Docketwise data breach settlement claims due October 15

The Docketwise data breach settlement gives eligible notice recipients a choice between $50 in alternative cash and reimbursement of qualifying expenses and lost time up to $5,000 combined. Two years of credit monitoring is available alongside either cash route. These are proposed benefits, not payments already approved for every person.

The official claim deadline is October 15, 2026. Online claims must arrive by 11:59 p.m. Eastern; mailed forms must be postmarked by that date. The earlier opt-out and objection deadlines have passed. Readers should distinguish the still-open claim process from rights deadlines that are no longer open under the published schedule.

The court-authorized FAQ describes the incident, allegations and benefit rules. Docketwise denies the claims and wrongdoing. The court has not decided which side is right, and the settlement still needs final approval. A notice indicates possible involvement, not proof that every listed data category was exposed for its recipient.

The defendant is 8am, LLC, doing business as Docketwise. Doing business as, often written d/b/a, identifies the operating name rather than a separate defendant. Docketwise sells immigration case-management software to law firms. Its product page describes client intake, immigration forms, case tracking, communications, billing and payments.

That service relationship explains why a person who never purchased software may receive a notice. A law firm using Docketwise can hold client information through the service. The settlement concerns current and former customers of companies using Docketwise, not a rule that all immigration clients qualify.

Ngozi Emerokwam and Isse Abdi are the class representatives, the people bringing claims for others with similar issues. The case is pending in the 11th Judicial Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Florida, number 2026-011702-CA-01. Tonyia Johnson of Shamis & Gentile, P.A. and Scott Edelsberg of Edelsberg Law, P.A. are appointed class counsel, the lawyers representing the group.

Kroll Settlement Administration LLC handles the official process. Kroll also supplies the offered monitoring service. These functions are different from deciding liability, which belongs to the court. The reviewed FAQ does not identify the third-party partner by name or supply defense-counsel details; this article does not infer them.

According to the official FAQ, in or around October 2025 cybercriminals accessed credentials for one of Docketwise's third-party partner repositories and potentially acquired personal information. Credentials are information used to gain access; a repository is a place where digital information is stored. This description does not establish an intrusion into every Docketwise system.

Potentially involved categories include names and addresses; driver, state, passport and other government identification numbers; Social Security and taxpayer numbers; financial and payment-card information, including some access information; health insurance and medical information; non-numerical immigration information; and non-financial account usernames and access information. The FAQ says some combination of those categories, not every category for every person.

Docketwise began notifying affected people on April 15, 2026. The plaintiffs challenged both protection of the information and notification timing. The parties later agreed to settle. The official documents index lists the complaint, agreement, preliminary approval materials and final-approval motion, but this article does not assign unverified filing or order dates from documents that could not be retrieved.

The plaintiffs allege inadequate protection and delayed notification. The FAQ identifies negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment among their claims. Negligence concerns an alleged failure to use legally required care. Negligence per se invokes a claimed violation of a legal requirement as part of that theory. An implied contract is an alleged agreement inferred from conduct; unjust enrichment concerns allegedly retaining a benefit unfairly. Naming a theory does not establish that it succeeds.

Docketwise denies all claims, denies wrongdoing and says it has not violated laws. Both sides agreed to settle to avoid trial costs and risks. The plaintiffs' lawyers consider the settlement to be in the group's interests. Those attributed positions do not resolve the disputed facts.

The official site says the court authorized notice and appointed counsel. These steps permit a settlement process; they are not a finding that Docketwise caused each claimed loss. Class certification, where applicable, concerns whether claims can be handled together and is distinct from proving fault.

The court still must decide final approval. It will also consider a fee-and-expense request up to $300,000 and proposed $2,500 awards for each of the two representatives, payable by Docketwise if approved. This article does not call those requests awarded amounts or invent a total common fund that the FAQ does not specify.

The official homepage includes living individuals residing in the United States sent notice, including settlement notice, that their information may have been involved. Membership does not require familiarity with the Docketwise brand. If you lack the notice or are unsure about membership, ask Kroll rather than assuming that every former legal client is covered.

The exclusions include court personnel and families, governments, the defendant and specified related entities and officers or directors, and valid opt-outs. The FAQ also excludes people convicted of specified conduct causing or assisting the incident, or who entered a no-contest plea to such charges. A no-contest plea does not contest a criminal charge; this exclusion should not be shortened into a vague rule about criminal history generally.

Begin at the official website and use its Submit Claim button, which leads to Kroll's filing system. Alternatively, download the paper form from Important Documents or request one from Kroll at (833) 930-0562. Mail goes to Ngozi Emerokwam, et al. v. 8am LLC d/b/a Docketwise, c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC, P.O. Box 225391, New York, NY 10150-5391.

Choose one cash option and request monitoring if wanted. For expenses, supply receipts, invoices, statements or other third-party records that demonstrate unreimbursed costs fairly traceable to the incident. Self-written explanations can clarify other evidence but do not suffice alone. Complete any time attestation accurately, keep confirmation and update your address if it changes. Submitting an inquiry to Class Action Pulse does not file a claim with Kroll.

The $50 alternative requires no supporting loss documents or lost-time attestation. Choosing it makes you ineligible for reimbursement of expenses or time. It does not eliminate class-membership and valid-claim requirements.

The reimbursement route covers eligible expenses, such as unreimbursed identity-theft losses, professional fees, credit protection and incident-related miscellaneous expenses. They must be fairly traceable to the breach and not already paid by another source. Credit monitoring expenses must fall between the incident and claim submission under the FAQ. Time spent responding can be claimed without expense receipts through an attestation, up to three hours at $25 per hour. That $75 maximum is inside the combined $5,000 ceiling.

Monitoring is a separate, combinable benefit. Request two years of Kroll one-bureau monitoring through a valid claim. The FAQ says activation codes will be emailed or mailed within fourteen days after the effective date and remain active for 180 days after mailing. Monitoring alerts you to activity at one credit bureau; it is not a cash award or a promise to prevent all misuse.

The cash and monitoring claim deadline is October 15, 2026, with the online cutoff at 11:59 p.m. Eastern and a same-day postmark rule for mail. The opt-out and objection deadlines were September 15, 2026. This article does not suggest those opportunities remain open or assume an extension.

Members who did not validly opt out are bound by the released claims if the settlement takes effect, including people who submit no claim. Doing nothing does not generate benefits. The release covers Docketwise and defined released parties, not only the name shown in the headline. Read the agreement for its full scope and seek independent counsel for individualized rights questions. An objection challenges settlement terms; exclusion removes someone from the settlement and its benefits.

Personally identifiable information is data that identifies or can be linked to a person. An attestation is a statement affirming that claimed information is true. Documented out-of-pocket losses are expenses shown by records, not merely time or concern. Final approval is the court's decision to accept the settlement. The effective date follows approval and resolution of challenges under the agreement; it is not necessarily the hearing date.

The final-approval hearing is scheduled for October 19, 2026 at 2:45 p.m. Eastern in a virtual courtroom. Attendance is optional. Check the official site for any schedule or access update. Benefits depend on final approval and resolution of any appeals. The official FAQ gives no guaranteed delivery date for a particular claimant.

This article relies on the court-authorized homepage and fully read current FAQ for controlling claim rules, alongside the documents index and company product page. Linked complaint, notice and order PDFs were not independently retrievable during this review. No precise approval date, nationwide affected-person count or additional damages allegation is asserted from those unavailable files.

Class Action Pulse is not a law firm or settlement administrator and cannot guarantee eligibility or payment. Follow Kroll's official materials for claims and monitoring, not this site's inquiry form.