CAR_Public/150610.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 115


                            Headlines


852 EIGHTH: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AAP CONSTRUCTION: "Del Toro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
ACE AMERICAN: Judge Narrows Claim in "New NGC" Suit
AMERICAN CYANAMID: Antitrust Suits Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in California Over Defective 2015 Honda CR-V

AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Judge Dismisses Shareholder's Derivative Suit
AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Removed "Almaraz" Suit to S.D. California
AMGEN INC: Transferred "Carter" Class Suit to C.D. California
ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action Over Autism Coverage Policy
AUSNET SERVICES: May 2016 Trial Set for Mickleham Fire Class Suit

BALSAM VIEW: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Approves Additional Postcard Notice
BELFOR USA GROUP: "Leff" Action Remanded to NJ Superior Court
BLUE CROSS: Removed "Gil" Class Suit to S.D. California

BLUE DIAMOND: "Vass" Class Action Stays in M.D. Massachusetts
BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Affirms District Court Denial of Review
BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Narrows Claim in "Deepwater Horizon" Suit
BW MECHANICAL: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CALPERS: Cal. Appeals Court Narrows Claim in "Marzec" Suit

CAPITAL FUNDING: "Apgar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CARGO FORCE: "Castro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Faces "Souza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CFW CREDIT: Faces "Terenzi" Suit Over Alleged Violation of FDCPA

CHICAGO, IL: Judge Narrows Claim in "Love" Suit
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Cal. Appeals Court Narrows "Falk" Suit
CINEMARK USA: Opposition Brief Due June 12 in "Amey" Suit
CNG FINANCIAL: Court Rules in Waite Schneider v. Davis
CNO FINANCIAL: Removed "Davis" Suit to Newmark District Court

COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Libby" Suit Over Breach of FDCPA
DANIELLS NORELLI: Faces "Stern" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
DOLL HOUSE: Removed "Tapia" Class Suit to Middle Dist. Florida
DOWNTOWN LA MOTORS: Technician Pay Plans Revised After Ruling

ELITE COMPRESSION: "Moreno" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC: Faces Complaints Over Landfill Odor Problem
ERIC A. JONES LLC: Debt Collector Uses Atty General's Letterhead
EXPRESS ENERGY: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FLASH FOODS: Faces "Novinger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FLO PIE: Judge Grants Bid for Conditional Class Certification
HAYWARD INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Pool Products Suit Has Final OK
HOLLISTER CO: Appellate Court Affirms Certification Order
JC FODALE: "Berry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE: 11th Cir. Upheld Dismissal of "Langermann"

JIN & MIN: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JL VENDING: Faces "Schwarz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
INKO'S TEA: Falsely Marketed Tea Products, "Collazo" Suit Claims
KIND LLC: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, "Cavanagh" Suit Says
LIQUE MIAMI: Removed "Turos" Suit to Southern District Florida

LIVE CHEAP: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LIVE CHEAP: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Dunn" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
MAXPHOTO NY: Faces "Wu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

MAZDA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "Stevenson" Warranty Suit
MCROWD GP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Peralta" Suit Claims
MERACORD INC: Fidelity & Platt River Can't Intervene
MERACORD LLC: "Rajagopalan" Case May Proceed as Class Action
MIDLAND FUNDING: Judge Narrows Claim in "Walkabout" Suit

MIDTOWN EAST: Faces "Antonio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MIKADO JAPANESE: Faces "Dong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MILLERCOORS: Faces Class Action Over Blue Moon Beer Claims
NATIONWIDE DEBT: Faces "Liversage" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
NETHERLANDS: Class Action Seeks Cut in Carbon Emissions

NEVADA: Judge Wants Updated Address on Former Inmate
NEW YORK TIMES: Judge Denies Teamsters' Bid for Discovery
NJ MANUFACTURERS: "Myska" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
OHIO: Oil & Gas Companies Can Drill New Wells Amid Class Action
OKLAHOMA: Co-Neutrals See Progress in DHS Child Welfare Efforts

PENNSWOOD PARTNERS: Ill. App. Ct. Narrows Claims in GM Sign Suit
PERFORMANCE PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
RESTAURANT.COM: Must Face Gift Certificate Class Action
SANDISK CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
SEGA OF AMERICA: Judge Denied Parties' Motions in "Perrine Suit"

SELECTION.COM: Sued in Cal. Over Consumer Reporting Policies
SMITH & NEPHEW: Faces Suit Over Hip Replacement Design Flaws
SOY SAUCE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Feng" Suit Claims
SOUTH FLORIDA PATIENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SPERIAN ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Petrasko" Suit Says

STANDARD GENERAL: Faces Suit by American Apparel Shareholders
STUDIO DUART: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Ariz. Over Violation of FDCPA
TRASH TAXI: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRUECAR INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports

UBER TECH: Stabbed Driver Files Class Action in California
UNITED CREDIT: Faces "Chapa" Suit in N.J. Over Violation of FDCPA
UNITED EDUCATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
US CHUTES: Faces "McDonald" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VITTAL ARGENTINA: Faces "Filgueiras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

VOCATION: Faces $3 Million Claim by Yarra Advantage
WARRIOR ENERGY: Faces "Salas" Sui Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Maldonado" Suit Says
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Removed "Spradley" Class Suit to N.D. Florida

WINE VAULT: "Zamora" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
XPO LOGISTICS: Removed "Reyes" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
YAHOO INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Pension Fund Case
YELLOWSTONE PROPERTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ZAPPOS.COM: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss With Leave to Amend

ZAZA JAPAN: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ZODIAC POOL: Settlement in Pool Products Suit Has Final OK

* Feminists Call for Passage of Paycheck Fairness Act
* New Bill Eases Data Breach Alert Laws for Companies
* New Legislation Revisits Class Action Fairness Act
* Use of Unsafe Building Materials Poses Threat in Australia


                            *********


852 EIGHTH: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Rodriguez and Claudio Arias, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. 852 Eighth Gotham Pizza Inc. d/b/a
Gotham Pizza, Michael Shamailov and Lana Shamailov, 1:15-cv-04069-
JPO (S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pizzeria located at 852 8th
Avenue, New York, New York 10019.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


AAP CONSTRUCTION: "Del Toro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus R. Del Toro, and all others similarly-situated v. AAP
Construction Group Corp., and Alejandro Archival, Case No. 1:15-
cv-22021-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial and residential
construction company in Miami-Dade County, Florida

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      Co-Counsel for Plaintiff
      20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE, PA
      1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone (786) 704-8898
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


ACE AMERICAN: Judge Narrows Claim in "New NGC" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard L. Voorhees of the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division ruled on the parties' motions
in the case NEW NGC, INC. Plaintiff, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE
CO., AMERICAN GUARANTEE & LIABILITY INSURANCE CO. LIBERTY
INSURANCE UNDERWRITERS, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF
PITTSBURGH, PA, LUMBERMENS MUTUAL CASUALTY CO. Defedents. NATIONAL
UNION FIRE INSURANCE CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA Counter-Claimant, v.
NEW NGC, Inc. Counter-Defendant, CASE NO. 3:10-CV-00022-RLV-DSC
(W.D.N.C.)

NGC operates a fully integrated building products manufacturing
business from its headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina and
has become one of the leading producers of domestically
manufactured drywall in the country. ACE American Insurance Co.
(ACE) and National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA
(National Union, are insurance companies that issued commercial
general liability insurance policies covering NGC's liabilities
arising from their business.

In 2009, NGC faced a flurry of individual and putative class
action lawsuits (the drywall lawsuits) alleging wrongdoing by NGC.
The drywall lawsuits asserted injuries and damages arising from
exposure to what was alleged to be defective drywall manufactured,
sold, used, or distributed by NGC.

Defendants have maintained a position of non-coverage relieving
them of any duty to defend NGC against the drywall lawsuits. NGC
argues that the drywall lawsuits are covered by defendants'
insurance policies and that it timely tendered the drywall
lawsuits and otherwise complied with all material obligations as
an insured party to the policies.

NGC alleges breach of contract by defendants for failure to comply
with their respective insurance policies. NGC also requests
judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, declaring the rights
and legal obligations of NGC and a determination that defendants
are jointly and severally obligated to pay in full NGC's legal
liabilities, costs, and expenses for the investigation and defense
of the Drywall Lawsuits.

Defendants move to dismiss, or alternatively, stay these
proceedings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 9 U.S.C. Section 3, on the basis that the subject of the
dispute is governed by mandatory and enforceable arbitration
agreements.


NGC seeks partial summary judgment against the defendants on the
basis that defendants breached their contractual duty to defend
NGC against the drywall lawsuits. National Union requests summary
judgment in its favor on the basis that it has no duty to defend
or indemnify NGC under the National Union primary policies in
connection with the drywall lawsuits, or, alternatively, National
Union has no obligation to pay any defense costs incurred prior to
June 18, 2010.

