Camacho LLC Lawsuits: Defendant and Plaintiff Cases

Search results for Camacho LLC lawsuits pull together six unrelated cases that share only a common surname and a corporate defendant structured as a limited liability company. They cover a dram shop wrongful death claim against Texas Roadhouse, a California farmworker wage settlement against Azcona Harvesting, a DACA-based credit discrimination class action against Alliant Credit Union, a pending Uvalde product liability suit against Daniel Defense, a Florida appellate ruling on LLC member disputes, and a New York housing succession case. Here is where each one stands.

Camacho v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC

On June 16, 2020, 13-year-old Leonardo Camacho was struck by an SUV while doing yard work with his father at a church on Kelly Mill Road in Cumming, Georgia. The driver, Katie Pancione, left the scene. Leonardo died five days later.1Forsyth County News. Two Pedestrians Injured in Hit-and-Run in Cumming

Leonardo’s parents, Jose Antonio Camacho and Daniela Torres, sued Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging the chain was liable under Georgia’s dram shop law for serving alcohol to Pancione shortly before the crash.2Justia. Camacho et al v. Texas Roadhouse Holdings LLC Damages sought ultimately grew to $95 million.3Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Jury Clears Texas Roadhouse of Blame in Death of Georgia Boy Hit by Car

Georgia’s dram shop statute requires proof that a server knowingly furnished alcohol to a person who was noticeably intoxicated and knew or should have known that person would soon be driving. The plaintiffs argued Pancione’s blood alcohol level, measured at 0.176% about three hours after the crash, pointed to a level as high as 0.225% when she was served a beer at the restaurant. They also said the bartender should have recognized she would be driving because she arrived alone to collect a call-in takeout order.4Jury Verdicts. Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, Camacho v. Texas Roadhouse

Texas Roadhouse countered that its bartender testified Pancione showed no signs of intoxication over a single pint of beer, and that Pancione later consumed two small bottles of Fireball whiskey and a prescription sedative after leaving the restaurant.5Jury Verdicts. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, Camacho v. Texas Roadhouse Pancione also had Huntington’s disease, which can produce symptoms like unsteady gait and slurred speech that mimic alcohol impairment.4Jury Verdicts. Plaintiffs’ Response to Motion for Summary Judgment, Camacho v. Texas Roadhouse

In June 2025, an Atlanta jury returned a complete defense verdict. It cleared Texas Roadhouse of any blame and assigned Pancione 100% of the fault.3Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Jury Clears Texas Roadhouse of Blame in Death of Georgia Boy Hit by Car

Camacho v. Azcona Harvesting LLC

California farmworker Daniel Camacho brought a representative action under the state’s Private Attorneys General Act against Azcona Harvesting, LLC, which employs seasonal workers to harvest strawberries and other berries. Filed October 31, 2023 in Monterey County Superior Court as case 24CV000079, the complaint alleged the employer violated the California Labor Code by failing to pay all overtime and minimum wages including for off-the-clock work, failing to provide timely uninterrupted meal and rest breaks or the premium for missed breaks, failing to provide accurate wage statements and payroll records, and failing to pay wages on time during employment, upon termination, or as reporting time pay.6Azcona Lawsuit. Camacho v. Azcona Harvesting, LLC Settlement Information

The case settled in August 2025 for a gross amount of $225,000. Attorney fees took $75,000, litigation expenses $8,500, the named plaintiff $10,000, and the settlement administrator $7,000. The settlement covered 879 aggrieved employees across 13,250 PAGA pay periods.7CABIA. Daniel Camacho v. Azcona Harvesting, LLC

Camacho v. Alliant Credit Union

Yuliana Camacho, a DACA recipient, filed a putative class action in March 2022 against Alliant Credit Union in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. She alleged the credit union kept a blanket policy of denying consumer credit products to applicants based on their immigration or residency status, in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.8Law360. Dreamer Sues Alliant Credit Union for Loan Discrimination

