Multiple Ortiz-related finance lawsuits were active in March 2026, and they do not involve the same people, the same money, or the same deadlines. The finance lawsuit Ortiz Inc March search covers at least four separate legal tracks: a Fair Credit Reporting Act case against Westlake Financial, an Equifax settlement, an SEC fraud action against David P. Ortiz, and a later fraud suit against Service Finance.
If you dealt with any of those companies, this guide tells you which case matters to you. It also flags the March 2026 dates that changed the shape of each case.
One surprising fact: the Westlake case was filed in Pinal County Superior Court on January 9, 2026, then removed to federal court, and by March 24, 2026 the plaintiffs were already fighting over an amended complaint. Speed matters in these cases.
Here is the plain-English breakdown of each track, who qualifies, and what to do next.
Related: Gaming Lawsuit June 2026: Who Qualifies and What to Expect
What Is the Ortiz Inc Finance Lawsuit About?
The Ortiz Inc finance lawsuit is not one case. It is a group of separate federal and state cases filed by or against people named Ortiz, each tied to a different financial product or company. The common thread is consumer finance, credit reporting, or investment fraud.
The highest-profile March 2026 track is Ortiz et al v. Westlake Financial Services et al, case number 2:26-cv-01231 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Rene Ortiz filed it over alleged Fair Credit Reporting Act violations.
A second track is Ortiz v. Equifax Information Services LLC, a New Jersey federal case that settled and was dismissed with prejudice in March 2026. A third is SEC v. David P. Ortiz and DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc., an enforcement action over $18 million in oil and gas securities sold to about 20 retail investors.
A fourth track, Ortiz v. Service Finance Co., LLC, was filed later in August 2026 and is not a March 2026 event, but it shows the Ortiz name keeps appearing in consumer finance litigation.
| Case Track | Court | Core Claim | March 2026 Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ortiz v. Westlake Financial | Arizona District Court | Fair Credit Reporting Act | Amended complaint fight |
| Ortiz v. Equifax | New Jersey District Court | Credit reporting | Dismissed with prejudice |
| SEC v. David P. Ortiz | Central District of California | Unregistered securities fraud | Remedies hearing March 23 |
| Ortiz v. Service Finance | Eastern District of California | Fraud, personal property | Filed later, August 2026 |
Ortiz v Westlake Financial Services Case Details
Ortiz v. Westlake Financial Services is a consumer credit case that started in Pinal County Superior Court on January 9, 2026, and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The case number is 2:26-cv-01231.
The plaintiffs, Maria Del Socorro Ortiz and Rene Ortiz, proceeded pro se at the start. They sued Westlake Financial Services, Emek Auto Sales, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. The nature of suit is listed as 480 Other Statutes, Consumer Credit, with the cause tied to the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
March 2026 was a turning point. On March 24, 2026, Judge Dominic W. Lanza denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend without prejudice. The order told the parties to meet and confer on whether amendment could happen by stipulation.
The case got harder after March. On May 5, 2026, the court granted motions to dismiss from Experian, TransUnion, and Westlake. Westlake and Emek Auto Sales were dismissed as defendants without prejudice and without leave to amend.
Quick Facts
- Case number: 2:26-cv-01231
- Court: U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
- Filed in state court: January 9, 2026
- March 2026 order: March 24, 2026, motion to amend denied without prejudice
- May 2026 order: May 5, 2026, motions to dismiss granted
Who Qualifies for the Ortiz Finance Lawsuit?
Who qualifies depends on which Ortiz case you are looking at. There is no single class definition that covers every Ortiz finance lawsuit.
For the Westlake FCRA case, the plaintiffs were borrowers or consumers who disputed credit information connected to Westlake Financial Services or Emek Auto Sales. Because the case was filed pro se and later trimmed by dismissals, the practical class is narrow. The court did not certify a broad consumer class in March 2026.
For the Equifax case, the plaintiff was Arquely Ortiz, and the dispute involved a consumer credit claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. That case settled and was dismissed with prejudice. The settlement terms were not published in the docket, so a reader cannot confirm a payout range from the court record alone.
For the SEC action, the harmed parties were investors who bought oil and gas securities marketed by David P. Ortiz and DaveGlo Investment Group. The SEC alleged about $18 million was sold to roughly 20 retail investors.
| Case | Who It Covers | Who It Does Not Cover |
|---|---|---|
| Westlake FCRA | Consumers with credit reporting disputes tied to Westlake or Emek | General Westlake borrowers with no dispute |
| Equifax FCRA | The named plaintiff and similarly situated disputants, if any class was certified | Consumers with unrelated Equifax disputes |
| SEC v. Ortiz | Investors in DaveGlo oil and gas offerings | Consumers who never invested |
| Service Finance | The named plaintiff in a fraud case | All other Service Finance customers |
Ortiz Equifax Settlement Payout
The Equifax settlement in the Ortiz case resolved through a stipulation, not a public claims process. The docket shows a Notice of Settlement on December 30, 2025, an administrative termination deadline of March 6, 2026, and a dismissal with prejudice signed March 9, 2026.