Judge Voorhees granted in part and denied in part defendants ACE
and National Union's motion to dismiss or alternatively stay the
proceedings. Defendants' motions are granted in part that the
matter is stayed as to all claims made pursuant to the six
National Union Umbrella Polices and the three corresponding ACE
excess policies. The scope of the arbitrable issues with regard to
the umbrella and excess policies is limited to interpretation of
the pollution endorsements in National Union's umbrella policies.
The parties shall submit the arbitrable issue in accordance with
their agreement: namely, within thirty (30) days of the order,
each party will choose an arbitrator. If the two (2) arbitrators
are unable to agree within one (1) month upon naming the third
arbitrator, such arbitrator shall at the request of either party
be selected by the American Arbitration Association in accordance
with its rules and procedures. NGC's motion for partial summary
judgment with respect to defendant ACE is denied and is granted
with respect to National Union. National Union's motion for
summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part and the
plaintiff's motion for pretrial conference is granted.

A copy of Judge Voorhees's memorandum and opinion dated May 12,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/7F0wd8from Leagle.com.

New NGC, Inc., Plaintiff/Counter Defendant, represented by David
Sean Cox -- dcox@morganlewis.com -- Michel Yves Horton --
mhorton@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; R.
Steven DeGeorge -- sdegeorge@rbh.com -- at Robinson, Bradshaw &
Hinson, PA

ACE American Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by Tracy L.
Eggleston -- teggleston@cozen.com -- Andrea Cortland --
acortland@cozen.com --Joseph A. Ziemianski --
jziemianski@cozen.com -- at Cozen OConnor

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA,
Defendant/Counter Claimant, represented by Frank E Valenti --
fvalenti@hww-law.com -- Brian H. Sanchez -- Joseph A Hinkhouse --
jhinkhouse@hww-law.com -- Sara Uffelman Gattie -- at Hinkhouse
Williams Walsh LLP; Susan K. Burkhart -- skb@cshlaw.com -- at
Cranfill, Sumner & Hartzog, LLP


AMERICAN CYANAMID: Antitrust Suits Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge William H. Becker of the Judicial Panel on the
Multidistrict Litigation granted defendants' motion to transfer
venue of the case entitled IN RE MULTIDISTRICT CIVIL ANTITRUST
ACTIONS INVOLVING ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS, DOCKET NO. 10

The Multidistrict Civil Antitrust Suit involves the cases of:

     1. City of Boston v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68-105-
G;

     2. Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et
al. C.A. 68-116-G District of Kansas;

     3. State of Kansas v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. T-4404
District of New Jersey;

     4. Continental Vitamin Corp. v. American Cyanamid Co., et
al.C.A. 936-63 Eastern District of Pennsylvania;

     5. City of Philadelphia and City of Detroitv. Chas. Pfizer &
Co., et al. C.A. 68-144;

     6. Fort Pierce, Florida, General Hospital  -- Deborah
Hospital v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68-452;

     7. Sidney Hillman Labor Council v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al.
C.A. 68-162;

     8. Kent Pharmaceuticals v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A.
68-384 Northern District of Illinois;

     9. City of Baltimore v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68C
758;

    10. State of Maryland v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68C
757;

    11. State of New Mexico v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68C
822;

    12. Cotler Drugs, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A.
68C 220;

    13. State of Connecticut v.Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 68C
1181 Southern District of Iowa;

    14. State of Iowa v.Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 8-2130-C-2
Northern District of Texas;

    15. State of Texasv. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A.
3-2165 Northern District of California;

    16. City of San Francisco v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A.
48909;

    17. State of California v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A.
49044;

    18. Bidart Bros. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 49145;

    19. Los Angeles County v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A.
49670 Central District of California;

    20. American Medical Enterprises v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al.
C.A. 67-1365-R;

    21. Benalen v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 67-793-R;

    22. Domaro v. Chas. Pfizer & Co., et al. C.A. 67-1366-R

The affected civil antitrust actions all involved the antibiotic
drug tetracycline. In each of the affected actions there are
alleged violations of the antitrust laws which were the basis of
convictions of three of the five defendants in the Southern
District of New York.

A hearing was held on September 18, 1968, on the motion to
transfer to the Southern District of New York for pretrial
purposes under Section 1407, Title 28, U.S.C.  The motion to
transfer was submitted on behalf of defendants American Cyanamid
Company, Bristol-Myers Co., Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corp., and the
Upjohn Company.

At the same time, on the initiative of the panel, and on notice to
the parties to the cases, a hearing was held to consider transfer
of all the actions listed in the attached Schedule A under Section
1407, Title 28, U.S.C., to a district or districts other than the
Southern District of New York.

Judge Becker ordered that the 22 actions, pending in the Districts
of Massachusetts, Kansas, and New Jersey, the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, Northern District of Illinois, Southern District of
Iowa, Northern District of Texas, Northern District of California,
and the Central District of California be transferred under 28
U.S.C. Section 1407, to the Southern District of New York and
assigned to the Honorable Inzer B. Wyatt, District Judge.

The action entitled Richardson Drug, et al. v. Chas. Pfizer & Co.,
et al., No. 68-744-G be, is transferred to the Southern District
of New York and assigned to the Honorable Inzer B. Wyatt, District
Judge.

A copy of Chief Judge Becker's opinion and order dated April 24,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/rAcGJgfrom Leagle.com.

The Judicial panel consists of Circuit Judges Alfred P. Murrah and
John Minor Wisdom, and Edward Weinfeld, Edwin A. Robinson, William
H. Becker and Joseph S. Lord.


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in California Over Defective 2015 Honda CR-V
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Romaya, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-03938 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2015), is brought on behalf of
similarly situated persons or entities, who purchased, own or
leased a 2015 Honda CR-V, with defects which causes the vehicle to
rattle and vibrate vigorously to the point of nausea.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is a California corporation with
its national headquarters in Torrance, California. Honda is one of
the largest distributors of automobiles in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street, Ste. 100
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
              shavens@parisihavens.com

         - and -

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 893-7002
      E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com

         - and -

      Michael J. McMorrow, Esq.
      MCMORROW LAW, P.C.
      One North LaSalle Street, 44th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 265-0708
      E-mail: mike@mjmcmorrow.com


AMERICAN ORIENTAL: Judge Dismisses Shareholder's Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael A. Shipp of the District of New Jersey
granted defendants' motion in the case DAVID BRAVETTI,
Derivatively, on behalf of AMERICAN ORIENTAL BIOENGINEERING, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. TONY LIU, et al., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-
7492 (MAS) (TJB) (D.N.J.)

American Oriental Bioengineering, Inc. (AOB) is a Nevada
corporation that develops and manufactures pharmaceutical and
healthcare products in China.

On December 6, 2012, David Bravetti, an AOB shareholder filed a
shareholder derivative complaint, on behalf of AOB, against
present and former directors and officers of AOB, asserting claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and
unjust enrichment.

Defendants moved to stay or, in the alternative, to dismiss this
action. Defendants seek dismissal on two separate grounds: (1)
Bravetti fails to adequately plead the additional requirements for
shareholder derivative actions under Rule 23.1, and (2) Bravetti
fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

Judge Shipp granted defendants motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Shipp's memorandum opinion dated April 29, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/LOhwNyfrom Leagle.com.


AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL: Removed "Almaraz" Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Victor Almaraz, an individual,
individually and on behalf of himself and Others similarly
situated v. American Residential Services, LLC, et al., Case No.
37-2015-00006918-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00986-CAB-JLB to the proceeding.

The case alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas D. Rutledge, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS D RUTLEDGE
      3555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 866-7224
      Facsimile: (619) 259-5455
      E-mail: rutledgelaw@cox.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Monique Ngo-Bonnici, Esq.
      WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
      333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 615-1808
      Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
      E-mail: mbonnici@winston.com


AMGEN INC: Transferred "Carter" Class Suit to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jimmy Mae Carter and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Amgen, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-00, was transferred from the California Superior Court,
County of San Diego, Central Division to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles) The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03329-
JFW-MRW to the proceeding.

The case alleged breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah S. Dixon, Esq.
      John P. Fiske, Esq.
      John H. Gomez, Esq.
      GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
      2101 Rosecrans Avenue Suite 3290
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (619) 237-3960
      Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
      E-mail: Ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com
              Fiske@thegomezfirm.com
              jgomez@gomeztrialattorneys.com

         - and -

      Khaldoun A. Baghdadi, Esq.
      Michael A. Kelly, Esq.
      WALKUP MELODIA KELLY AND SCHOENBERGER
      650 California Street 26th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-7210
      Facsimile: (415) 391-6965
      E-mail: kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice.com
              mkelly@walkuplawoffice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Charles E. Weir, Esq.
      David Rosenbloom, Esq.
      MCDERMOTT WILL AND EMERY LLP
      2049 Century Park East 38th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-3208
      Telephone: (310) 277-4110
      Facsimile: (310) 277-4730
      E-mail: cweir@mwe.com
              drosenbloom@mwe.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces Class Action Over Autism Coverage Policy
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that an Indiana couple whose son has
autism is suing Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, alleging that
its policy of denying coverage for autism therapy during school
hours violates state and federal laws.

