CASES / ledger
Release 1 Docket Ledger
A controlled inventory of federal and state-court references associated with the CIPA demand-letter record. It records source strength, not a conclusion about the merit of any claim.
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.
The two anchoring public filings are TalentBridge’s Request for Judicial Notice, ECF 14 and Crain Communications’ motion and exhibits, ECF 12. Both are defendant filings. The site uses them as an index of case identifiers, not as a finding that their characterizations are true.
Cross-referenced federal docket inventory
| Matter | Filed / forum | Why it is in this ledger | Publicly visible procedural record | Source class |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shah v. Mondelez Global LLC — 2:24-cv-08797-AB (Ex) | State case 24STCV23248 filed 2024-09-10; removed to C.D. Cal. 2024-10-11 | State removal record and campaign inventory | Joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice filed 2025-07-09; the docket does not disclose a settlement term. | B — RECAP docket |
| Shah v. Amplitude, Inc. — 2:24-cv-08155-MEMF-JPR | C.D. Cal., 2024-09-18 | Docket cause: 18:2510 Wire Interception; also indexed in the TalentBridge/Crain materials | Stay granted and case administratively closed 2024-12-03 pending a first-filed action; a later stipulation appears on the docket. | B — RECAP docket |
| Shah v. Card Delivery LLC — 2:25-cv-08731-JFW-MAA | C.D. Cal., 2025-09-09 | Listed in Crain’s public litigation inventory; the complaint text was not reviewed in this release | Notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed 2025-11-22. No payment, liability, or settlement term is inferred. | B — RECAP docket + court filing |
| Shah v. Russco57, LLC — 2:25-cv-12371-PA (MAx) | C.D. Cal., 2025-12-22 | Named as an initial/amended CIPA complaint exhibit in TalentBridge ECF 14 and Crain ECF 12 | The public cross-reference identifies the initial and amended complaint; this release has not independently retrieved the standalone docket page. | A/B — court-filed exhibit |
| Shah v. Secureworks Corp. — 2:25-cv-12381-ODW (PVCx) | C.D. Cal., 2025-12-22 | Identified by the TalentBridge and Crain litigation inventories | Docket records a motion to dismiss, opposition, and a Rule 41(a)(1) voluntary dismissal filed 2026-03-16. | B — RECAP docket |
| Shah v. Peridio, Inc. — 2:25-cv-12373-SB (CFe) | C.D. Cal., 2025-12-22 | CIPA-labeled exhibit in TalentBridge’s filing | Docket records jurisdiction orders, an amended complaint, and a voluntary dismissal with prejudice filed 2026-03-06. | B — RECAP docket |
| Shah v. Spectraforce Technologies, Inc. — 2:25-cv-12405-MWF (PVC) | C.D. Cal., 2025-12-22 | Included as a related campaign docket in the public inventory; complaint not reviewed | Docket records default-related events followed by a voluntary dismissal filed 2026-04-26. | B — RECAP docket; claim theory not independently reviewed |
| Shah v. TalentBridge, Inc. — 2:26-cv-00222-AH (SSC) | C.D. Cal., 2026-01-05 | Public CIPA-related matter with a docketed dismissal order and Ninth Circuit appeal | The district court entered an order granting dismissal on 2026-05-28; appeal No. 26-3514 was docketed. This site describes the order only through sources that identify its holding and does not overstate the appeal’s outcome. | A/B — order/docket; C — attributed analysis where order text unavailable |
| Shah v. BackOffice Associates, LLC — 2:26-cv-00848-MWC (SK) | C.D. Cal., 2026-01-19 | Listed in Crain’s court-filed inventory | Docket records a motion to dismiss and a voluntary dismissal filed 2026-04-01. | B — RECAP docket |
| Shah v. Drexel Chemical Company — 2:26-cv-01605-HDV (KESx) | C.D. Cal., 2026-02-11 | TalentBridge’s exhibit labels the matter “CIPA - 26CV01605” | Docket records an amended complaint, dismissal briefing, stay-related briefing, and a hearing. The release does not state a merits outcome. | A/B — court-filed exhibit + RECAP docket |
| Shah v. Vor Biopharma, Inc. — 2:26-cv-01292-SPG (JDE) | C.D. Cal., 2026-02-03 | Appears in Crain’s litigation inventory | Docket records a voluntary dismissal filed 2026-05-03. Complaint text not independently reviewed. | B — RECAP docket |