There is no public payout schedule in the docket. The settlement amount is not listed. A reader should not assume a per-person dollar figure from this case.
What is clear is the procedural result. The dismissal was with prejudice, meaning the plaintiff cannot refile the same claim against Equifax. Judge Claire C. Cecchi signed the dismissal order in the District of New Jersey.
If you are looking for an Equifax payout tied to a different case, check the specific settlement administrator for that case. The Ortiz docket does not supply a claims deadline or a payment range.
Bold stat: The Equifax case went from notice of settlement to dismissal with prejudice in under 80 days.
How Much Can I Get From the Ortiz Finance Lawsuit?
There is no guaranteed payout in the Ortiz finance lawsuits. The amounts depend on the case, the proof, and whether a court or settlement administrator approves a distribution.
The SEC v. David P. Ortiz case produced specific financial numbers. The court ordered $816,934 in disgorgement and a $50,000 civil penalty against Ortiz. That money is not a class action payout. It is an enforcement remedy, and the SEC handles distribution separately.
The Westlake FCRA case did not produce a published settlement amount in March 2026. The Equifax case settled, but the terms were not disclosed in the docket.
A separate Westlake Financial class action settlement tied to auto loan fees lists a claim deadline of May 18, 2026, with payouts varying by fees charged. That is not the same case as Ortiz v. Westlake, but it is a related consumer finance settlement worth checking.
| Case | Known Amount | Type of Money |
|---|---|---|
| SEC v. David P. Ortiz | $816,934 disgorgement, $50,000 penalty | Enforcement remedy |
| Ortiz v. Equifax | Not disclosed | Private settlement |
| Ortiz v. Westlake | Not disclosed in March 2026 | FCRA case, no published settlement |
| Separate Westlake fee settlement | Varies by fees charged | Class settlement, May 18, 2026 deadline |
Key Takeaway: The only verified dollar figures in the Ortiz finance track come from the SEC case, and those are regulatory remedies, not class action checks.
March 2026 Ortiz Lawsuit Deadlines
March 2026 was the busiest month across the Ortiz finance cases. Three dates stand out, and each one affected a different group.
March 6, 2026 was the administrative termination deadline in the Ortiz v. Equifax case. The case had been administratively closed for 60 days pending settlement. That deadline passed, and the dismissal followed.
March 23, 2026 was the scheduled hearing date for the SEC’s motion for remedies in SEC v. David P. Ortiz. The court took the motion under submission and later issued a final judgment.
March 24, 2026 was the date Judge Dominic W. Lanza denied the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend in the Westlake case. That order forced the parties to meet and confer before any amended complaint could move forward.
| Date | Case | What Happened |
|---|---|---|
| March 6, 2026 | Ortiz v. Equifax | Administrative termination deadline |
| March 23, 2026 | SEC v. David P. Ortiz | Remedies motion taken under submission |
| March 24, 2026 | Ortiz v. Westlake | Motion for leave to amend denied without prejudice |
How to File a Claim in the Ortiz Finance Lawsuit
Filing a claim depends on whether the case has an open claims process. Most of the Ortiz dockets do not show a public claim form.
For the Equifax case, the settlement was private and the case was dismissed. There is no public claim form in the docket.
For the Westlake FCRA case, no class was certified and no settlement fund was announced as of March 2026. A consumer cannot file a claim in a case that has no claims process.
For the SEC case, the court ordered disgorgement, but the SEC handles the distribution of funds to harmed investors. Investors who believe they were harmed by DaveGlo should contact the SEC directly about the $816,934 disgorgement fund.
For the separate Westlake auto loan fee settlement, the claim deadline is May 18, 2026. That process is run by a settlement administrator, not by the Ortiz court.
Quick checklist for any finance lawsuit claim:
- Confirm the exact case name and case number.
- Check whether a class was certified.
- Look for a court-approved settlement administrator.
- Keep proof of purchase, account statements, and credit reports.
- Do not pay anyone who promises a payout before a settlement is approved.