Chester and Kathi Pierce of Elkhart sued the Indianapolis-based
health insurer last month in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis
on behalf of their son, Wes.  The couple is seeking class-action
status for their suit, which alleges that Anthem's 3-year-old
policy of denying coverage for autism therapy during school hours
violates both an Indiana mandate for autism coverage lawmakers
passed in 2001 and the federal mental health parity law.

That federal law requires insurers to cover mental health services
to the same extent that they cover services for physical health
needs, the Indianapolis Business Journal reported.  Their suit
contends that Anthem's policy has forced some families to change
insurers or go with less of the therapy they say helps their
children.  Autism therapy is known formally as applied behavior
analysis, or ABA, and can cost $30,000 to $50,000 a year, if
delivered 40 hours a week, year-round.

"Anthem's determinations improperly conflate clinical ABA therapy
with the educational services provided by Indiana public schools,"
the Pierces' lawsuit states.

Anthem spokesman Tony Felts declined to discuss the suit.  He said
in a statement that Anthem is committed to getting autistic
children the right treatments but it recognizes "that no two
autism cases are alike."

"Therapy that works for one individual may not be effective for
another.  In partnership with providers, parents and educational
institutions, Anthem is paying for the care that is helping kids
with autism spectrum disorders live a better life," Mr. Felts
said.

In May 2012, Anthem sent a letter to families with autistic
children informing them it would no longer pay for therapy for
school-age children during the time they are or could be in a
public school.  Anthem claims the federal Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act requires public schools to provide
services to autistic children.

In the case of Wes Pierce, who is 12, Anthem cut his number of
therapy hours from 40 to 25 in July 2013.  After Anthem cut the
number of therapy hours it reimbursed, and cut it again to 20 in
July 2014, Wes' progress reversed and he now uses only five to 10
words, Kathi Pierce stated in her affidavit.

The Pierces say they can't afford to pay for therapy on their own.

Autism advocates and families have met periodically over the past
three years with Anthem's medical directors, ABA therapists and
state insurance officials, said Michele Trevedi, manager of The
Arc Insurance Project at The Arc of Indiana, which provides
services to Indiana residents with intellectual and developmental
disabilities.

But Trevedi said Anthem insisted on treating the issue case-by-
case, rather than "at the systemic level."

"We were very concerned that this would lead to litigation," she
said.


AUSNET SERVICES: May 2016 Trial Set for Mickleham Fire Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Savino, writing for Herald Sun, reports that a CLASS
action into the 2014 Mickleham fires will hit the Supreme Court
next year.  The blaze allegedly started when a tree fell on a
powerline on February 9, wiping out 23,000ha from Mickleham to
Kilmore.

A trial will start on May 2 next year in front of Justice
Terry Forrest, with settlement options to be explored earlier
through mediation.

Maddens Lawyers, which represented those affected by the Black
Saturday fires, alleges power company AusNet Services (formerly SP
AusNet) did not adequately maintain power lines and clearances
near its sub-transmission line on Mickleham Rd.  It also argues
Hume Council and AusNet-contracted company Active Tree Services
failed to properly undertake vegetation management in the
vicinity.

Class action principal Brendan Prendergast believes the claim for
damages will exceed $50 million, with more than 20 homes destroyed
and thousands of animals killed.

More than a year on, Glenn McLean and his family are still living
through the effects of the blaze, which came within meters of
their home.  He said it was an expensive exercise to replace
everything and it had also taken an emotional toll.

"My wife . . . was caught in the home and she's still sort of
traumatized," Mr. McLean said.

"She can't sleep at night because she was woken up with the CFA
bashing on the window.

"When someone is emotionally damaged by it, what's the cost of
that?"

Neighbor Wayne Gauci wasn't so lucky, with the fire destroying his
home, affecting his business and leaving him almost half a million
dollars out of pocket.

"Money can't replace what you had, when you have 2.5 acres of a
landscape to maintain and equipment and you have your dog there,
and all your personal items that you can't put a price on have
disappeared off the face of the earth," Mr. Gauci said.

AusNet spokesman Jonathon Geddes said the company denied the blaze
was a result of negligence.  He said their safety record, network
asset management and maintenance programs were consistent with
industry practice and that bushfire mitigation and vegetation
management programs "comply with relevant legislation and
regulations".

Hume Council would not comment while the matter is before court.
Residents had until May 22 to register for the class action.

Fran and Reg Cleland know just how easy it is for decades of hard
work to be lost in the blink of an eye.

The Kilmore couple's former Mickleham home was destroyed in last
year's blaze, which started 6.5km away.

"The simple matter is, we walked out with our clothes on and
that's all we had," Mr. Cleland said.

It was the only blaze they'd seen in 23 years of living there, but
it was strong enough to wipe out years of memories.  "We were
watching it from the front of the house and thought we were safe,"
he said.

Mr. Cleland said they'd been left "dismayed" by what they found in
the aftermath -- just remnants of what used to be their home.

"You never get over it," he said.  "Some of the stuff in the house
was handed down through families and you lose it (in minutes)."

Salvaged from the wreckage was a Gallipoli medal handed down to
his wife, but books and references from her journalism career were
destroyed.

The couple have seen psychologists ever since the blaze and say
others "are in the same boat".  "We couldn't stay there, we
couldn't go back," Mr. Cleland said.  They are now members of a
class action into the fires, launched by Maddens Lawyers, and hope
to get one thing out of the trial.

"It's not the money -- it's the satisfaction of knowing that
something has been done," Mr. Cleland said.

"There's things there you can't replace.  It's very hard to move
on."


BALSAM VIEW: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Gomez, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Balsam View Dairy Farm, Brian Newton, and
Heidi Newton, Case No. 3:15-cv-00642 (N.D.N.Y., May 26, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a dairy farm located at 133 Newton
Rd., McDonough, NY 13801.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eden P. Quainton, Esq.
      QUAINTON LAW, PLLC
      1001 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 813-8389
      Facsimile: (212) 813-8390
      E-mail: equainton@gmail.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Spencer" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomasa Spencer, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals v. Bank of America Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01877
(N.D. Ga., May 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Bank of America Corporation is a national banking and financial
services corporation headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
      Benjamin Stark, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
      1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      E-mail: Amanda@bf-llp.com
              bstark@bf-llp.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Judge Approves Additional Postcard Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
granted plaintiffs' proposed additional postcard in the case
LOPEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Defendant,
CASE NO. 10-CV-01207-JST (N.D. Cal.)

On March 3, 2015, plaintiffs moved for final approval of their
class action settlement with defendant. Plaintiffs also filed a
stipulation asking the court to approve an additional postcard
notice to class members who signed severance agreements with Bank
of America between September 4, 2014 and the close of the claims
period.

At the April 23, 2015 settlement fairness hearing, the court
advised the parties that postcard notices the settlement
administrator sent to class members did not include three specific
items of information the court had previously ordered the notices
to include in its preliminary approval order. The parties agreed
to remedy the error by sending an additional postcard notice to
class members, containing the court-ordered revisions, and to
extend the claims period by thirty days. At the fairness hearing,
the court also ordered plaintiffs' counsel to provide further
information in support of plaintiffs' counsel's request for
attorneys' fees.

On April 30, 2015, the parties filed a status report addressing
the court's concerns. In the report, the parties proposed a
revised schedule and new final fairness hearing date premised on
the sending of additional postcard notice and the extended claims
period. The parties also submitted a proposed additional postcard
notice containing the revisions discussed at the hearing, and
explained that the settlement administrator would bear the full
cost of the additional notice. Finally, plaintiffs' counsel asked
for clarification regarding the additional information the court
would need to approve plaintiffs' request for attorneys' fees.

Judge Tigar granted the stipulation pertaining to the additional
notice for class members who signed severance agreements between
September 4, 2014 and the end of the claims period and approved
the revised version of the reminder postcard.

Plaintiffs' counsel shall submit, in support of the motion for
attorneys' fees, charts that break down, by individual attorney
for whom fees are claimed, the attorney's work on this case by
general category, and by specific categories of tasks performed
within that category, and the total number of hours worked in each
category.

Plaintiffs' counsel shall submit the same type of documentation in
support of the request for reimbursement for work performed by
contract attorneys. Plaintiffs' counsel may only request a
reasonable hourly rate for the work that contract attorneys
performed. The updated implementation schedule, with modifications
is approved and the final approval hearing is set for August 27,
2015 at 2:00 p.m.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated May 6, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/u8v5lkfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Eric Stephan Honig, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ERIC HONIG
P.O. Box 10327
Marina del Rey, CA 90295
Telephone: 310-699-8051
Facsimile: 310-943-2220

     - and -

Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
Stephanie Emi Yasuda, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
624 S Grand Ave
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: 213-612-0988

     - and -

Peter Mark Hart, Esq.
Travis Eugene Hodgkins, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
12121 Wilshire Blvd. suite 205
Los Angeles, CA 90065
Telephone: 310-478-5789
Facsimile: 509-561-6441

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Maria Alicia
Audero -- mariaaudero@paulhastings.com -- Stephen Philip
Sonnenberg -- stephensonnenberg@paulhastings.com -- at Paul
Hastings LLP

Besthines Maria Davis, Miscellaneous, Pro Se

Randall Pittman, Miscellaneous, Pro Se


BELFOR USA GROUP: "Leff" Action Remanded to NJ Superior Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Leff moved to remand to the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Middlesex County, the case, JASON LEFF, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BELFOR USA
GROUP, INC. d/b/a BELFOR RESTORATION, Defendant, Case No. 15-2275
(SRC)(D.N.J.).

