Recent filings
B. v. United States
This case was filed on November 11, 2026 in the Eastern District of Missouri against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which generally allows people to sue the federal government for certain wrongful acts by its employees. The docket codes it as a motor vehicle matter. The complaint has not been reviewed, and this note reflects the docket coding only.
SCOTT v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC.
A federal class action was filed against Vanguard in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 11, 2026, under the Class Action Fairness Act's diversity-of-citizenship provision. The docket codes the suit as an other statutory action, meaning the claims are grounded in a federal or state statute outside more specific categories. The complaint has not been reviewed, and this note reflects the docket's coding only.
FIGUEROA v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC.
A federal class action was filed against Vanguard Group in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on November 11, 2026, under the Class Action Fairness Act's diversity-of-citizenship provision. The docket codes the suit as an other statutory action, meaning the claims rest on a federal or state statute outside more specific categories. The complaint has not been reviewed, and this note reflects the docket's coding only.
Smith v. Forman Automotive, Inc. d/b/a United Nissan Reno
Plaintiff Christin Smith, a Nevada resident, is suing United Nissan Reno, a Reno-area automotive dealership, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that beginning around July 2026, the dealership sent repeated telemarketing text messages to Smith's personal cell phone to promote its vehicle sales and services, even after she opted out by replying that she was not interested and the dealership itself confirmed receiving her opt-out request. The complaint further alleges that United Nissan Reno lacks written do-not-call policies and failed to maintain or honor an internal do-not-call list as required by federal regulations. Two nationwide classes are proposed: all U.S. persons who, within the four years before filing, received more than one promotional text from the dealership while their number was listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, and all U.S. persons who received more than one such text after requesting to opt out while the dealership lacked required do-not-call procedures.
Stokes v. HTH Companies, Inc.
Plaintiff Aric L. Stokes, an Illinois resident, is suing HTH Companies, a Missouri-based industrial construction services firm, over a data breach the company says it discovered on February 18, 2026, but did not begin notifying victims about until November 4, 2026, roughly nine months later. The complaint alleges that cybercriminals accessed inadequately protected network servers and obtained sensitive personal and health information, including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial account details, and health insurance policy numbers. Stokes claims HTH Companies failed to implement reasonable data security measures, failed to encrypt stored data, and unreasonably delayed notifying affected individuals. The proposed nationwide class includes all U.S. residents whose personal or health information was exposed in the breach discovered on February 18, 2026. The complaint asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks damages, injunctive relief, and improved security practices.
Hoffman v. Epicc Investments Inc
Mark Hoffman, a Washington resident, is suing Epicc Investments Inc., doing business as American Independence Gold, a Florida company that sells physical gold, silver, and gold-related retirement products including Gold IRAs. The complaint alleges that the defendant sent at least 13 unsolicited text messages to Hoffman promoting a so-called Red Alert Report, using politically charged language and the name of Mike Lindell to steer recipients toward the defendant's precious-metals products. Hoffman alleges his phone number had been on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 31 days before the messages arrived and that he had never consented to contact from the defendant. The complaint brings claims under the federal TCPA and Washington's Commercial Electronic Mail Act. The proposed National DNC Class covers all U.S. residents who received more than one such solicitation within a 12-month period during the four years before filing, and the Washington CEMA Class covers Washington residents who received any such text during that same period.
Bae v. No Limit Ventures, INC.
Brian Bae, a Florida resident, is suing No Limit Ventures doing business as Imperial Barber Grade Products, a company that sells barber and grooming products, for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that the defendant sent unsolicited marketing text messages to Bae and other consumers at times prohibited by law, specifically after 9 p.m. local time, without the recipients' prior express permission. Bae alleges he received two such messages in October 2026, one at 9:53 p.m. and another at 10:17 p.m. The proposed class covers all persons in the United States who, within four years before the filing of this complaint through the date of class certification, received more than one marketing text message from the defendant or anyone acting on its behalf within any 12-month period, where those messages were sent before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time.
