Recent filings
Surber v. Oura, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed against Oura, the company behind the Oura Ring, a popular smart ring that tracks health and wellness metrics. The plaintiffs allege that Oura enrolls customers in a recurring subscription membership without clearly disclosing the automatic renewal terms before purchase. Customers reportedly buy the Oura Ring expecting full functionality, only to discover later that ongoing features require a paid monthly or annual subscription that automatically renews and charges their payment method. The plaintiffs claim Oura does not adequately inform consumers about these charges upfront, making it difficult to cancel and resulting in unexpected fees. The proposed class would include consumers in the United States who purchased an Oura Ring and were subsequently enrolled in and charged for an automatically renewing subscription plan.
Schuberth v. Byrne
Plaintiffs in this securities class action allege that the defendant made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material information required under federal securities law, specifically Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act. The lawsuit claims that investors were harmed because they were not given accurate or complete information about the company's financial condition or operations, which they would have needed to make informed investment decisions. The proposed class likely includes individuals and entities who purchased or held securities during a specific time period when the alleged misrepresentations or omissions occurred. Plaintiffs are seeking damages on behalf of all affected investors who suffered financial losses as a result of the alleged violations of federal securities disclosure requirements.
Kim v. Power Solutions International, Inc.
Investors are suing Power Solutions International, an engine and power systems manufacturer, alleging that the company and its executives misled shareholders by making false or misleading statements about the company's financial condition and business operations. The plaintiffs claim that Power Solutions International failed to accurately report its financial results and concealed material information that, once revealed, caused the company's stock price to drop significantly, harming investors who purchased shares during the relevant period. The proposed class includes all individuals and entities who bought Power Solutions International securities during a specified timeframe and suffered financial losses when the truth about the company's actual financial situation became public. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all affected shareholders.
Benavides Moran v. Winx Health Inc.
This lawsuit alleges that Winx Health, a company that sells personal care or health-related products and services, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide equal access to individuals with disabilities. The plaintiff, Benavides Moran, claims that Winx Health did not make its offerings, likely including its website or physical locations, accessible to people with disabilities, preventing them from fully using or benefiting from the company's products or services. The proposed class would include other individuals with disabilities who encountered similar barriers when attempting to access Winx Health's services. The case seeks to require the company to bring its practices into compliance with federal disability rights laws and potentially provide compensation to affected consumers.
WADE v. THE GIANT COMPANY, LLC
Shoppers are suing Giant, a major supermarket chain, claiming the company charged customers more at the register than the prices displayed on store shelves. The plaintiffs allege that when they and other customers scanned their items at checkout, the final price was higher than what was advertised or tagged in the store, resulting in customers unknowingly overpaying for groceries. This type of claim, often called a price scanner violation, suggests that Giant's pricing systems were inaccurate or misleading. The proposed class would include consumers who shopped at Giant stores and were charged prices that did not match the shelf or advertised prices during a defined period of time.
Grant v. Allstate Insurance Company
Consumers are suing Allstate, one of the largest insurance companies in the United States, in a proposed class action lawsuit. The plaintiffs allege that Allstate engaged in improper or harmful conduct that affected a group of policyholders or customers. While the specific details of the allegations are not fully outlined in the filing information provided, cases of this nature typically involve claims that an insurance company failed to properly handle claims, charged unfair fees or premiums, or otherwise treated customers in a way that caused financial harm. The proposed class would likely include individuals who held Allstate insurance policies and were similarly affected by the company's alleged conduct during a defined time period.
GOHN v. TRUMARK FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION
A consumer is suing Trumark Financial Credit Union, a Pennsylvania-based credit union, alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiff claims that Trumark improperly accessed or used their consumer credit report without a permissible legal purpose, which is a requirement under federal law. The lawsuit suggests that Trumark either pulled the plaintiff's credit information without authorization or used it in a way that exceeded what the law allows. This type of unauthorized credit inquiry can negatively impact a person's credit score and constitutes a violation of their privacy rights under federal consumer protection law. The proposed class would likely include other consumers whose credit reports were similarly accessed by Trumark without proper legal justification.
