Miller v. Fiverr Inc.; Johnson v. Fiverr Inc.

Procedural posture

The court considered a joint application by the plaintiffs and Fiverr, Inc. The application sought approval of the parties’ schedule for filing an amended consolidated complaint and briefing Fiverr’s motion to dismiss. The order states: “Application granted.” It approves the proposed schedule.

Background

The two actions had previously been consolidated into the Miller action, although the proposed amended complaint states that the cases retained their separate identities. The plaintiffs sought consent to amend the consolidated complaint by adding Jonathan Hageman as a plaintiff and adding related allegations. The complaint alleges that Fiverr’s online freelancing platform advertised services at upfront prices and added mandatory “service fees” late in the purchasing process. It asserts claims under New York and California consumer-protection laws and for unjust enrichment, and it seeks class-action treatment. Those allegations were not decided in this order.

Approved schedule

The court approved the following schedule for the proposed amended consolidated complaint and Fiverr’s motion to dismiss:

- October 14, 2025: the plaintiffs would file the proposed amended consolidated complaint. - November 18, 2025: Fiverr would file its motion to dismiss, with a memorandum of 10,000 or fewer words. - January 9, 2026: the plaintiffs would file their opposition, with a memorandum of 10,000 or fewer words. - January 30, 2026: Fiverr would file its reply, with a memorandum of 4,500 or fewer words.

The parties also agreed to expand the ordinary local-rule word limits because of the consolidation, the addition of a third plaintiff, Jewish holidays, counsel conflicts, and planned parental leave. The stipulation stated that Fiverr did not need to respond to the existing consolidated complaint and could wait for further court direction.

Disposition and effect

Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted the application and approved the proposed schedule. The order was a case-management ruling. It did not grant or deny Fiverr’s anticipated motion to dismiss, certify a class, or resolve any claim concerning Fiverr’s alleged pricing practices.