Plaintiff law firm
Almeida Law Group LLC
Federal dockets naming the firm
- Last 90 days
- 1
- Last 12 months
- 8
- Most recent filing
- Jul 15, 2026
- Based in
- California
- Files over
- Website tracking
The short answer
Almeida Law Group LLC, based in California, is a plaintiff-side law firm named on 8 federal website tracking lawsuit dockets in the last 12 months, 1 of them in the last 90 days, most recently on Jul 15, 2026. Most of its verified filings are against businesses in California. Counts come from CourtListener docket records and refresh daily.
Where it files
The states and courts in its verified filings
Defendants by state
Verified filings, 12 monthsFederal courts
Verified filings, 12 months- 1District Court, N.D. California4 filings
- 2District Court, C.D. California2 filings
- 3District Court, D. Massachusetts2 filings
- 4District Court, E.D. California1 filing
- 5District Court, S.D. Iowa1 filing
- 6District Court, S.D. New York1 filing
Trend
Almeida Law Group LLC filings, month by month
Website accessibility (ADA) Website tracking (CIPA)
October 2025 to September 2026, current month to dateIndustries
Industries it sues
By the defendant's industry
Verified filings, 12 monthsCourt records
Latest verified filings by Almeida Law Group LLC
- TrackingCourt recordfor Wilce v. Willow Health Services, Inc. (opens in a new tab)
Wilce v. Willow Health Services, Inc.
E.D. California, filed by Almeida Law Group LLC
- TrackingCourt recordfor A.G. v. STIIIZY, Inc (opens in a new tab)
A.G. v. STIIIZY, Inc
C.D. California, filed by Almeida Law Group LLC
- TrackingCourt recordfor Nicki Apaydin v. Rover Group, Inc. (opens in a new tab)
Nicki Apaydin v. Rover Group, Inc.
C.D. California, filed by Janove PLLC
- TrackingCourt recordfor N.G. v. Walgreen Co. (opens in a new tab)
N.G. v. Walgreen Co.
N.D. California, filed by Almeida Law Group LLC
- TrackingCourt recordfor Hsu v. Fantasia Trading LLC (opens in a new tab)
Hsu v. Fantasia Trading LLC
N.D. California, filed by Almeida Law Group LLC
- TrackingCourt recordfor Ward v. Mochi Health Corp. (opens in a new tab)
Ward v. Mochi Health Corp.
N.D. California, filed by Peiffer Wolf Carr Kane Conway & Wise LLP
- TrackingCourt recordfor Morehart v. Openloop Health, Inc. (opens in a new tab)
Morehart v. Openloop Health, Inc.
S.D. Iowa, filed by Milberg, PLLC
- TrackingCourt recordfor Christy v. Lenovo (United States) Inc. (opens in a new tab)
Christy v. Lenovo (United States) Inc.
N.D. California, filed by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
- TrackingCourt recordfor Diego v. Blockratize, Inc. (opens in a new tab)
Diego v. Blockratize, Inc.
S.D. New York, filed by Almeida Law Group LLC
- TrackingCourt recordfor M.C. 1 v. Curriculum Associates, LLC (opens in a new tab)
M.C. 1 v. Curriculum Associates, LLC
D. Massachusetts, filed by DOJ-Civ, Civil Division
- TrackingCourt recordfor M.C. 1 v. Curriculum Associates, LLC (opens in a new tab)
M.C. 1 v. Curriculum Associates, LLC
D. Massachusetts, filed by Hecht Partners LLP
Questions owners ask
- I received a letter from Almeida Law Group LLC. What should I do?
- Do not ignore it and do not reply before talking to a lawyer. Preserve the site as it is by taking dated screenshots and a scan, then fix what the letter cites so the record shows the changes and when they happened. The guides on this site explain what these letters usually say and how owners typically respond in the first week.
- Is this every case the firm has filed?
- No. The counts are federal dockets that name the firm in CourtListener's records, and the list shows the ones Suitcast has verified as website cases. State-court cases without a public source are not counted, so these numbers are a floor.
- Why does the firm appear on this site?
- Court filings are public records and the firm's name appears on each docket. Suitcast publishes counts and links to those records so business owners can see who is active in their state. It does not comment on the firm and it does not contact the businesses named as defendants.
Keep going
Check your site for what this firm cites
Suitcast identifies risk indicators. It is not legal advice and does not determine compliance.