D.S.C. · No. 2:26-cv-05480
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Landmark Construction Company, Inc.source ↗ filed by Wigger Law Firm · Judge Richard Mark Gergel · No. 2:26-cv-05480 · 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race) · view case timeline → Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M ▾Privacy/wiretap claims split in comparables: Rand v. Eyemart Express and Doe v. Bayhealth survived disclosure/confidentiality theories, while Santoro v. Tower Health and Cisneros v. Nuance were dismissed on exemption/undue-delay grounds. Landmark is a small regional contractor, not a tech platform, so class size and tracking-tech exposure are far smaller than mega-settlement comparables. Comparable settlements $59.50M–$725M median $115M · n=10 Meta $725M · Google $425M · Apple $250M 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.) - shows wiretap/disclosure claims via tracking tech can survive dismissal even for non-tech defendants with websites. Main risk: Dismissal risk mirrors Santoro v. Tower Health, where undue delay/pleading deficiencies on tracking-tech disclosure claims led to dismissal with prejudice. Rough EV model (wide — class size is the big unknown, not a prediction): $8K–$1.50M No prior record for this defendant; comparables are mostly large tech-platform tracking-pixel cases, poor fit for a small construction firm — figures are highly speculative. · grounded in 10 rulings, 10 settlements, 4 verdicts | Filing | Privacy & Wiretap | D.S.C. | 2026-11-05 | $59.50M–$725M comparable settlements |