Plaintiff filed the lawsuit on November 3, 2014 in the Superior
Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County, on behalf of himself and of
a putative class consisting of "all consumers who, at any time on
or after November 3, 2008, entered an agreement the same or
similar to the 'Work Authorization' attached as Exhibit A with
Belfor for work to be performed on residential property located in
the State of New Jersey." The Amended Complaint, filed on December
1, 2014, set forth a sole state law claim based on the allegedly
unlawful provisions in the Work Authorization form, asserting a
cause of action under the Truth-In-Consumer Contract, Warranty and
Notice Act (TCCWNA). It sought an award for Plaintiff and each
member of the putative class of statutory civil penalties in the
amount of $100 per contract pursuant to the TCCWNA. It also sought
to recover, pursuant to the statute, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs.

Belfor, a Colorado corporation with its principal place of
business in Michigan, removed the action to federal court on March
31, 2015 pursuant to diversity jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). The Removal Petition
stated that the action satisfies CAFA's $5 million amount in
controversy requirement based on representations made by
Plaintiff's counsel, in particular, counsel's remark at a March 2,
2015 meet-and-confer session that Plaintiff might sought
rescission of the allegedly unlawful Work Authorizations. The
Removal Petition further stated that on March 4, 2015, Defendant's
counsel emailed Plaintiff's counsel for clarification on the scope
of damages, that is, to determine whether damages included both
the $100 statutory penalty and rescission of the Work
Authorizations at issue for Plaintiff and putative class.

District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the U.S. District Court for
the District of New Jersey in the Opinion dated June 1, 2015
available at http://is.gd/8g8F45from Leagle.com, granted
Palintiff's motion to remand finding that the Court lacked subject
matter jurisdiction. The Court was not satisfied with Defendant's
argument that the amount in controversy requirement under CAFA has
been met. Plaintiff's request for an award of attorneys' fees in
connection with the filing of the motion and Defendant's request
for leave to file a sur-reply in further opposition to Plaintiff's
motion were denied.

Plaintiff is represented by Andrew R. Wolf, Esq. --
awolf@wolflawfirm.net -- and Henry Paul Wolfe, Esq. --
hwolfe@wolflawfirm.net -- THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC

Defendants are represented by F. Brenden Coller, Esq. --
bcoller@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR


BLUE CROSS: Removed "Gil" Class Suit to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Marina Gil, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Blue Cross of California,
Case No. 37-02015-00008803-CU-BT-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of California (San Diego)
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00982-BEN-BLM
to the proceeding.

The case alleges breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 400-5822
      Facsimile: (619) 400-5832
      E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael M. Maddigan, Esq.
      HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
      1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 785-4600
      Facsimile: (310) 785-4601
      E-mail: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com


BLUE DIAMOND: "Vass" Class Action Stays in M.D. Massachusetts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge M. Page Kelley of the District of Massachusetts
recommends the denial of defendant's motion in the case CASLEY
VASS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 14-13610-IT (D. Mass.)

Blue Diamond Growers is a California corporation with a principal
place of business in Sacramento, California, and is a leading
producer of retail food products. Defendant sells its products to
consumers in Massachusetts.

Plaintiff Casley Vass is a resident of Boston, Massachusetts who
purchased defendant's products in the Commonwealth within the past
four years. Plaintiff brings an action on behalf of himself and
all persons in Massachusetts who, from September 11, 2010, until
the date of notice, purchased almond milk products manufactured,
distributed and/or sold by Blue Diamond Growers containing the
label statements evaporated cane juice and/or All Natural.

On plaintiff's amended complaint he alleges the following: Count
I, violation of Mass. Gen. L. c. 93A; Count II, violation of Mass.
Gen. L. c. 94 Sections 187 and 190 and 105 CMR 520.116; Count III,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability; Count IV, breach of
express warranty; Count V, negligent misrepresentation; Count VI,
negligence; Count VII, unjust enrichment; Count VIII, money had
and received; and Count IX, declaratory judgment that Defendant
violated federal and state laws regarding mislabeled and
misbranded food products.

In response, Blue Diamond filed a motion to transfer the case to
the Northern District of California or, in the alternative, to
stay on November 3, 2014.

Magistrate Judge Kelley recommends the denial of defendant's
motion to transfer or in the alternative, stay the proceedings.
The parties are advised that any party who objects to the
recommendation must file specific written objections with the
Clerk of Court within 14 days of the party's receipt of the Report
and Recommendation.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Kelley's report and recommendation
dated April 22, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/hCpVbjfrom
Leagle.com.

Casley Vass, Plaintiff, represented by Chant Yedalian --
chant@chant.mobi -- at CHANT & COMPANY; Charles J. LaDuca --
charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Erica C Mirabella and Taylor Asen --
tasen@cuneolaw.com -- at Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP

Blue Diamond Growers, Defendant, represented by Joshua L. Solomon
-- jsolomon@psdfirm.com -- at Pollack Solomon Duffy LLP; Geoffrey
R. Pittman -- gpittman@hansonbridgett.com -- Lawrence M. Cirelli
-- lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com -- Megan Oliver Thompson --
moliverthompson@hansonbridgett.com -- at Hanson Bridgett LLP


BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Affirms District Court Denial of Review
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Edward C. Prado of the United States Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial in the
appealed case entitled IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON. LAKE EUGENIE LAND
& DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; ET AL, Plaintiffs, PLAINTIFFS'
STEERING COMMITTEE, Appellee, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION,
INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C.,
Defendants-Appellants, v. SEALED APPELLEES, Claimants-Appellees,
NO. 13-31296, C/W NOS. 13-31299, 13-31302 (5th Cir.)

Class action settlements of civil claims arising from the
Deepwater Horizon spill have been reached by the parties. The
settlement agreement negotiated by the parties and approved by the
district court established the Court-Supervised Settlement Program
(CSSP).

On November 30, 2012, the claims administrator determined that for
nonprofit entities grant monies or contributions shall typically
be treated as revenue for the purposes of the settlement
agreement. BP challenged this interpretation in the district
court, and the court affirmed the claims administrator. After the
Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation went into effect, the Sealed
Claimants, each a nonprofit organization, counted donations and
grants as revenue in their calculations, and received awards
through the CSSP.

The Claimant in No. 13-31296 (the Cy Pres Claimant) counted as
revenue $331,395 in cy pres funds from a class action settlement.
The Claimant in No. 13-31299 (the Grant Claimant) counted as
revenue its receipt of a large, one-time Trust Grant. The Claimant
in No. 13-31302 (the Legal-Services Claimant) included $157,500 in
revenue that was based on "legal services performed by its legal
fellows.
BP appealed the awards all the way to the district court, which
denied its motion for discretionary review. BP then appealed these
denials of discretionary review and argued that the Nonprofit-
Revenue Interpretation violates the terms of the Agreement; the
Nonprofit-Revenue Interpretation puts the class settlement in
violation of Rule 23 and Article III, and; even if the Nonprofit-
Revenue Interpretation is upheld, each of these three awards is
improper.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial.

A copy of Judge Prado's opinion dated May 8, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/wlVtnmfrom Leagle.com.

The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Edward C.
Prado, Fortunato Benavides and James E. Graves Jr.


BP EXPLORATION: 5th Cir. Narrows Claim in "Deepwater Horizon" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Fortunato P. Benavides of the United States Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part and
remanded the appealed case entitled IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON. LAKE
EUGENIE LAND DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED; BON SECOUR FISHERIES,
INCORPORATED; FORT MORGAN REALTY, INCORPORATED; LFBP 1, L.L.C.,
doing business as GW Fins; PANAMA CITY BEACH DOLPHIN TOURS & MORE,
L.L.C.; ZEKES CHARTER FLEET, L.L.C.; WILLIAM SELLERS; KATHLEEN
IRWIN; RONALD LUNDY; CORLISS GALLO; JOHN TESVICH; MICHAEL GUIDRY,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; HENRY
HUTTO; BRAD FRILOUX; JERRY J. KEE, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BP
EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION
COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Defendants-Appellants, NO. 13-30843 (5th
Cir.)

The district court approved the Economic and Property Damages
Settlement Agreement between appellants BP Exploration &
Production, Inc., BP America Production Company, and BP P.L.C
(collectively, BP), and Appellees, in connection with the
Deepwater Horizon oil spill of April 20, 2010. The court
Supervised Settlement Program (CSSP) was set up to compensate
parties with economic losses caused by the oil spill.

