/exemption grounds as in Tower Health and Nuance, or narrow class definition limiting exposure Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $20K–$1.10M Defendant identity/business type unclear from web signals (city data mismatched); figures are rough order-of-magnitude given single-entity small-class assumption. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | M.D. Fla. | 2026-11-03 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |