Recent filings
Benavides Moran v. Ana Luisa Retail LLC
A consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against Ana Luisa Retail, a jewelry and accessories retailer, alleging that the company's website is not accessible to people with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff claims that individuals who are blind or have low vision are unable to fully use the company's online store because it lacks the necessary features to work properly with screen-reading software and other assistive technologies. As a result, disabled users are allegedly denied the same ability to browse and purchase products that non-disabled customers enjoy. The proposed class would include all people with visual disabilities in the United States who have attempted to access the Ana Luisa website and were unable to do so due to these accessibility barriers.
Benavides Moran v. Scandinavian Designs, Inc.
The plaintiff is suing Scandinavian Designs, a furniture retailer, alleging that the company's website and/or physical retail locations are not fully accessible to people with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The lawsuit claims that individuals with disabilities face barriers when trying to access the company's goods and services, preventing them from enjoying equal access compared to non-disabled customers. The proposed class would include other individuals with disabilities who have similarly been denied full and equal access to Scandinavian Designs' retail offerings. The plaintiff is seeking to force the company to make its services and facilities compliant with federal disability access requirements, as well as any applicable damages and legal fees.
Reyes v. Mario's Pizzeria of E. Northport Corp.
Workers at Mario's Pizzeria of East Northport have filed a class action lawsuit claiming the restaurant failed to pay them the wages they were legally owed under federal labor law. The plaintiffs allege that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by not compensating employees at the required minimum wage rate and potentially failing to pay proper overtime. The lawsuit seeks to recover back wages on behalf of current and former employees who worked at the pizzeria and were similarly underpaid. The proposed class would include workers who experienced the same wage violations during the relevant time period covered by the lawsuit.
Johnson v. GoDaddy Inc.
Consumers are suing GoDaddy, the web hosting and domain registration company, alleging violations of federal securities law. The plaintiffs claim that GoDaddy made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material information to investors and customers, which artificially affected the company's standing in the market. The lawsuit suggests that those who purchased GoDaddy's securities or services during a specific period were harmed as a result of these alleged misrepresentations. The proposed class likely includes individuals and entities who purchased GoDaddy securities during the relevant time frame and suffered financial losses when the truth about the company's business practices or financial condition came to light. The case seeks damages and other relief for affected class members.
Helen Jean Parker v. Johnson and Johnson
Helen Jean Parker is suing Johnson and Johnson on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, alleging that a Johnson and Johnson pharmaceutical or healthcare product caused personal injury. The lawsuit was originally filed in state court and then moved to federal court through a process called removal. While the specific product details are not fully outlined in the filing information provided, the case falls under health care and pharmaceutical product liability, suggesting that the plaintiff claims she was physically harmed by a defective or dangerous Johnson and Johnson product. The proposed class would likely include other consumers who used the same product and suffered similar injuries as a result of the alleged defect or safety issue.
Lorne v. Fractyl Health, Inc.
Investors are suing Fractyl Health, a medical technology company, alleging that the company and its executives misled shareholders about the prospects and progress of its business and products. The plaintiffs claim that Fractyl Health made false or misleading statements that artificially inflated the price of its stock, and that when the truth came to light, the stock price dropped significantly, causing financial harm to investors. The proposed class consists of people who purchased or acquired Fractyl Health securities during a specific period when the allegedly misleading statements were being made. This is a securities fraud case brought under federal law, seeking to recover losses suffered by shareholders who relied on what they allege were inaccurate or incomplete disclosures from the company.
Flavaworks Entertainment Inc. v. Scull
Flavaworks Entertainment Inc. has filed a RICO lawsuit against an individual or entity named Scull, alleging organized criminal activity connected to what appears to be an entertainment or media services business. The plaintiff claims that the defendant engaged in a pattern of racketeering conduct, which under federal RICO law requires repeated illegal acts carried out as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. While the specific details of the alleged scheme are not fully captured in the case filing metadata, RICO claims of this nature typically involve allegations of fraud, extortion, or other predicate criminal acts that caused financial harm to the plaintiff. The proposed class and precise misconduct would be detailed in the full complaint, but the case centers on Flavaworks seeking damages for losses allegedly caused by the defendant's corrupt organizational activities.
Fortin v. Taboola.Com Ltd.
Investors are suing Taboola, a digital advertising and content discovery company, alleging that the company made false or misleading statements that artificially inflated its stock price. The plaintiffs claim that Taboola and its executives misled the investing public about the company's financial health, business prospects, or key metrics, causing investors to purchase shares at inflated prices. When the truth allegedly came to light, the stock price dropped, causing financial harm to shareholders. The proposed class consists of investors who bought Taboola securities during a specific time period and suffered losses as a result. The lawsuit is brought under the Securities Exchange Act, which holds companies and their leaders accountable for materially misleading statements made to the investing public.
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.