The settlement agreement provides that the court maintains the
discretionary right to review any appeal determination to consider
whether the determination was in compliance with the agreement.

On April 29, 2013, the claims administrator released draft rules
governing the district court's review of Appeal Panel decisions,
and BP responded with comments objecting to the draft rules'
limits on appellate review by the court of appeals and the lack of
provisions requiring documents and orders to be filed on the civil
docket -- similar arguments to the ones made in this appeal.

The Final Rules were adopted by the district court through its May
20, 2013 order.

BP challenges the final rules for not providing for the docketing
of requests for district court review or district court orders
regarding such requests, which, it argues, compromises a right to
appeal from the district court to this court and violates Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 79's provisions regarding the
clerk's maintenance of the civil docket. BP also challenges the
Final Rules for preventing it from seeking judicial review of
certain categories of awards.

Judge Benavides vacated in part and affirmed in part the district
court's May 2013 order adopting the final rules and remanded the
case for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Benavides opinion dated May 8, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/OaQWTCfrom Leagle.com.

The Fifth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Edward C.
Prado, Fortunato Benavides and James E. Graves Jr.


BW MECHANICAL: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Williams v. B.W. Mechanical, Inc., William Wagner, and Penny
Wagner, Case No. 1:15-cv-01506 (D. Md., May 26, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act.

B.W. Mechanical, Inc. sells air conditioning, heating,
refrigeration and indoor air quality products with headquarters
located in Harford County, Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Lanier, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com


CALPERS: Cal. Appeals Court Narrows Claim in "Marzec" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Lee Smalley Edmon of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Three ruled on the
plaintiffs' appeal in the consolidated case of ROBERT MARZEC et
al. Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES
RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al., Defendants and Respondents, NO. B246667,
CONSOLIDATED WITH NO. B246671 (Cal. Ct. App.)

The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is a
unit of the Government Operations Agency responsible for
administering the retirement systems for the State of California
and contracting local public agencies that have elected to have
all or part of their employees become members of the system and
that have contracted with CalPERS for that purpose.

Robert Marzec, Rachel Healy, and Benjamin Esparza filed an action
on May 18, 2011 (the Marzec action), and filed the operative first
amended class action complaint on February 28, 2012. Jeffrey
Andert, Neil MacLaren, and Randy Slaughter filed a similar class
action complaint (the Andert action) on March 12, 2012. The
plaintiffs are former police officers and firefighters employed by
local public agencies that provide employee retirement benefits
through CalPERS.

In order to enhance their service retirement benefits, plaintiffs
purchased additional years of service credit through one of
several optional programs offered by CalPERS. Subsequently, each
plaintiff was disabled on the job and took an industrial
disability retirement before reaching service retirement age. As a
result, CalPERS pays each plaintiff a monthly disability
retirement allowance of 50 percent of his or her final
compensation. CalPERS does not, however, pay plaintiffs any
additional allowance as a result of their purchase of additional
years of service credit.

The actions asserted that neither the Public Employees' Retirement
Law PERL nor plaintiffs' purchase contracts authorized CalPERS to
seize plaintiffs' military service credit (MSC) or additional
retirement service credit (ARSC) or airtime investments as a
condition of receiving disability benefits, that CalPERS did not
adequately advise plaintiffs of this risk of seizure before they
invested in MSC or ARSC, and that through its administration of
disability and MSC/ARSC benefits, CalPERS treated plaintiffs
differently than other similarly situated CalPERS members.

Plaintiffs allege that CalPERS's failure to pay additional
retirement benefits or to return the MSC or ARSC investments gave
rise to 12 causes of action: (1) breach of statutory duties; (2)
breach of contract; (3) rescission/restitution; (4) breach of
fiduciary duties; (5) denial of equal protection; (6) denial of
due process; (7) equitable relief; (8) declaratory relief; (9)
accounting; (10) constitutional impairment of contract; (11)
estoppel; and (12) other relief, including attorney fees.

CalPERS demurred to the first amended complaint in the Marzec
action, which the court sustained the demurrer without leave to
amend. The court entered a judgment of dismissal, and plaintiffs
timely appealed. CalPERS filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings in the Andert action. The motion asserted that
plaintiffs' claims were functionally identical to those in the
Marzec case, and therefore the court should grant judgment on the
pleadings for the same reasons it sustained the demurrer in
Marzec. The trial court granted the motion for judgment on the
pleadings. Plaintiffs timely appealed, and the court ordered the
Marzec and Andert appeals consolidated.

Presiding Justice Edmon reversed the judgment as to the third and
fourth causes of action and the class definition in the Marzec
Action, and is otherwise affirmed. In the Andert action, judgment
on the pleadings is reversed as to the third and fourth causes of
action and the class definition, and is otherwise affirmed.
A copy of Presiding Justice Edmon's opinion dated May 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/0Cql3Yfrom Leagle.com.

John Michael Jensen -- johnjensen@johnmjensen.com -- at Law
Offices of John Michael Jensen, for Plaintiff and Appellant

Edward Gregory -- egregory@steptoe.com -- Jason Levin --
jlevin@steptoe.com -- at Steptoe & Johnson LLP, for Defendants and
Respondents

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three panel consists of Presiding Justice Lee Smalley Edmon and
Justices Patti S. Kitching and Richard D. Aldrich


CAPITAL FUNDING: "Apgar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Apgar, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Capital Funding Corporation and Bruce Simon, Case No.
1:15-cv-01902 (N.D. Ga., May 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a financial services company with
its principal place of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
      Morgan & Morgan, P.A
      Suite 400, 600 N. Pine Island Road
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: AFRISCH@FORTHEPEOPLE.COM


CARGO FORCE: "Castro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andres Ignacio Castro, and all others similarly-situated v. Cargo
Force, Inc. and Anthony C. Romeo, Case No. 1:15-cv-22023 (S.D.
Fla., May 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Cargo Force, Inc. is a Florida corporation which sells food and
alcohol at a location within Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Guzman, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Carmine's Broadway Feast Inc. and Alicart, Inc. d/b/a The Ali
Cart Restaurant Group, Case No. 1:15-cv-04049-UA (S.D.N.Y., May
27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
      LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
      Empire State Building,
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6902
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 967-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
      E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com


CARMINE'S BROADWAY: Faces "Souza" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Valmir Souza, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Carmine's Broadway Feast Inc. and Alicart, Inc. d/b/a The
Alicart Restaurant Group, Case No. 1:15-cv-04046-UA (S.D.N.Y., May
27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the restaurant business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
      LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
      Empire State Building,
      350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6902
      New York, NY 10118
      Telephone: (212) 967-3000
      Facsimile: (212) 967-3010
      E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com


CFW CREDIT: Faces "Terenzi" Suit Over Alleged Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Terenzi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CFW Credit & Collection Bureau, Inc. et al, Case No.
5:15-cv-00039-MFU (W.D. Va., May 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taylor-Lee Wickersham Stokes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TAYLOR-LEE W. STOKES, P.C.
      6933 Commons Plaza, Suite 101
      Chesterfield, VA 23832
      Telephone: (804) 318-0653
      Facsimile: (803) 751-8600
      E-mail: twstokes@attorneysstokes.com


CHICAGO, IL: Judge Narrows Claim in "Love" Suit
-----------------------------------------------
District Judge Edmond E. Chang of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions in the case ALLISAH LOVE, Plaintiff, v. CITY
OF CHICAGO, DAVID TENCZA, JOHN LEE, NIYELL POWELL, APRIL FISHER,
IRIS HOUSTON, GLENN DAVIS, MR. SUTTER, TERRANCE MCMAHON, TERRANCE
FAHEY, JAMES MURRAY, MARTIN ANDERSON, GLENN LANIER, JR., MR.
CADDIGAN, MR. WOODS, MS. URBON, MR. ROBINSON, UNITED ROAD TOWING,
INC., and other UNNAMED PERSONS, Defendants, NO. 09 C 03631 (N.D.
Ill.)

In March 1998, Allisah Love accepted employment with the Office of
Emergency Management and Communications (OEMC) in the position of
Police Operator I, which functions as a police call taker. Two
years prior, Love had passed an examination to work as a police
dispatcher, or Police Operator II, that provides higher pay grade
than Operator I. When Love began as an Operator I, she and other
candidates who had previously passed the Operator II exam were
told by the City that they would be moved into that higher-paying
job once positions opened, before outside applicants were
considered.

Despite that representation, in June 1998, three months after Love
started work, the City posted a job announcement for 32 Operator
II positions, requiring that applicants have at least 18 months of
experience in 911-dispatching, a condition Love did not meet. Love
contends that the City intentionally engaged in a deceptive
employment practice in filling Operator II slots in this manner
and refusing to transition Love into the role despite further
vacancies. Love complained to her union, but the complaint went
nowhere.

Between 1998 and 2000, Love received 12 disciplinary actions, ten
of which, she says, were unfounded. Love was eventually terminated
by OEMC but the former alleges that the City retaliated against
her, arrested her in 2001, arrested her brother in 2007, arrested
her again in 2007 and was searched in her home in 2013.