SHEARS v. MARATHON HEALTH, LLC
Plaintiff Danielle Shears, a Missouri resident and patient, is suing Marathon Health, an Indiana-based company that provides on-site, near-site, and virtual healthcare services to employees and their family members of various organizations. The complaint alleges that around August 24, 2026, an unauthorized intruder accessed Marathon Health's database and stole sensitive personal information belonging to Shears and thousands of other patients, including names, dates of birth, contact information, Social Security numbers, insurance information, and diagnosis and treatment information. The complaint further alleges that Marathon Health failed to encrypt or adequately secure this data, and did not notify affected individuals until October 29, 2026. The proposed class consists of all persons whose personal information was accessed or exfiltrated during the data breach.
Gillaspie v. Flower Knows Cosmetics Inc
Plaintiff Precious Gillaspie, a Texas resident, is suing Flower Knows Cosmetics, alleging the company sent unsolicited marketing text messages to her cellphone at prohibited hours in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that between December 2024 and March 2025, Flower Knows sent Gillaspie seven marketing texts before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time without her prior express permission, including several messages sent in the middle of the night. The proposed class covers all people in the United States who, within four years before the filing of this complaint through the date of class certification, received more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period from Flower Knows or anyone acting on its behalf, where those messages were sent before 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. local time. The complaint seeks statutory damages of up to $1,500 per violation and injunctive relief.
Juarez v. Propper International Sales, Inc.
Manuel Juarez is suing Propper International Sales on behalf of himself and a proposed nationwide class, alleging that the company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited telemarketing text messages and then continuing to send those messages after recipients asked to opt out. The complaint alleges that Juarez replied with a stop instruction on or about October 7, 2026, but Propper ignored that request and sent at least two additional promotional texts. The complaint further alleges that Propper failed to maintain a written do-not-call policy, failed to train its telemarketing personnel, and failed to honor opt-out requests as required by federal regulations. The proposed class covers all people in the United States who, from four years before the filing through the date of class certification, received more than one telemarketing text from Propper within any twelve-month period after revoking consent.
Juarez v. Galardi Group Franchise & Leasing, LLC
Plaintiff Manuel Juarez, a California resident, is suing Galardi Group Franchise & Leasing, a California company, alleging the company sent him unsolicited promotional text messages and then ignored his request to stop receiving them. The complaint alleges that on or about October 7, 2026, Juarez replied with a stop instruction to opt out of Galardi Group's marketing texts, but the company continued sending him at least two more solicitation messages anyway. The complaint further alleges that Galardi Group has no written do-not-call policy and does not train its telemarketing staff to honor opt-out requests, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The proposed class covers all people in the United States who, within four years before the filing of this complaint through the date of class certification, received more than one telemarketing text message from Galardi Group within any twelve-month period after revoking their consent.
Taylor v. B C S S, LTD.
Kristi Taylor is suing Lou Bachrodt Chevrolet Coconut Creek, a Florida automotive dealership, alleging the company bombarded her with unsolicited telemarketing text messages and phone calls promoting its vehicle sales, financing, and service offerings in violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The complaint alleges that Taylor explicitly asked the dealership to stop contacting her multiple times in October 2026, that the dealership even confirmed her opt-out in writing, yet continued sending texts and placing calls from multiple phone numbers. The complaint further alleges the dealership has no functional internal do-not-call procedures and ignored Taylor's registration on the National Do Not Call Registry. The proposed classes include all U.S. persons who received calls despite being on the National Do Not Call Registry, all U.S. persons who received calls after opting out, and all Florida residents who received calls after telling the dealership to stop, covering the four years before filing for the federal classes and July 1, 2021 through the date of class certification for the Florida class.
CANTER v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC.
A lawsuit was filed against Vanguard on November 10, 2026 in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The docket codes the case as a diversity personal injury claim outside the motor vehicle category. The complaint has not been reviewed, and this note reflects the docket coding only.
Sadler v. Harley-Davidson, Inc.
A federal lawsuit was filed against Harley-Davidson on November 10, 2026, in the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The docket codes the case as a diversity jurisdiction matter under 28 U.S.C. 1332, which covers civil disputes between parties from different states where the amount at stake exceeds $75,000, and categorizes it under other contract claims with a notation of contract default. The complaint has not been reviewed, and this note reflects the docket coding only.
★ Ronald Hansen v. Dashing Diva USA, Corp.
