Skip to content

Plaintiff law firm

Drury Legal, LLC

Drury Legal, LLC files website tracking lawsuits against businesses. See where it files and what its complaints cite, then check whether your site has the same issues.

Free, about a minute, no signup for your score.

Federal dockets naming the firm

Last 90 days
0
Last 12 months
4
Most recent filing
Apr 23, 2026
Based in
California
Files over
Website tracking
Counts include federal filings from CourtListener and curated state filings with sources. State-court coverage is partial.

The short answer

Drury Legal, LLC, based in California, is a plaintiff-side law firm named on 4 federal website tracking lawsuit dockets in the last 12 months, 0 of them in the last 90 days, most recently on Apr 23, 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

Verified filings in the last 12 months, by the defendant's state and by the federal court the case was filed in.

Defendants by state

Verified filings, 12 months
  1. 1California3
  2. 2New York2

Federal courts

Verified filings, 12 months
  1. 1District Court, N.D. California2
  2. 2District Court, S.D. New York2
  3. 3District Court, C.D. California1

Trend

Drury Legal, LLC filings, month by month

Verified filings linked to the firm, by the month they were filed. Firms file in batches, which is why months jump.

Website accessibility (ADA) Website tracking (CIPA)

October 2025 to September 2026, current month to date

Court records

Latest verified filings by Drury Legal, LLC

Newest first. Every row links to the court record.
  1. Tracking

    Melunsky v. LinkedIn Corporation

    N.D. California, filed by Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP

    Court recordfor Melunsky v. LinkedIn Corporation (opens in a new tab)
  2. Tracking

    Farrell v. LinkedIn Corporation

    N.D. California, filed by Drury Legal, LLC

    Court recordfor Farrell v. LinkedIn Corporation (opens in a new tab)
  3. Tracking

    Doe 1 v. Grow Care, Inc.

    S.D. New York, filed by Bursor & Fisher, P.A.

    Court recordfor Doe 1 v. Grow Care, Inc. (opens in a new tab)
  4. Tracking

    Sharika Sawer v. Arlozorov9, Inc.

    S.D. New York, filed by Mullen Coughlin LLC

    Court recordfor Sharika Sawer v. Arlozorov9, Inc. (opens in a new tab)
  5. Tracking

    Robert Perkins v. Plushcare, Inc.

    C.D. California, filed by Drury Legal, LLC

    Court recordfor Robert Perkins v. Plushcare, Inc. (opens in a new tab)

Questions owners ask

What to do with a letter from this firm, and what these numbers include.
I received a letter from Drury Legal, 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

The free scan loads five public pages and lists the trackers that fire before consent and the accessibility failures complaints cite, so the conversation with your lawyer starts with facts.

Free, about a minute, no signup for your score.

Suitcast identifies risk indicators. It is not legal advice and does not determine compliance.