Love, proceeding pro se, brought constitutional and Illinois
common-law claims against the City of Chicago; 12 Chicago Police
Department (CPD) officers; United Road Towing, Inc., a private
company that contracts with the City to operate an automobile
impound lot; and three employees of the City's Office of Emergency
Management and Communications (OEMC), where Love formerly worked.

Against this cast of defendants, Love raises 15 separate counts:
Counts 1 and 2 allege false arrest and false imprisonment by the
various CPD Officers involved in Love's arrests in 2001 and 2007;
Count 3, defamation and public disclosure of private facts against
Officers Fisher and Houston specifically for revealing her prior
arrest to her mother and Henderson following Love's 2007 arrest;
Count 4, malicious prosecution against the CPD Officers involved
in Love's 2001 and 2007 arrests; Count 5, a Monell claim against
the City based on Love's continued treatment by the CPD and OEMC;
Counts 6 to 9, conspiracy by the CPD Defendants and Fahey to
violate her constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. Sections 1983,
1985, and 1986; Count 10, retaliation by the same individuals
against Love for engaging in protected conduct; Count 11, wrongful
termination/retaliatory discharge by Fahey and other unnamed
persons; Count 12, breach of contract by the City in relation to
her employment at OEMC; Count 13, intentional infliction of
emotional distress by the CPD Defendants and Fahey; Count 14,
indemnification by the City of any damages owed by the CPD
defendants and Fahey; and Count 15, which alleges that United Road
Towing is liable under a theory of respondeat superior for the
actions of its employee, Powell.

Defendants moved separately to dismiss the various claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Chang granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to dismiss. The remaining claims are: (1) violation of the Fourth
Amendment, asserted under Section 1983 against Powell, Fisher,
Houston, and Davis for the November 2007 arrest and detention; (2)
conspiracy under Section 1983 against the same four individuals
for the November 2007 events; (3) false imprisonment, false
arrest, and malicious prosecution claims under Illinois common law
against the same four individuals for the November 2007 events;
and, (4) indemnification against the City for any potential
liability for damages by the City employees named in these claims.
Discovery must be limited those claims related to Love's arrest on
November 2007 at the City auto pound and the ensuing imprisonment.
All other claims and defendants are dismissed.

A copy of Judge Chang's memorandum opinion and order dated May 7,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/IwYTDWfrom Leagle.com.

Christopher Grooms, Plaintiff, represented by Duane M. Kelley --
dkelley@winston.com -- David Wenger Creasey --
dcreasey@winston.com -- William Edward Walsh at Winston & Strawn
LLP

Allisah Love, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by Harry N. Arger -- harger@dykema.com --
Molly E. Thompson -- mthompson@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett
PLLC


CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: Cal. Appeals Court Narrows "Falk" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Since May 2007, four class action complaints, including Michelle
Falk, have been filed against Children's Hospital raising wage and
labor violations. The complaint asserted these causes of action:

     (1) Violation of Labor Code sections 510, 511, and 1198 for
unpaid overtime: plaintiff and class members worked more than 8
hours per day, 12 hours per day or 40 hours per week without
overtime compensation. "Incentives in the form of shift
differentials" were not incorporated in overtime.

     (2) Violation of sections 201 and 202 for failure to pay
wages upon termination: the hospital failed to pay earned and
unearned wages at the time of discharge or within 72 hours of an
employee leaving.

     (3) Violation of section 204 for failure to pay wages: the
hospital failed to pay wages on regular paydays.

     (4) Violation of sections 226.7, subdivision (a), and 512,
subdivision (a), for denial of meal periods: plaintiffs were
required to work without meal periods and were not compensated for
work performed during meal periods.

     (5) Violation of section 226.7, subdivision (a), for denial
of rest periods: plaintiffs were required to work without
compensation during rest periods.

     (6) Violation of section 226, subdivision (a), for improper
wage statements: the hospital failed to provide "complete and
accurate wage statements that include" the "total number of hours
worked" and employees' social security numbers.

     (7) Violation of section 221 seeking repayment of wages to
employer: the hospital deducted from wages "parking fees and ID
deposits" without obtaining prior written authorization.

     (8) Violation of section 2802 seeking indemnification for
employee's expenses: the hospital failed to reimburse "necessary
business-related expenses," including parking fees and ID
deposits. "Specifically, the hospital had, and continued to have,
a policy and practice of requiring employees to pay for parking
fees and ID deposits out of their own funds" and not reimbursing
them.

     (9) Conversion and theft of labor: the hospital refused to
pay wages due on the next payday after wages were earned.(10)
Violation of the Unfair Competition Law.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Children's
Hospital Los Angeles and against Falk on the ground that her wage
and labor claims were time-barred. The court rejected Falk's
argument the filing of a prior class action tolled her limitations
periods, under American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974) 414
U.S. 538, which held that, under certain circumstances, the filing
of a class action tolls a limitations period for class members who
file subsequent actions.

Plaintiff appealed.

Justice Richard Dennis Aldrich of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Three, in the Order dated
June 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/zSfO5hfrom Leagle.com,
affirmed in part to the extent as to claims subject to a one-year
limitations period and reversed in part to the extent as to claims
subject to a three- or four-year limitations period. The Court
directed the parties to bear their own costs on appeal.

The case is captioned, MICHELLE FALK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, Case
No. B251182 (Cal. App. Ct.)

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
     Janelle Carney, Esq.
     Jason Hatcher, Esq.
     E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com
     LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI
     14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E., 2nd Floor
     Chino Hills, CA 91709
     Tel: (909) 393-0223

Defendant is represented by Derek R. Havel, Esq. --
dhavel@sheppardmullin.com, Daniel J. McQueen, Esq. --
dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com, Marlene M. Nicolas, Esq. --
mnicolas@sheppardmullin.com, Matthew A. Tobias, Esq. --
mtobias@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,
Linda Miller Savitt, Esq. -- lsavitt@brgslaw.com -- BALLARD
ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT


CINEMARK USA: Opposition Brief Due June 12 in "Amey" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California ruled on the parties' motions in the case JOSEPH AMEY,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. CINEMARK USA INC., et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 13-CV-05669-WHO (N.D. Cal.)

Cinemark USA Inc. and Century Theaters, Inc. employs both salaried
and non-salaried, or non-exempt, employees. General Managers, who
are typically responsible for overall operations of each theater,
are salaried, while all other employees, including theater
managers, senior assistant managers, and assistant managers, are
hourly.

Plaintiffs Joseph Amey, Silken Brown, and Mario De La Rosa seek to
represent a proposed wage and hour class consisting of all non-
exempt employees of defendants Cinemark USA Inc. and Century
Theaters, Inc. because of alleged violations of the California
Labor Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

Plaintiff Amey is currently employed as an Assistant General
Manager at the Greenback theater in Sacramento. He has worked for
Cinemark since 2003, and held positions in Concessions and the Box
Office before he was promoted to Assistant Store Manager in 2005.
He has worked at four different theaters. Plaintiff Brown is a
former employee who worked as a Concession Worker, Box Office
Cashier, and Usher and performed some janitorial duties at the San
Francisco-Westfield Mall theatre for seven months. Plaintiff De La
Rosa is a former employee who worked as a Projectionist, Rover,
and in various Usher positions at the theatre in Tracy, California
for one and one-half years.

Plaintiffs claim that Cinemark's uniform policies regularly
deprived employees of meal and rest breaks, failed to provide them
with reporting time pay, forced them to work off-the-clock without
pay, and failed to report the proper hours worked and hourly rates
on their wage statements. The plaintiffs' proposed class consists
of all non-exempt employees of Cinemark's California theaters
since December 3, 2008.

Before the court is plaintiffs' motion to grant, and Cinemark's
motion to deny, class certification, and on Cinemark's motion for
judgment on the pleadings.

Judge Orrick denied plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Cinemark's motions for judgment on the pleadings and to deny class
certification are granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs
may amend their wage statement claims or their non-wage statement
PAGA claims, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint, by June
2, 2015 and the defendants' opposition brief by June 12, 2015.