Florida resident Ronald Hansen is suing Dashing Diva USA, a nail and beauty products company, on behalf of himself and a proposed class of Florida consumers who received promotional text messages from the company. The complaint alleges that Dashing Diva violated the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act by transmitting a phone number, specifically the short code 73707, that was incapable of receiving telephone calls to recipients' caller identification services when it sent text message sales promotions. Florida law requires that any phone number transmitted during a telephonic sales call must be one that consumers can actually call back. The proposed class covers all Florida residents whose caller ID service received such a non-callable number during Dashing Diva text message marketing campaigns in the four years before the complaint was filed. Plaintiffs seek $500 in liquidated damages per violation, plus injunctive relief.
Colby v. Abbott Laboratories
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, N.D. Illinois on November 9, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Fraud" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-Fraud". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Muller v. DoorDash, Inc.
Plaintiff Zachary Muller, a Miami Beach resident, is suing DoorDash under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Florida common law, alleging that DoorDash repeatedly called his personal cell phone using prerecorded messages asking whether a merchant location was open or closed. The complaint alleges that Muller had no connection to any restaurant or store on the DoorDash platform, that he told DoorDash multiple times to stop calling, and that DoorDash even confirmed in writing in October 2024 that he would receive no further calls. Despite that written assurance, the complaint alleges DoorDash placed at least 856 documented prerecorded calls to his number from September 2024 through August 2026, arriving mostly around 8 a.m. from at least 37 rotating phone numbers. The proposed class covers U.S. residents who received similar prerecorded DoorDash merchant-status calls more than ten business days after asking DoorDash to stop, with a subclass of those who received calls after a written confirmation, and a Florida subclass of that group, covering the four years before filing through the date of class certification.
Young Lee v. Better Rise Capital LLC
Plaintiff Joo-Young Lee, a Dallas County resident, is suing Better Rise Capital, a California-based lender that markets business loans and financing products, alleging the company made unsolicited prerecorded voice calls to his personal cell phone number, which has been listed on the National Do-Not-Call Registry since 2012. The complaint alleges Lee received a call in which an artificial or prerecorded message played and prompted him to press a button to speak with a representative, who then transferred him to a Better Rise Capital employee attempting to sell him a loan. Lee claims he never consented to such calls and had no prior relationship with the company. The suit alleges violations of the federal TCPA and two Texas statutes governing telephone solicitations. The proposed classes cover U.S. residents and Texas residents who received similar prerecorded calls without consent from four years before filing through the date of class certification.
Baus v. Allstate Insurance Company
Washington resident Steve Baus is suing Allstate Insurance Company, the Hardin Agency, and Navlan PR LLC (operating as InboundCD and Consumer Insurance Association) over a series of unwanted telemarketing calls he received in November 2022 to his residential phone line. The complaint alleges that the defendants used artificial or prerecorded AI voice calls to solicit him to switch his auto insurance to Allstate, without his prior consent and even after he told the Hardin Agency not to call him again. The calls allegedly violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act as well as Washington state laws governing telephone solicitations and automatic dialing devices. Baus seeks to represent a nationwide class and a Washington subclass of all people who received similar artificial or prerecorded voice calls from the defendants within four years before the complaint was filed through class certification.
Juarez v. Darden Concepts, Inc. d/b/a Yard House
Plaintiff Manuel Juarez, a California resident, is suing Darden Concepts, which operates the Yard House restaurant chain, for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by continuing to send promotional text messages after he opted out. The complaint alleges that on or about October 7, 2026, Juarez replied with a stop instruction to opt out of Yard House's marketing texts, but the defendant ignored his request and sent at least two more solicitation messages promoting its goods and services. The complaint further alleges that Yard House failed to maintain a written do-not-call policy, failed to train its telemarketing personnel, and failed to honor opt-out requests as required by federal law. The proposed class covers all persons in the United States who, from four years before the filing through the date of class certification, received more than one telemarketing text message from the defendant on a wireless number used as a residential line after revoking consent.
Andrews v. Ally Financial Inc.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, C.D. California on November 9, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Consumer Credit" and lists the cause of action as "Fair Credit Reporting Act". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Juarez v. Therabody, Inc.
