Court & Arbitration Ledger on CIPA Record

Release 1 Docket Ledger

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Read this table correctly

This is a case-identification ledger, not a scorecard and not a claim that every docket proves a California Invasion of Privacy Act violation. A cross-reference in a defendant-filed Request for Judicial Notice can establish that a case belongs in the public litigation inventory; it cannot turn a party’s allegation into a court finding.

Release-1 count: 14 federal dockets are publicly cross-referenced to the CIPA/wiretap campaign or carry a direct wire-interception cause code. Three more are held in the probable bucket because their complaint text has not been independently reviewed. Four state-court identifiers are recorded separately because the underlying state files are not available through the free federal docket archive.

Shah v. TalentBridge, Inc.

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

What the public record supports

The public Ninth Circuit docket index identifies the appeal as Shah v. Talentbridge, Inc., No. 26-3514, arising from C.D. California No. 2:26-cv-00222-AH-SSCx. A public docket index lists a May 28, 2026 notice of appeal and later activity concerning costs.

Glaser Weil, counsel for TalentBridge, reports that the district court dismissed the action for lack of Article III standing and describes the dismissal as without leave to amend. That statement is counsel’s account of the result, not a substitute for the district-court order. This release therefore records the dismissal and the appeal separately.

Shah v. Pashion Footwear Inc.

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Docketed event sequence

The public docket index records a May 7, 2026 petition to vacate an arbitration award, a supporting declaration, and a June 2, 2026 notice of voluntary dismissal filed by Vivek Shah. Those are the events this entry treats as verified.

Limits of the record

Legal reporting has described an arbitrator’s treatment of CIPA and federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act claims. The underlying arbitration materials are not included in this release’s primary-source archive. For that reason, this page does not state the arbitrator’s reasoning, whether leave to amend was denied, or whether any merits ruling should be generalized beyond the matter.

Shah v. Card Delivery LLC

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

Docketed event sequence

CourtListener’s PACER/RECAP docket page records a complaint filed by Vivek Shah against Card Delivery LLC on September 9, 2025. It also records proof of service and a November 22, 2025 notice of voluntary dismissal filed by Shah. The docket text specifies that the dismissal was with prejudice.

What this outcome means — and does not mean

A voluntary dismissal with prejudice is a docketed procedural outcome. This project does not infer a settlement amount, a merits determination, or a reason for dismissal absent a source that establishes one.

Lofty Inc. v. Shah

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

What was filed

The public docket index identifies Lofty Inc. as plaintiff and Vivek Shah as movant/defendant in C.D. California No. 2:26-cv-07425. The complaint was filed July 8, 2026. The docket index identifies three attached exhibits: an initial demand letter, a response from Lofty, and a Shah reply.

How this site reports the claims

Lofty’s complaint is a party pleading. The project’s description of its requested declaratory relief and any asserted absence of CIPA liability is therefore attributed to Lofty. The existence of attached demand-letter exhibits is a docket fact; the truth of either side’s allegations is not adjudicated by their presence on the docket.

Ovadia Law Group, P.A. v. Shah

Mon, 20 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0000

What was filed

A publicly accessible filing PDF identifies a complaint filed by Ovadia Law Group, P.A. against Vivek Shah in the Southern District of Florida on June 26, 2026. Public docket reporting identifies the case as No. 0:26-cv-80766 and records an amended complaint.

The complaint’s assertions about a demand letter, CIPA’s application, jurisdiction, and alleged damages are Ovadia’s allegations. They are not findings by the court.

Why this action matters to the record

This is one of the publicly documented declaratory actions filed by an alleged recipient of a Shah demand. It is included because the complaint and docket are publicly accessible, not because this site adopts either party’s legal theory.