A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated May 13, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/HBYD12from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Hannah Ruth Salassi --
hannah.salassi@gmail.com -- Scott Edward Cole -- scole@scalaw.com
-- Christopher Brian Johnson -- cjohnson@scalaw.com - Courtland
Wayne Creekmore -- Matthew R. Brainer -- mbainer@scalaw.com --
Stephen Noel Ilg -- at Scott Cole and Associates, APC; Stan Karas
-- Stan.Karas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC

Cinemark USA Inc, Defendant, represented by Christiane Autumn
Roussell -- croussell@hunton.com -- Emily Burkhardt Vicente --
ebvicente@hunton.com -- Matthew I. Bobb -- mbobb@hunton.com --
Michael Brett Burns -- mbrettburns@hunton.com -- at Hunton and
Williams, LLP


CNG FINANCIAL: Court Rules in Waite Schneider v. Davis
------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co., L.P.A.
filed a suit against its former client, Allen Davis, to collect
fees for its representation of Davis. The firm alleged that,
despite fully performing its obligations under its contract with
Davis, Davis had refused to pay the fee. Waite, Schneider also
contended Davis had ceased communicating with the firm, and
thereafter had retained new counsel and negotiated a resolution of
his various disputes with CNG Financial Corporation, a payday loan
firm.   District Judge James G. Carr, Sr. of the United States
District Court for S. D. Ohio in the Order dated June 3, 2015
available at http://is.gd/JhP3U5from Leagle.com, granted Waite,
Schneider's motion for leave, motion in limine to exclude evidence
of its refusal to represent Davis in the non-Hamilton County
Litigation, motion in limine to exclude evidence of damages in the
Hamilton County Litigation case, motion in limine to exclude
evidence of causation and motion to exclude evidence of Davis's
subjective understanding of the fee agreement. The Court granted
in part Waite, Schneider's motion to exclude evidence or argument
that the parties' fee agreement is unethical and/or unenforceable
and Davis' motion to admit evidence of Stanley Chesley's
disbarment and motion to strike report of Glenn Whitaker and
exclude his testimony at trial. Schneider's motion in limine to
exclude evidence of Chesley's disbarment was denied as moot. Judge
Carr denied Waite, Schneider's motion to exclude testimony of
Benjamin G. Dusing and Davis's motion for leave to file a sur-
reply.

The case is captioned, Waite, Schneider, Bayless & Chesley Co.,
L.P.A., Plaintiff, v. Allen Davis, Defendant, Case No. 1:11CV851
(S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff is represented by Roger Philip Sugarman, Esq. --
rsugarman@keglerbrown.com -- KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER, John
Wolcott Esq. -- wolcott@litohio.com -- and Marion H. Little, Esq.
-- little@litohio.com -- ZEIGER TIGGES & LITTLE LLP

Defendants are represented by:

     Benjamin G. Dusing, Esq.
     Lauren N Huizenga, Esq.
     Angela Hayden, Esq.
     Kevin L Murphy, Esq.
     Zachary Kent Peterson, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BENJAMIN G. DUSING, PLLC
     50 East River Center Blvd., Suite 820
     Covington, KY 41011
     Tel: (513) 322-1900


CNO FINANCIAL: Removed "Davis" Suit to Newmark District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled John J. Davis, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CNO Financial Group,
Inc., Bankers Life And Casualty Company, Nathan Richardson, and
Asma Norris, Case No. MRS-L-00584-15, was removed from the
Superior Court Of New Jersey Morris County to the U.S. District
Court District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03559-ES-JAD to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges breach of insurance contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Hoffman, Esq.
      15A New England Avenue, PO box 554
      SUMMIT, NJ 07901
      Telephone: (908) 608-0333
      E-mail: dhoffman@david-hoffman-esq.com

         - and -

      John A. Avery, Esq.
      KRAEMER BURNS, P.A.
      675 Morris Avenue
      Springfield, NJ 07081
      Telephone: (973) 912-8700
      Facsimile: (973) 912-8602
      E-mail: javery@kraemerburns.com


COLLECTION TECHNOLOGY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Howard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Collection Technology Incorporated and Navient
Solutions, Inc., f/k/a, Sallie Mae, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22016-
JAL (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
practice of calling clients' cellular telephone numbers without
prior express consent, using an automatic telephone dialing
systems in their collective efforts to collect debts.

Collection Technology Incorporated is engaged in the business of
collecting consumer debts due to or allegedly due to another.

Navient Solutions, Inc. is engaged in loan servicing government
contracts, including but not limited to, student loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.,
      Ian R. Leavengood, Esq.,
      LEAVEN LAW
      Northeast Professional Center
      3900 First Street North, Suite 100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33703
      Telephone: (727) 327-3328
      Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
      E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
              ameyer@leavenlaw.com


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces "Libby" Suit Over Breach of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Libby, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., et al,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03118 (D.N.J., May 4, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS LAW LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (732) 660-8169
      E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


DANIELLS NORELLI: Faces "Stern" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Stern, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Daniells Norelli Scully & Cecere, P.C., Case No.
1:15-cv-02509 (E.D.N.Y., May 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


DOLL HOUSE: Removed "Tapia" Class Suit to Middle Dist. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ninoska Tapia, on behalf of
herself individually and all others similarly situated v. Doll
House, Inc., Case No. 2015-CA-3222-O, was removed from the Orange
County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court Middle District of
Florida (Orlando). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
6:15-cv-00717-PGB-KRS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Bober, Esq.
      Samara Robbins Bober, Esq.
      BOBER & BOBER, PA
      1930 Tyler St
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Telephone: (954) 922-2298
      Facsimile: (954) 922-5455
      E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com
              samara@boberlaw.com

         - and -

      Sam Jones Smith, Esq.
      Tamra Carsten Givens, Esq.
      BURR & SMITH, LLP
      111 2nd Ave NE Ste 1100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701-3434
      Telephone: (813) 253-2010
      Facsimile: (813) 254-8391
      E-mail: ssmith@burrandsmithlaw.com
              tgivens@burrandsmithlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Justin Infurna, Esq.
      THE INFURNA LAW FIRM, PA
      Suite 101, 69 E Pine St
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (800) 774-1560
      Facsimile: (800) 774-1560
      E-mail: justininfurna@alwaysavailablelawyer.com


DOWNTOWN LA MOTORS: Technician Pay Plans Revised After Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Wilson and Jamie LaReau, writing for Automotive News, report
that dealers often bemoan California's legal climate. Two of their
biggest legal headaches there: Labor-law challenges and class
actions.  The two combined in a case that is changing dealership
pay plans across the state.  In 2013, the California Court of
Appeal ruled in favor of technicians in a class action against
Downtown L.A. Motors.

"The court decided that, retroactively, no one had been paying
technicians correctly under the law, and all dealers became
vulnerable," said Aaron Jacoby, a partner at the law firm Arent
Fox in Los Angeles.  The statute of limitations allows plaintiffs
to go back four years, "so dealers are getting sued up and down
the state."

Jacoby estimated the technician pay challenges could cost
California dealerships $200 million to $300 million.

After the 2013 ruling, the California New Car Dealers Association
did a series of seminars and sent materials to its dealers to
alert them of the vulnerability of traditional flat-rate pay plans
for technicians.

"What does that have to do with buying, servicing and selling
cars?" said Brian Maas, president of the association.  "Nothing.
But the California dealers are facing this."

After the decision, many dealership groups operating in the state,
including some of the nation's biggest, reworked their pay plans
for technicians.  The new approach for some is to pay techs an
hourly wage, plus a flat-rate component smaller than what it would
be under a traditional flat-rate plan.  The idea is to reduce the
risk of lawsuits and still pay techs what they were making before,
dealers said.

Dave Conant, CEO of Conant Auto Retail Group in Newport Beach,
Calif., was one of the many dealers who revised technician pay
plans as the ruling's impact spread through the state.

Beyond the immediate effect on wages, Mr. Conant said, the case
exemplified a problem in the state: "It's a constant chipping away
at us and trying to find anything they can to sue over."


ELITE COMPRESSION: "Moreno" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mauro Moreno, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Elite Compression Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00230 (S.D. Tex., May 26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Elite Compression Services, LLC is a provider of contract gas
compression services throughout the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Craig M. Sico, Esq.
      SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP
      802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900Eli
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com
              csico@swhhb.com

         - and -

      Timothy D. Raub, Esq.
      RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C.
      814 Leopard Street
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 880-8181
      Facsimile: (361) 887-6521
      E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com


ENVIROSOLUTIONS INC: Faces Complaints Over Landfill Odor Problem
----------------------------------------------------------------
WOWKTV.com reports that residents in the area of State Route 60
and Interstate 64 in Boyd County have been upset about an odor
they say hangs over their neighborhoods during the early morning
and early evening hours when trains arrive carrying garbage from
13 states, including New Jersey, New York and West Virginia.

"It smells horrible -- like Jersey," says one youth soccer player
after practice on a field close to Big Run Landfill, owned by the
company, Envirosolutions.

"When we were playing on the field after it rain, the field
smelled just terrible," says the coach.  "I didn't even want my
kids playing on it."

A music video called "Trash Train Blues," in which Boyd County
resident Kenny Messer sings, has been making the rounds on social
media.  It tells the residents' side of the story about the odor
at the 250-acre landfill.  In the final verse, the message is
clear.  The lyrics are: "If they renew that permit, and when
trains keep rolling in . . . If the NOVs (Notice of Violations)
keep piling up, our outlook's mighty grim. And some are getting
wealthy. That's what it's all about."

"Our hope is that the song will reach people, and make everybody
aware of what's going on here in this county, and what we need our
elected officials to do," says Mr. Messer, who we met on April 30
with a group of other residents at Pier 37 Salon on Route 60.

Complaints from the community, which are documented as Notices of
Violation continue to pile up.  Community meetings and fiscal
court meetings have been packed with neighbors grilling landfill
executives.

