Recent filings
Calcano v. Fromm International LLC
This lawsuit alleges that Fromm International, a company that sells pet and beauty supply products, failed to make its website accessible to people who are blind or have visual impairments. The plaintiff, who is visually impaired and uses screen-reading software to navigate the internet, claims that the company's website contains barriers that prevent screen readers from working properly, making it impossible or extremely difficult to browse products, read content, or complete purchases. Because of these alleged access failures, the plaintiff argues the company is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act, which requires places of public accommodation to be accessible to people with disabilities. The proposed class includes all visually impaired individuals in the United States who have attempted to use the company's website and encountered these accessibility barriers.
Calcano v. Mill Supply Company, LLC
A consumer with a disability has filed a class action lawsuit against Mill Supply Company, alleging that the company's website or physical location is not accessible to people with disabilities, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff claims that Mill Supply Company failed to provide equal access to its goods and services for individuals with disabilities, making it difficult or impossible for them to shop or interact with the business in the same way non-disabled customers can. The proposed class would include other individuals with disabilities who have similarly been denied full and equal access to Mill Supply Company's offerings. The lawsuit seeks to require the company to make necessary changes to become compliant with federal disability access laws.
Calcano v. March Products, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed by a plaintiff with a disability against March Products, alleging that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make its goods, services, or facilities equally accessible to people with disabilities. The plaintiff claims that March Products did not provide the necessary accommodations or accessibility features required by federal law, effectively excluding or disadvantaging disabled individuals from fully enjoying what the company offers. The proposed class would consist of other individuals with disabilities who have similarly been denied equal access or faced barriers when attempting to use March Products' services or facilities. The lawsuit seeks to compel the company to come into compliance with ADA requirements and to obtain relief for those who have been affected.
Senior v. Bards & Cards LLC
A consumer is suing Bards & Cards, apparently a retail store selling cards and related products, alleging that the company violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff claims that Bards & Cards failed to provide equal access or reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities, which may relate to physical accessibility of their store locations, their website, or both. The lawsuit is brought as a class action on behalf of other individuals with disabilities who were similarly denied full and equal enjoyment of the company's goods or services. The case is being heard in federal court under federal question jurisdiction, meaning the claims arise directly from federal disability rights law rather than state law.
Lankes v. Haleon US, Inc.
Consumers are suing Haleon US, the company behind well-known health and consumer brands, alleging that the company made misleading claims on its product packaging and marketing materials. The plaintiffs contend that Haleon overstated or misrepresented the benefits, ingredients, or effectiveness of one or more of its consumer health products, leading shoppers to pay more than they otherwise would have or to purchase products they would not have bought had they known the truth. The lawsuit seeks to represent a class of consumers across the United States who purchased the affected products during a defined time period. Plaintiffs are seeking compensation for their financial losses, along with changes to how the company markets and labels its products going forward.
VELAZQUEZ v. LE ROYALE LLC
Workers are suing Le Royale, likely a restaurant or hospitality establishment, claiming the company violated federal wage and hour laws under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiffs allege that the company failed to properly compensate employees for all hours worked, which may include issues such as unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, or improper wage practices. The proposed class likely consists of current and former employees who worked for Le Royale and were subject to the same allegedly unlawful pay practices. The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation, and other damages on behalf of all similarly situated workers who were affected by the company's alleged failure to meet its legal obligations under federal labor law.
WILSON v. MOYER
This lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Wilson against defendant Moyer, alleging a breach of fiduciary duty in connection with a stockholder dispute. The plaintiffs claim that Moyer, in a position of trust and responsibility toward shareholders, failed to act in the best interests of the company's stockholders. The case is brought under diversity jurisdiction, suggesting the parties are from different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the federal threshold. The proposed class likely consists of shareholders who were harmed by the defendant's alleged failure to uphold duties owed to them, potentially including improper management decisions, self-dealing, or other conduct that placed personal interests above those of the stockholders the defendant was obligated to serve.