Ortiz Inc Finance Lawsuit Case Number and Court
The Ortiz finance cases are spread across four federal districts and one state court. The case numbers are the fastest way to tell them apart.
| Case | Case Number | Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ortiz v. Westlake Financial | 2:26-cv-01231 | District of Arizona |
| Ortiz v. Equifax | 2:25-cv-17117 | District of New Jersey |
| SEC v. David P. Ortiz | 2:25-cv-08610 | Central District of California |
| Ortiz v. Service Finance | 2:26-cv-02733 | Eastern District of California |
| Ortiz v. PGMS | 1:25-cv-22225 | Southern District of Florida |
The Westlake case originated in Pinal County Superior Court before removal. The Service Finance case originated in Sacramento County Superior Court before removal.
Case numbers matter because a search for “Ortiz finance lawsuit” can pull up any of these. Always match the number to the court before you rely on a deadline.
SEC v David Ortiz Enforcement Action
SEC v. David P. Ortiz is an enforcement action, not a class action. The SEC accused David P. Ortiz and DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc. of selling unregistered oil and gas securities and misleading retail investors.
The numbers are specific. The SEC alleged Ortiz marketed and sold about $18 million in investments to roughly 20 retail investors. He received more than $800,000 in transaction-based compensation, according to the SEC.
The court imposed $816,934 in disgorgement and a $50,000 civil penalty. Judge Dale S. Fischer signed the final judgment on April 27, 2026. The March 23, 2026 hearing was the last major courtroom step before that judgment.
Bold stat: $18 million raised from about 20 investors means the average investment was roughly $900,000 per person.
That is not a consumer class payout. It is a regulatory case with a disgorgement fund, and the SEC controls the process.
Ortiz v Service Finance Fraud Lawsuit
Ortiz v. Service Finance Co., LLC is a fraud case filed in August 2026, not March 2026. It still belongs in the Ortiz finance conversation because it shows the same plaintiff name appearing in a new consumer finance dispute.
Serafin Ortiz filed the case against Service Finance Company, LLC in Sacramento County Superior Court. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on August 10, 2026. The case number is 2:26-cv-02733.
The claim is listed as Fraud, Personal Property Fraud. The initial scheduling conference is set for January 11, 2027, before Senior Judge William B. Shubb.
This case is early. There is no settlement, no class certification, and no payout. It is a watch item, not a March 2026 action item.
| Detail | Info |
|---|---|
| Case number | 2:26-cv-02733 |
| Court | Eastern District of California |
| Filed in state court | Sacramento County, 2026 |
| Removed to federal | August 10, 2026 |
| Claim type | Fraud, personal property |
| Next conference | January 11, 2027 |
Key Takeaway: The Ortiz name appears in at least four finance cases, but only the SEC action produced verified dollar figures in 2026.
Ortiz Finance Lawsuit Settlement Update 2026
The settlement picture changed twice in 2026. The Equifax case settled and was dismissed with prejudice in March 2026. The Westlake FCRA case did not settle in March, and the claims against Westlake were dismissed in May 2026.
The SEC case ended in a final judgment with disgorgement and a penalty, not a private settlement. The Service Finance case is still in its early scheduling phase.
Here is the status as of the latest dockets:
- Equifax: settled, dismissed with prejudice, terms not public.
- Westlake FCRA: claims dismissed, plaintiffs given a limited chance to amend.
- SEC v. Ortiz: final judgment, $816,934 disgorgement, $50,000 penalty.
- Service Finance: open, scheduling conference in January 2027.
- Separate Westlake fee settlement: claim deadline May 18, 2026.
Do not treat a dismissed case as a payout. The Equifax dismissal with prejudice ended that case. The Westlake dismissal removed Westlake and Emek as defendants unless the plaintiffs successfully amend.
Ortiz Finance Lawsuit Proof of Purchase Requirements
Proof requirements vary by case, but the principle is the same. You need documents that tie you to the financial product and to the harm you claim.
For an FCRA case like the Westlake matter, useful proof includes credit reports, dispute letters, creditor correspondence, and account statements showing the inaccurate reporting.
For the SEC case, proof means investment records, subscription documents, wire transfers, and communications with David P. Ortiz or DaveGlo Investment Group.
For a fraud case like the Service Finance matter, proof includes the financing agreement, payment records, and any representations made during the sale.
| Case Type | Proof to Keep |
|---|---|
| FCRA credit reporting | Credit reports, dispute letters, account statements |
| Investment fraud | Subscription docs, wire records, emails |
| Consumer fraud | Financing agreement, payment history, sales representations |
| Class settlement | Purchase receipt, account number, notice ID |
Ortiz Finance Lawsuit Opt Out Deadline
There is no public opt-out deadline in the Ortiz finance cases because no broad class was certified with a published opt-out process. The Equifax case settled privately and was dismissed. The Westlake FCRA case did not reach class certification in March 2026.