Benavides Moran v. Morinaga America, Inc.
The plaintiff, Benavides Moran, is suing Morinaga America, a food and candy company, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit alleges that Morinaga America has failed to make its website or digital platforms fully accessible to people with disabilities, particularly those who are blind or visually impaired and rely on screen-reading software to navigate online content. The plaintiff claims that barriers on the company's website prevent disabled users from having equal access to the products, services, and information that non-disabled customers can easily obtain. The proposed class would likely include all individuals with visual or other disabilities who have been unable to fully use or access Morinaga America's website due to these alleged accessibility failures.
Linton v. Publix Super Markets, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed against Publix Super Markets by a plaintiff who claims to have suffered a personal injury at or in connection with a Publix location or a product sold there. The case was originally filed in state court and then removed to federal court by Publix. While the specific details of the injury are not fully outlined in the filing information provided, the case falls under general personal injury claims, suggesting the plaintiff was harmed either on Publix's premises or by a product associated with the company. The proposed class, if any, would likely include other individuals who experienced similar injuries under comparable circumstances. The plaintiff is seeking damages for the harm allegedly caused by Publix's negligence or other wrongful conduct.
Frith v. Consuegra & Duffy, PLLC
A consumer is suing Consuegra & Duffy, a law firm that collects debts, alleging violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff claims the firm engaged in unlawful debt collection conduct, which may include sending misleading or improper collection notices, making false representations about the amount owed or the firm's legal authority, or using unfair collection tactics. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of consumers who received debt collection communications from the firm and were similarly subjected to these allegedly illegal practices. The proposed class likely consists of individuals in a specific geographic area or time period who had debts collected by the firm under the same or substantially similar circumstances as the named plaintiff.
Bruce v. Intuit Inc.
Plaintiffs allege that Intuit, the company behind TurboTax and other financial software products, made false or misleading statements to consumers and investors about its business practices and products. The lawsuit, brought under federal securities law, claims that Intuit misled people about key aspects of its operations, potentially including how it marketed supposedly free tax filing services while steering customers toward paid products. The proposed class is expected to include consumers or investors who were harmed by the company's alleged misrepresentations during a specific period. Plaintiffs seek damages for losses they say resulted from relying on information that Intuit allegedly knew to be inaccurate or incomplete at the time it was communicated to the public.
Pearson v. Hims & Hers Health, Inc.
The plaintiff is suing Hims & Hers Health, a company that sells health and wellness products and prescription treatments through an online subscription model. The lawsuit claims that the company engaged in unfair or deceptive practices related to its subscription service, allegedly enrolling customers in recurring billing plans without adequate disclosure or consent, making it difficult for customers to cancel, and continuing to charge customers after they attempted to stop their subscriptions. The plaintiff argues that these practices caused consumers to pay for products or services they did not intend to purchase. The proposed class is expected to include consumers across the United States who were charged by Hims & Hers Health under these disputed subscription terms and suffered financial harm as a result.
WASHINGTON v. JETRO HOLDINGS, LLC
A plaintiff is suing Jetro Holdings, a wholesale retail company, alleging sexual harassment and job discrimination in violation of federal civil rights law. The plaintiff claims to have experienced a hostile or abusive work environment based on sex while employed by the company. The lawsuit alleges that Jetro Holdings failed to adequately prevent, address, or remedy the harassment, and that the plaintiff suffered harm as a result of the company's conduct or inaction. The proposed class likely consists of current and former employees of Jetro Holdings who experienced similar sexual harassment or discriminatory treatment in the workplace. The case seeks to hold the company accountable for allowing such conditions to persist and to obtain relief for those affected.
Kahn v. L.L.Bean, Inc.
