[gnicholas]

Undoubtedly not. This would be a non-precedential decision. You could mention it in another case but the judge would have no obligation to follow it. Also, your facts are going to be different, which further complicates things.

[bogomipz]

Could you elaborate?

The author himself mention caselaw that he used as reference. If a resident from the same court jurisdiction with the same circumstances(Equifax data breach victim) why would the facts be different beside the identify of the plaintiff?

[gnicholas]

There is binding precedent (which must be followed), persuasive precedent (which a judge may choose to follow but need not), and non-precedential opinions (which are not supposed to be cited).

Binding precedent typically comes from a court to which an appeal would lie. So if the US Supreme Court were to decide (for example) that Uber drivers are actually employees for the purpose of federal labor law and tax withholding, then that precedent would be binding on all Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal, and also all Federal District Courts.

This same precedent would be only persuasive authority if cited in a state court proceeding regarding whether Uber drivers can claim state-mandated benefits conferred to employees (because the test for "what constitutes an employee" for the purpose of the state law could be different than the federal definition.

But some opinions are designated as non-precedential or non-published. These are still "published" in the sense that you can find them in legal research databases, but they shouldn't typically be cited in future cases. I don't know the rules for the jurisdiction where this case took place, but I would be surprised if small claims cases decided by pro tem judges (who are neither appointed nor elected) were considered precedential.

Of course, you could always mention this case if you're fighting a similar case in small claims court (where procedural rules are relaxed). But don't expect a judge to follow the prior decision, even if your facts are pretty close to his facts.

> why would the facts be different beside the identify of the plaintiff?

Because the number of phone calls and other facts would vary from person to person. The legal issues could be the same, but the facts would differ in every case.

Background: I used to be a corporate lawyer, but I did not specialize in litigation.