Opt-out deadlines only exist when a court certifies a class and approves a notice program. That did not happen in the Ortiz dockets reviewed here.
If you receive a class notice in the mail or by email, read the opt-out date carefully. Missing it usually means you stay in the class and give up your right to sue separately. But do not invent an opt-out deadline for a case that has not certified a class.
Ortiz Finance Lawsuit Class Action Status
None of the Ortiz finance cases reviewed here were certified as a class action in March 2026. The Westlake case was filed pro se and hit dismissal motions before class certification. The Equifax case settled individually and was dismissed. The SEC case is an enforcement action, not a class action.
The Service Finance case is a personal fraud suit, not a certified class.
That matters because class action status controls whether a reader can join a case without hiring a lawyer. In a certified class, you are included unless you opt out. In a non-certified case, you are not a party unless you file your own claim or join as a named plaintiff.
Quick facts:
- Westlake FCRA: no class certification in March 2026.
- Equifax: individual settlement, dismissed.
- SEC: enforcement action, no class.
- Service Finance: personal fraud suit, early stage.
Ortiz Finance Lawsuit Trial Date and What Happens Next
The only Ortiz finance case with a firm trial date in the reviewed dockets is Ortiz v. PGMS, LLC, case number 1:25-cv-22225 in the Southern District of Florida. Jury trial is set for November 30, 2026, with calendar call on November 25, 2026.
The Westlake case does not have a trial date. It had a dismissal order in May 2026 and a limited window to file an amended complaint.
The SEC case is past trial. Final judgment was entered April 27, 2026.
The Service Finance case has an initial scheduling conference on January 11, 2027, so a trial date is months away.
| Case | Key Next Date | Event |
|---|---|---|
| Ortiz v. PGMS | November 30, 2026 | Jury trial |
| Ortiz v. Westlake | May 2026 | Dismissal order, amendment window |
| SEC v. Ortiz | April 27, 2026 | Final judgment |
| Ortiz v. Service Finance | January 11, 2027 | Initial scheduling conference |
Ortiz Finance Lawsuit Statute of Limitations
The statute of limitations depends on the claim. FCRA claims generally carry a two-year window from discovery and a five-year outer limit from the violation. Securities fraud claims have different deadlines, and fraud claims vary by state.
For the Westlake FCRA case, the filing date was January 9, 2026, so the alleged conduct likely occurred within the limitations period. For the SEC case, the SEC filed in September 2025, and the court entered judgment in 2026.
For a consumer who believes they have a new claim, the safe move is to identify the claim type first. A credit reporting dispute is not the same as an investment fraud claim. The deadlines are different, and missing one can end the claim.
Bold reminder: A dismissed case does not restart the clock. The Equifax dismissal was with prejudice.
Key Takeaway: The Ortiz finance cases are a mix of private settlements, dismissals, and regulatory remedies, and only a few dates in 2026 produced final outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Ortiz Inc finance lawsuit about?
The Ortiz Inc finance lawsuit is a group of separate cases involving consumer credit, credit reporting, and investment fraud. The main March 2026 tracks are Ortiz v. Westlake Financial, Ortiz v. Equifax, and SEC v. David P. Ortiz.
Who qualifies for the Ortiz finance lawsuit?
Qualification depends on the case. The Westlake case involved consumers with credit reporting disputes. The SEC case involved investors in DaveGlo oil and gas offerings. There is no single class that covers all Ortiz finance cases.
How much can I get from the Ortiz finance lawsuit?
There is no guaranteed payout. The only verified figures are $816,934 in disgorgement and a $50,000 penalty in the SEC case. The Equifax and Westlake settlements did not publish per-person amounts.
What happened in March 2026 in the Ortiz finance cases?
Three key events happened in March 2026. The Equifax administrative termination deadline passed on March 6. The SEC remedies motion was taken under submission on March 23. The Westlake motion to amend was denied on March 24.
Is the Ortiz finance lawsuit still open?
It depends on the case. The Equifax case is closed. The Westlake FCRA case was trimmed by dismissals in May 2026. The SEC case has a final judgment. The Service Finance fraud case is still open.
What to Do Next
The Ortiz finance lawsuits are not one case with one payout. They are separate tracks with separate outcomes. The Equifax case is closed. The Westlake FCRA case lost key defendants. The SEC case ended with a judgment, not a class check.
Your next step is to match your records to the right case. Check your credit reports, your loan documents, and any investment paperwork. Then confirm the case number before you rely on a deadline.
Stay current on the dockets. The Service Finance case has a January 11, 2027 scheduling conference, and the PGMS trial is set for November 30, 2026. Those are the next dates that could move an Ortiz finance case forward.