Consumers are suing L.L.Bean, the well-known outdoor clothing and gear retailer, alleging that the company deceived shoppers about its pricing practices. The plaintiffs claim that L.L.Bean advertised products as being on sale or offered at discounted prices, but that the so-called original or regular prices were artificially inflated and did not reflect the true former prices at which the items were actually sold. As a result, customers believed they were getting a significant deal when in reality the discounts were misleading. The proposed class would include consumers who purchased products from L.L.Bean during a specified period and were exposed to these allegedly deceptive price representations, either through the company's website, catalogs, or retail stores.
Perez-Maceira v. Steri-Tech, Inc.
Consumers are suing Steri-Tech, a company that manufactures or distributes sterilization or sanitation products, alleging that one or more of its products were defective and caused harm to buyers. The plaintiffs claim the products failed to perform safely or as intended, resulting in injuries or damages to consumers who relied on the product for personal care or hygiene purposes. The lawsuit is brought as a class action, meaning the lead plaintiff, Perez-Maceira, seeks to represent a broader group of consumers who purchased the same or similar products and experienced comparable problems. The case is being heard in federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, indicating the parties are from different states and the amount in dispute exceeds the federal threshold.
Castro-Moreno v. Customed, Inc.
Consumers are suing Customed, a pharmaceutical or medical products company, alleging that one or more of its products were defective or caused harm to users. The plaintiffs claim they suffered injuries or damages as a result of using the company's product, which they allege was unsafe, improperly designed, or inadequately tested and warned about. The lawsuit is brought as a class action, meaning the lead plaintiff, Castro-Moreno, is seeking to represent a broader group of consumers who purchased or used the same product and experienced similar problems. The case is filed in federal court based on diversity of citizenship, meaning the parties are from different states and the amount in dispute exceeds the federal threshold.
Bond v. UWM Holdings Corporation
Investors are suing UWM Holdings Corporation, the parent company of United Wholesale Mortgage, alleging that the company and its executives misled shareholders by making false or misleading statements about the company's business performance and financial condition. The plaintiffs claim that UWM painted an overly rosy picture of its operations, concealing material problems that, when eventually revealed, caused the company's stock price to drop and harmed investors. The proposed class consists of people who purchased UWM Holdings stock during a specific period when the allegedly misleading statements were being made. The lawsuit is brought under federal securities law, which prohibits companies from deceiving investors through inaccurate or incomplete disclosures about their financial health and business prospects.
Soneji v. HDFC Bank Limited
This lawsuit alleges that HDFC Bank, one of India's largest private banks whose shares trade on U.S. markets as American Depositary Receipts, misled investors by making false or misleading statements and failing to disclose material information required under U.S. securities laws. The plaintiffs claim that the bank did not accurately report or disclose key information about its business, financial condition, or operations, causing investors to purchase securities at artificially inflated prices. When the truth allegedly came to light, the stock price dropped, causing financial harm to shareholders. The proposed class includes investors who purchased HDFC Bank securities on U.S. exchanges during a specific period and suffered losses as a result of the alleged misrepresentations or omissions.
Maurer v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P.
Plaintiffs are suing Edward Jones, a well-known financial services and brokerage firm, alleging that the company caused personal injury or harm to consumers through its business practices. The lawsuit has been filed as a diversity action in federal court, suggesting the parties are from different states and the damages exceed $75,000. While the specific details of the alleged harm are not fully described in the filing information provided, the case is categorized as a personal injury matter, which in the context of a financial firm could relate to financial harm, negligent investment advice, or mismanagement of client accounts. The proposed class would likely consist of Edward Jones customers who experienced similar injuries or losses as a result of the company's alleged conduct.
Chiaravalloti v. Proctor & Gamble Company
Consumers are suing Procter & Gamble, one of the world's largest consumer goods companies, alleging that the company engaged in fraudulent or deceptive practices related to one or more of its personal care products. The plaintiffs claim they were misled about the nature, quality, ingredients, or performance of the product, causing them to pay money they would not have otherwise spent. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of similarly situated consumers who purchased the affected product or products, likely within a specific time period and geographic area. The plaintiffs are pursuing damages and other relief on behalf of themselves and all others who were allegedly deceived by the company's marketing or product representations.