The settlement class covered applicants denied between March 2020 and July 2023 because they held DACA status, an H4 visa without a corresponding primary visa holder, or asylum applicant status. Alliant denied all allegations of wrongdoing.9ClassAction.org. Camacho v. Alliant Credit Union Settlement Agreement

Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted final approval on August 15, 2024. Alliant established an $86,750 fund, paying $2,500 to each California class member and $250 to each national class member. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which represented the class, received $50,000 in attorney fees.10MALDEF. MALDEF and Alliant Credit Union Reach Class Action Settlement in Discrimination Lawsuit Alliant also agreed to change its underwriting so applicants would no longer be denied consumer credit solely because of immigration status and would be evaluated on the same terms as U.S. citizen applicants.9ClassAction.org. Camacho v. Alliant Credit Union Settlement Agreement

Camacho v. Daniel Defense LLC

A wrongful death and product liability case styled Camacho v. Daniel Defense, LLC was filed in the Western District of Texas in July 2024 after removal from state court, and is assigned to Chief Judge Alia Moses. Named defendants include Daniel Defense (the firearm manufacturer), Oasis Outback, LLC (the gun retailer), and several other companies.11CourtListener. Camacho v. Daniel Defense, LLC Docket

The case belongs to a broader wave of litigation from families of victims of the May 2022 mass shooting at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas. Those lawsuits generally allege that Daniel Defense marketed to young, troubled men and that the store negligently sold the weapon to the shooter. The strategy relies on a narrow exception in the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which permits claims where a manufacturer or seller knowingly violated a statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product and that violation proximately caused the harm.12Houston Public Media. Uvalde Families Sue Meta, Activision and Daniel Defense

Several defendants filed motions to dismiss in late 2024, and the plaintiffs sought to remand to state court. As of early 2026 docket activity, the court had not yet ruled on remand and the case remained active in federal court.11CourtListener. Camacho v. Daniel Defense, LLC Docket

Dinuro Investments LLC v. Camacho

In a Florida appellate ruling dated July 9, 2014, the Third District Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of a complaint brought by Dinuro, a member of an LLC called San Remo, against fellow members. Dinuro alleged the defendants harmed it by buying the company’s debt at a discount and devaluing the LLC.13vLex. Dinuro Invs., LLC v. Camacho, 141 So.3d 731

The court held that because the alleged injury flowed from overall devaluation of the company rather than from a harm unique to Dinuro, the claim was derivative and had to be brought on behalf of the LLC, not as a direct suit. Under the court’s two-part test, an LLC member may sue fellow members individually only by showing direct harm and special injury, or a special contractual or statutory duty owed directly from one member to the other. Mixing direct and derivative claims in a single complaint amounted to improper joinder and was grounds for dismissal.13vLex. Dinuro Invs., LLC v. Camacho, 141 So.3d 731

Ocean Bay RAD LLC v. Camacho

In a late-2025 New York City Housing Court decision, landlord entity Ocean Bay RAD, LLC brought a licensee holdover proceeding against Kyla Camacho following the 2022 death of the tenant of record, Judith Rosario. Rosario had held a project-based Section 8 voucher in a former NYCHA public housing complex converted to private administration under the PACT/RAD program.14FindLaw. Ocean Bay RAD, LLC v. Camacho

Camacho, the deceased tenant’s adoptive daughter, claimed succession rights to the apartment and its voucher. After Rosario’s death, her son had ported the household’s Section 8 voucher to Connecticut, leaving no active voucher on NYCHA’s records for the unit. The court ruled that NYCHA has exclusive jurisdiction over voucher succession determinations in PACT-converted buildings, so the Housing Court could not evaluate Camacho’s succession defense. It awarded a possessory judgment to the landlord but stayed the eviction warrant through March 31, 2026, giving Camacho time to file a formal remaining-family-member request with NYCHA and, if denied, to challenge that decision in a separate state court proceeding. If NYCHA approves her for the voucher and tenancy, the eviction warrant would be permanently stayed.14FindLaw. Ocean Bay RAD, LLC v. Camacho