Plaintiff Manuel Juarez, a California resident, is suing Therabody, a maker of personal care and wellness goods and services, for allegedly violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The complaint alleges that Juarez sent a stop instruction to Therabody on or about October 7, 2026, asking to opt out of its promotional text messages, but that Therabody ignored the request and sent at least two more marketing texts afterward. The complaint further alleges that Therabody lacks a written do-not-call policy, fails to train its telemarketing personnel on opt-out procedures, and does not maintain a list of consumers who have asked not to be contacted. The proposed class covers all people in the United States who, within four years before the filing of this complaint through the date of class certification, received more than one telemarketing text from Therabody in a twelve-month period on a wireless number used as a residential line after revoking consent.
NEWELL v. FLEXIBLE FINANCE, INC.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania on November 9, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)" and lists the cause of action as "Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
McGreevey v. GOLDMAN SACHS BANK, USA
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania on November 6, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Statutes: Consumer Credit" and lists the cause of action as "Truth in Lending". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
★ Howell v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
Elizabeth Howell, a New York resident, is suing Costco Wholesale on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of shoppers. The complaint alleges that Costco, as importer of record, passed the cost of tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) on to customers by raising prices, including on U.S.-sourced goods that were never subject to the tariffs. After the Supreme Court held those tariffs invalid in February 2026, importers became entitled to refunds from the federal government. The complaint alleges that Costco can collect those refunds while keeping the higher prices its customers already paid, and has made no commitment to return the money. The proposed class covers people who bought tariffed imported goods, or U.S.-sourced goods at prices raised to offset tariff costs, from Costco between February 4, 2025 and February 20, 2026. The claims are unjust enrichment, money had and received, and New York General Business Law sections 349 and 350.
Camacho v. McDonald's Corporation
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, N.D. Illinois on November 6, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Fraud" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-Fraud". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Penning, Stacy v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company SI
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, W.D. Wisconsin on November 6, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Statutory Actions" and lists the cause of action as "Fed. Question". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
McLaughlin v. Revolve Group, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, C.D. California on November 6, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "P.I.: Other" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-Personal Injury". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Fried v. Albertsons Companies, Inc.
Plaintiff Jonathan Fried is suing Albertsons Companies on behalf of two proposed nationwide classes, alleging that Albertsons violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending unsolicited promotional text messages advertising grocery and retail discounts. The complaint alleges that Albertsons sent marketing texts from short code 48687 to Fried's residential cell phone number, which had been registered on the National Do Not Call Registry since December 2023, and that Albertsons continued sending texts even after Fried sent multiple opt-out requests. The complaint further alleges that Albertsons failed to maintain adequate internal do-not-call procedures as required by federal regulation. The proposed Do Not Call Registry Class and National Internal Do Not Call Class cover all U.S. persons who received more than one such promotional text in any 12-month period within four years before the complaint was filed, either while listed on the National Do Not Call Registry or after requesting to opt out.
ALTMAN v. CAPITAL ONE
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania on November 6, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Statutes: Consumer Credit" and lists the cause of action as "Fair Credit Reporting Act". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Doe - 39 v. Apple, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, N.D. California on November 4, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Personal Inj. Prod. Liability" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-(Citizenship)". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Doe - 25 v. Apple, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, N.D. California on November 4, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Personal Inj. Prod. Liability" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-(Citizenship)". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Baltazar v. Revolve Group, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, C.D. California on November 4, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Contract: Other" and lists the cause of action as "Civil Miscellaneous Case". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Schwartzenberger v. Augusta Precious Metals
Plaintiff Bobbie Schwartzenberger, a Spokane County, Washington resident, is suing Augusta Precious Metals, a Wyoming-based precious metals investment company, for allegedly sending repeated unwanted telemarketing text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and Washington state law. The complaint alleges that Augusta Precious Metals continued to send promotional texts about its precious metals investment products even after Schwartzenberger replied 'stop' in June 2026 and received a confirmation that his opt-out had been processed, then had to send a second opt-out request roughly 45 days later. The complaint also alleges the company lacks proper do-not-call procedures. The proposed classes include all U.S. persons whose numbers were on the National Do Not Call Registry and received multiple texts within any 12-month period in the four years before filing, U.S. persons who sent opt-out requests that were ignored during the same period, and Washington residents who received commercial texts without clear advance consent during the same timeframe.