| Shah v. Crain Communications, Inc. — 2:26-cv-03070-RGK (AGR) | C.D. Cal., 2026-03-18 | It is itself the source of the 26-exhibit public inventory | Defendant filed a motion titled “Motion to Declare Plaintiff a Vexatious Litigant and Require Security” on 2026-06-01. That is a pending party request, not a judicial finding. The docket later records an amended complaint and renewed dismissal briefing. | A/B — court filing + RECAP docket |
| Shah v. Udemy, Inc. — 2:26-cv-06527-PA (RAOx) | C.D. Cal., 2026-06-13 | Docket cause: 18:2510 Wire Interception | Complaint and docketed stay materials are publicly listed; a stay was granted 2026-07-10. | B — RECAP docket |
| Shah v. Imprint.com LLC — 2:26-cv-06526-MWC (PAD) | C.D. Cal., 2026-06-13 | Same filing wave as Udemy; held in the cross-referenced inventory, but the complaint has not been independently read | Docket records service executed 2026-07-09. | B — RECAP docket; claim theory not independently reviewed |
Probable, not counted as confirmed
These matters are identified in the public litigation inventory or filing wave, but the available docket metadata does not let this release confidently characterize the claims as CIPA/wiretap claims. They are not included in the 14-docket headline count.
| Matter | Reason for hold | Public source |
|---|---|---|
| Shah v. Bumble Trading LLC — 2:24-cv-08202-SVW (MAR) | Same filing wave and referenced in Crain’s inventory, but the complaint was not retrieved; voluntarily dismissed 2024-11-14. | B — RECAP docket |
| Shah v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. — 2:24-cv-08601-AH-E | Listed as an exhibit in Crain’s filing; the docket and complaint were not independently retrieved for this release. | A — Crain ECF 12 exhibit list |
| Shah v. The Harvard Drug Group LLC — 2:24-cv-08979-MEMF (SK) | Mentioned in Crain’s inventory but docket metadata is atypical and the complaint text has not been reviewed. It was dismissed in 2025; the ledger does not infer a CIPA theory. | B — RECAP docket |
State-court identifiers: public cross-references, no independent state-file review
Los Angeles Superior Court matters are not treated as independently verified merely because they are named in a federal filing. The state-file identifiers below are preserved as research leads with their source:
- Shah v. Mondelez Global LLC, No. 24STCV23248 — directly corroborated by federal removal records; see the first row above.
- Shah v. WPROMOTE LLC, No. 24STCV23077 — listed in TalentBridge ECF 14 and Crain ECF 12.
- Shah v. Sportsmans Warehouse Holdings, Inc., No. 24STCV23080 — listed in Crain ECF 12.
- Shah v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 24STCV23303 — listed in Crain ECF 12.
- Shah v. Woodbury University, No. 24STCV25365 — listed in TalentBridge ECF 14 and Crain ECF 12.
Actions filed against Shah after demand activity
These matters are not “wins” or adjudications for either side. They record that an entity filed a petition or complaint, and the allegations within remain allegations unless an order says otherwise.
| Matter | Filed / posture | What the source establishes |
|---|---|---|
| Wild Alaskan, Inc. v. Shah — 2:26-cv-07294 | C.D. Cal., 2026-07-06 | A public docket lists an action against Shah; the accessible source did not permit this release to characterize the underlying demand beyond that. |
| Lofty Inc. v. Shah — 2:26-cv-07425-CFE | C.D. Cal., 2026-07-08 | Complaint exhibits reportedly include an initial demand letter. The company seeks declaratory relief; its descriptions of the demand and plaintiff are party allegations. |
| Ovadia Law Group, P.A. v. Shah — 9:26-cv-80766 | S.D. Fla., 2026-06-26 | The public docket identifies a declaratory-judgment action. Any abuse-of-process theory is an unadjudicated claim in the complaint. |
Explicit exclusions
The release does not treat unrelated consumer-credit, copyright, housing, or other matters as part of the CIPA campaign. It also does not conflate similarly named litigants: Shah v. Fandom, Inc. names Vishal Shah, not Vivek Shah.
The complete release register, including source classes and update rules, is available in the repository at docs/SOURCE-REGISTER.md.