Harms v. Scott
A group of investors is suing Scott, alleging that the company engaged in securities fraud by making false or misleading statements that deceived them into buying, holding, or selling securities at artificial prices. The plaintiffs claim that Scott misrepresented important information about the company's financial condition, business operations, or prospects, causing investors to suffer financial losses when the truth eventually came to light. The proposed class includes individuals and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Scott's securities during a specific period and were harmed as a result of these allegedly fraudulent misstatements or omissions. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all affected investors who relied on the company's misleading disclosures when making their investment decisions.
Reeves v. POMCAR LLC
Consumers are suing POMCAR, a car rental or automotive services company, alleging the company engaged in conduct that harmed them in violation of federal law. The plaintiffs claim they suffered personal injuries or damages as a result of POMCAR's business practices, which they argue violated one or more federal statutes. The proposed class would likely consist of customers who used POMCAR's services and were similarly affected by the allegedly unlawful conduct. Because details of the specific complaint are limited, the precise nature of the harm — whether related to fees, safety, vehicle conditions, or other practices — is not fully specified, but the case is being pursued as a class action on behalf of all similarly situated consumers who dealt with the company.
Cascia v. West
Plaintiffs in this proposed class action allege that West violated federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act. The lawsuit claims that the defendant engaged in conduct related to securities or commodities trading that harmed investors or consumers. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of individuals who were similarly affected by the defendant's alleged misconduct in connection with securities transactions or related financial activities. The specific allegations likely involve misrepresentations, omissions, or other deceptive practices that caused financial harm to class members. This type of case typically targets companies or individuals whose actions in the securities marketplace are alleged to have violated disclosure requirements or anti-fraud provisions designed to protect investors and maintain market integrity.
Alyahya v. Blaize Holdings, Inc.
Plaintiffs allege that Blaize Holdings, an AI chip and computing company, violated federal securities laws by making false or misleading statements to investors. The lawsuit claims that the company and its executives provided inaccurate or incomplete information about the company's financial condition, business prospects, or operations, which artificially affected the price of its securities. When the truth allegedly came to light, investors suffered financial losses. The proposed class consists of individuals and entities who purchased or acquired Blaize Holdings securities during a specific period, known as the class period, and were harmed when the stock price declined following the disclosure of the allegedly concealed information. The case is brought under the Securities Exchange Act on behalf of these affected investors.
Chavez v. Avanti Wellness Cambridge LP
Plaintiffs allege that Avanti Wellness Cambridge, which appears to operate wellness or fitness facilities in the Cambridge area, engaged in unlawful billing and membership practices against consumers. The lawsuit claims that the company failed to properly disclose automatic renewal terms, continued charging customers after they attempted to cancel, or otherwise enrolled members in recurring payment plans without adequate notice or consent. Consumers who signed up for wellness services allegedly found themselves locked into ongoing charges they did not knowingly agree to or could not easily stop. The proposed class is expected to include individuals who purchased memberships or services from Avanti Wellness Cambridge and were subjected to these allegedly improper billing practices, likely within a defined statute of limitations period.
DePaoli v. Adjustment Bureau, Inc.
A consumer named DePaoli has filed a class action lawsuit against Adjustment Bureau, a debt collection company, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The plaintiff claims that Adjustment Bureau engaged in improper or unlawful debt collection practices. Such cases typically involve allegations that a debt collector used deceptive, unfair, or abusive tactics when attempting to collect money from consumers, which may include sending misleading notices, misrepresenting the amount owed, contacting consumers in unauthorized ways, or failing to properly validate debts when requested. The proposed class would likely include other consumers who were subjected to similar debt collection communications or practices by Adjustment Bureau within the applicable statute of limitations period.
Talbot v. AppLovin Corporation
Investors are suing AppLovin, a mobile technology and advertising company, alleging that the company and its executives made false or misleading statements that artificially inflated its stock price. The plaintiffs claim that AppLovin misled the investing public about key aspects of its business, causing shareholders to purchase stock at inflated prices. When the truth allegedly came to light, the stock price dropped, causing financial harm to investors. The proposed class consists of people who bought AppLovin securities during a specific period when the company is accused of making these misleading statements. The lawsuit seeks to recover losses suffered by shareholders as a result of what plaintiffs describe as violations of federal securities laws governing public disclosures by companies.