RICCA v. TRUEACCORD CORP.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, D. New Jersey on November 4, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Consumer Credit" and lists the cause of action as "Fair Debt Collection Act". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
ANDERSON v. FRONTLINE TECHNOLOGIES GROUP LLC D/B/A FRONTLINE EDUCATION
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania on November 2, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Contract: Other" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-Other Contract". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Laurency v. Kenny's Candy & Confections, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, S.D. New York on November 2, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Fraud" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-Fraud". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Talbot v. The Lagunitas Brewing Company
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, N.D. California on November 2, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Fraud" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-Fraud". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Morris v. Truist Financial Corporation
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, W.D. North Carolina on November 1, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Contract: Other" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-Contract Dispute". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
De La Pena v. Dunkin Brands, Inc.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, D. Massachusetts on October 30, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Fraud" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-Fraud". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
CLAIN v. UPWARD ADVANCE LLC
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, District of Columbia on October 30, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)" and lists the cause of action as "Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Cartagena v. TrueAccord Corp.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania on October 30, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Statutes: Consumer Credit" and lists the cause of action as "Fair Debt Collection Act". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Munoz v. LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, C.D. California on October 30, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Statutory Actions" and lists the cause of action as "Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
KRALL v. WEBEYECARE, INC.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania on October 29, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Statutes: Other Statutory Actions" and lists the cause of action as "Wiretapping". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Tom v. Right Start Mortgage Inc.
Plaintiff David Tom is suing Right Start Mortgage, which also does business as GFS Home Loans, alleging the company made unwanted telemarketing calls to promote its mortgage and home refinancing services. The complaint alleges that Right Start Mortgage called Tom and others whose numbers were listed on the National Do Not Call Registry, that it used a lead generator called Blue Financial, and that one of the calls displayed only 'UNAVAILABLE' as the caller ID rather than a name and number that would let recipients make a do-not-call request. The complaint also alleges the company was not registered as a telephone solicitor with the Texas Secretary of State as required by state law. Three proposed classes cover people nationwide who received such calls within four years before filing, with an additional Texas-focused class for people called while the company lacked state registration.
Phipps v. South East Client Services Inc.
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, W.D. Texas on October 28, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Consumer Credit" and lists the cause of action as "Fair Debt Collection Act". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.
Delacruz v. Da-Vinci Paint Company, Inc.
A consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against Da-Vinci Paint Company under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that the company has failed to provide equal access to individuals with disabilities. While the specific details of the complaint are not fully outlined here, ADA cases of this nature typically involve allegations that a company's physical locations, website, or services are not accessible to people with physical or visual impairments, preventing them from fully using the company's products or services in the same way non-disabled customers can. The proposed class would likely include individuals with qualifying disabilities who were denied equal access to Da-Vinci Paint Company's offerings and experienced discrimination as a result of the company's alleged failure to meet ADA compliance standards.
Delacruz v. SJS Commercial, LLC
A consumer has filed a class action lawsuit against SJS Commercial under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that the company has failed to provide equal access to individuals with disabilities. The lawsuit likely centers on physical or digital barriers that prevent disabled individuals from fully accessing the defendant's goods or services, such as inaccessible facilities, websites, or accommodations. The plaintiff claims these failures violate federal disability rights protections and seeks to represent a class of similarly situated individuals with disabilities who have been denied equal access. The suit aims to compel the company to bring its operations into compliance with ADA requirements and potentially recover damages or other relief on behalf of affected class members.
HARRIS v. NCB Management Services, Inc.
Plaintiff Phoebe Nicole Harris is suing NCB Management Services and First Credit Services in federal court in the Southern District of Texas, alleging that the defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The complaint claims the defendants engaged in unlawful debt collection practices against the plaintiff. The case is filed as a proposed class action under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, though the complaint text provided does not specify the full class definition, any applicable time period, or geographic limitations beyond what appears on the civil cover sheet. The cause of action is based on 15 U.S.C. Section 1692, the federal statute that regulates the conduct of third-party debt collectors when they attempt to collect debts from consumers. The plaintiff is seeking a jury trial.
Miller v. Kasper Group LLC
This lawsuit was filed in District Court, S.D. New York on October 27, 2026. The court docket classifies it as "Other Statutory Actions" and lists the cause of action as "Fed. Question". The complaint has not yet been read, so the specific allegations and the proposed class are not described here. This note will be replaced with a summary once the complaint is available.