Lopez v. Bijora, Inc.
This lawsuit alleges that Bijora, a retail company, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make its website or physical locations accessible to people with disabilities. The plaintiff, Lopez, claims that individuals with disabilities were unable to fully access the company's goods or services on equal terms with non-disabled customers. This type of case typically involves barriers such as websites that are incompatible with screen readers used by visually impaired individuals, or physical store locations that lack proper accommodations. The proposed class is expected to include other people with disabilities who faced similar barriers when attempting to access the company's products or services. The lawsuit seeks to require Bijora to bring its accessibility features into compliance with federal disability rights law.
Delman v. Nawabi
This lawsuit was brought by plaintiff Delman against Nawabi under the Securities Exchange Act, alleging violations related to securities reporting and disclosure obligations. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant failed to meet required standards for accurate and complete financial reporting, potentially misleading investors about the true state of the company's finances or operations. The case is structured as a class action, meaning the named plaintiff seeks to represent a broader group of investors who may have been similarly harmed by the alleged misconduct. The proposed class would likely consist of individuals who purchased or held securities during a specific period when the alleged misrepresentations or omissions were made, and who suffered financial losses as a result of those alleged violations.
Speas v. Flowers Baking Co. of Tyler, LLC
Consumers are suing Flowers Baking Co. of Tyler, a bread and baked goods manufacturer, alleging that the company misled buyers about the nature or ingredients of its products. The plaintiffs claim that labeling or marketing on the company's baked goods created a false impression — likely related to claims such as being 'natural,' free of certain additives, or made with specific wholesome ingredients — when the products allegedly did not live up to those representations. Shoppers who purchased the affected products believed they were getting something different from what was actually inside the packaging. The proposed class would include consumers across the relevant region or nationwide who bought the mislabeled products during a defined time period and paid a premium based on those misleading claims.
McIntyre Jr. v. REYNOLDS
A consumer named McIntyre Jr. has filed a federal lawsuit against Reynolds alleging personal injury related to a motor vehicle incident. The plaintiff claims to have suffered harm as a result of conduct or a product associated with the defendant in connection with a vehicle. While the full details of the complaint are not provided, cases of this nature typically involve allegations that a defective vehicle component, negligent design, or improper manufacturing contributed to an accident or injury. The proposed class would likely consist of other individuals who experienced similar harm under comparable circumstances involving Reynolds and motor vehicles. The case has been filed in federal court under federal question jurisdiction, suggesting it may involve federal safety standards or regulations in addition to state law claims.
Bergquist v. General Motors LLC
Consumers are suing General Motors, claiming that certain GM vehicles contain a defect that the company knew about but failed to disclose or adequately fix. The plaintiffs allege that GM sold them cars that did not live up to the warranties the company provided, leaving owners stuck with vehicles that malfunctioned or required costly repairs that should have been covered. According to the lawsuit, GM was aware of the problem before selling the vehicles but continued to market and sell them without warning buyers. The proposed class includes consumers across the country who purchased or leased the affected GM vehicles and experienced issues related to the alleged defect, seeking compensation for repair costs, diminished vehicle value, and other related losses.
Johnson v. Bounce AI, Inc.
Consumers are suing Bounce AI, alleging the company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act in the way it attempted to collect debts from them. The plaintiffs claim that Bounce AI engaged in improper, misleading, or unlawful debt collection practices, which may include sending deceptive communications, misrepresenting the amount owed, using unfair collection tactics, or failing to provide legally required disclosures to consumers. The proposed class likely consists of individuals across the United States who were subjected to Bounce AI's debt collection activities within the applicable statute of limitations period. The lawsuit seeks to hold the company accountable for these alleged violations and obtain relief, potentially including statutory damages, for all affected consumers who received improper collection attempts from the company.