"Reducing odor at Big Run is our highest priority and we have been
transparent about our plans, our progress and our expectations,"
reads a statement which was emailed along with the company's plan
of action by Big Run Region Vice President, Scott Cunningham.
"Experts have confirmed that the primary source of odor is from
waste already in place at the landfill.  We are investing $10
million to implement technology, systems and infrastructure to
meet every requirement of the plan we agreed to with the state and
to address the odor issue for the long term."

A class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of neighbors.  A
petition stating that the landfill's permit should not be renewed
in January 2016 has amassed about 1,200 signatures.

In the latest official action against Big Run Landfill, Boyd
County Attorney, Phil Hedrick sent an email to directors from the
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet demanding that the cabinet
modify the landfill's permit to ban the lucrative out-of-state
trash currently coming in.

Kentucky Director of Waste Management Tony Hatton, reached by
phone on April 30, says controlling where the garbage comes from
is prohibited by federal law.  Mr. Hatton says that would count as
"restricting interstate commerce," which is illegal.

Still, the state has ordered the landfill to mitigate the odor by
May 23.  Envirosolutions has put several million dollars into
deodorizing the landfill.

"It's unbelievable," says neighbor, Clint Poplin of Twin Ridge
Road, about a half-mile from the landfill.  "It burns my eyes. It
burns my nose. You just can't imagine how strong it is."

The Ashland-Boyd County Health Department's public information
officer and epidemiologist tells 13 News the odor is not a health
issue.  The landfill's permit is up for renewal in January.  The
application is due to the state in June.

Mr. Hatton says his department will be scrutinizing the
application to continue operating Kentucky's busiest landfill very
closely, and the process will be public.  A community meeting was
scheduled for May 4 and May 5, followed by a fiscal court meeting
on May 5 at 10:00 a.m.

Cunningham sent 13 News the following updates regarding odor
mitigation efforts at the landfill.

  -- Nearly 19,000 feet of pipe has been installed and connected,
48 pumps have been installed and there are now 96 monitoring
points.

  -- While we are pulling gas from all wells, the full impact of
this work will not be felt until the new wells are fully
operational and the final cap and enhanced long term cover are
installed - work that is underway and will be completed over the
next few weeks.

  -- Tuning, adjusting and monitoring the performance of wells
will be an ongoing process.

  -- Geo-membrane liner has been installed on 9 areas of final cap
area.

  -- Geo-membrane is expected to be installed on the remaining
acre by mid May.Soil cover and vegetation will be installed
shortly thereafter.

  -- Installation of geo-membrane over previously filled areas is
the most important part of the remediation process in terms of gas
control; liner provides impermeable layer preventing gas from
escaping - forcing it into the enhanced gas collection system.

  -- Geosynthetic liner will be part of the long term cover on
approximately 30 acres of landfill that will be out of use (not
accepting new waste for an extended period of time).

  -- 16 acres of liner has been installed; 14 remaining acres on
track for completion by mid May.

  -- 6,000 feet of horizontal collection pipe and 10,000 feet of
under-liner strip drains are being added to optimize gas
collection under the long term cover.

  -- Big Run now has 18 odor control fans in place -- more than
twice the number than in 2014.  The fans use neutralizing agents
that have essential oils as their base ingredients, making them
non-toxic, non-hazardous, safe and effective.


ERIC A. JONES LLC: Debt Collector Uses Atty General's Letterhead
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Eric L. Clay of the United States Court of Appeals,
Sixth District, vacated the judgment and remanded the case PAMELA
GILLIE; HAZEL MEADOWS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LAW OFFICE OF
ERIC A. JONES, LLC; ERIC A. JONES; WILES, BOYLE, BURKHOLDER &
BRINGARDNER CO., LPA; MARK JEFFREY SHERIFF; SARAH SHERIFF,
Defendants-Appellees, OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL, Intervenor-Appellee,
NO. 14-3836 (6th Cir.)

On May 24, 2012, plaintiff Pamela Gillie was engaged in bankruptcy
proceedings when she received a debt collection letter from
defendant Jones. The collection letter was written on Office of
the Attorney General (OAG) letterhead, which included both an
image of the Great Seal of the State of Ohio and the Attorney
General's name -- Mike DeWine -- in large font at the top of the
page.

On July 20, 2012, plaintiff Hazel Meadows received a debt
collection letter from defendant Sarah Sheriff with Wiles Law
Firm. The letter used OAG letterhead for the collections
enforcement section and likewise included an image of Ohio's Great
Seal.

Plaintiffs brought an action under the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et seq., alleging
that defendants utilized a deceptive, misleading, or false
representation or means in attempting to collect consumer debts
plaintiffs owed to entities owned and operated by the State of
Ohio. The Attorney General intervened on behalf of defendants,
asserting that the alleged misrepresentation, consisting of
sending debt-collection notices on the Attorney General's
letterhead was not a misrepresentation at all and was, in fact,
authorized by the Attorney General.

Plaintiffs and defendants filed opposing motions for summary
judgment and made appropriate responses. The Attorney General also
moved for a judgment on the pleadings, and plaintiffs moved to
dismiss the Attorney General's counter-complaint for failure to
state a claim. The district court granted defendants' motions for
summary judgment, denied the Attorney General's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, denied plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment, and denied as moot plaintiffs' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed.

The Sixth Circuit vacated the summary judgment in favor of
defendants and remanded the case to the district court for further
proceedings.

A copy of Judge Clay's opinion dated May 8, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/0y4edofrom Leagle.com.

For Appellants:

James E. Nobile, Esq.
NOBILE & THOMPSON CO., L.P.A.
4876 Cemetery Road
Hilliard, OH 43026
Telephone: 614-503-4497
Facsimile: 614-529-8656

For Jones Appellees:

Boyd W. Gentry, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF BOYD W. GENTRY, LLC
2661 Commons Boulevard, Suite 100
Beavercreek, OH 45431
Telephone: 937-839-2881
Facsimile: 800-839-5843

For Appellees Wiles and Sheriff:

Michael L. Close, Esq.
ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR
Two Miranova Place, suite 700
Columbus, OH 43215-5098
Telephone: 614-221-2121
Facsimile: 614-365-9516
Email: mclose@isaacwiles.com

For Intervenor-Appellee:

Christopher P. Conomy, Esq.
Sherry M. Phillips, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL
30 E. Broad St., 14th Floor
Columbus, OH 43215
Telephone: 614-466-4986

The Sixth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Eric L. Clay,
Jeffrey S. Sutton and Ronald Lee Gilman.


EXPRESS ENERGY: "Perez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Express Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-00861
(E.D. Tex., May 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, all available equitable
relief, and litigation costs and expenses under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Express Energy Services, LLC owns and operates an oilfield service
company located at 800 Brazos, Suite 400, Austin, Texas 78701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John F. Walker, Esq.
      MARTIN WALKER PC
      121 N Spring Avenue
      Tyler, TX 75702
      Telephone: (903) 526-1600
      Facsimile: (903) 595-0796
      E-mail: jwalker@martinwalkerlaw.com


FLASH FOODS: Faces "Novinger" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Novinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Flash Foods, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00197-LJA (M.D.
Ga., May 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Flash Foods, Inc. operates over 170 store locations throughout
Georgia and Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Allen Schreiber, Esq.
      Robert E. Norton, Esq.
      BURKE HARVEY, LLC
      3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Telephone: (205) 930-9091
      Facsimile: (205) 930-9054
      E-mail: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com
              rnorton@burkeharvey.com


FLO PIE: Judge Grants Bid for Conditional Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge R. Bryan Harwell of the District of South Carolina,
Florence Division granted plaintiffs' motion in the case
CHRISTOPHER ELMQUIST, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FLO-PIE, INC. d/b/a MELLOW
MUSHROOM; D-SHROOM, INC. d/b/a MELLOW MUSHROOM; JOHN DOE,
individually; and MATT DUKE, individually, Defendants, NO. 4:14-
CV-3548-RBH (D.S.C.)

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional Class Certification and
to Authorize Notice to Putative Class Members, pursuant to section
16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act 29 U.S.C Section 201 et.
seq. (FLSA).

Judge Harwell granted plaintiffs' consent motion and conditionally
certified as a class of all current and former employees of Mellow
Mushroom at anytime from September 4, 2011 to present who were
paid a direct rate less than the statutory minimum wage of seven
and 25/100 dollars ($7.25) per hour and who either contributed
money to a tip pool or received money from a tip pool

Defendants shall provide their counsel, who will forward to the
Third-Party Administrator, Simpluris, Inc. (TPA), within five
business days of the filing of the order, in electronic format if
available, for all members of the Putative Class, the names, all
known mailing addresses, all known telephone numbers, telephone
number listed in employee file and last known email address.

At the same time and in the same manners of counsel for defendants
providing the information to TPA, the same shall be provided to
the attorney of record for plaintiffs only.

A copy of Judge Harwell's order dated May 7, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/e6iV3Pfrom Leagle.com.

Christopher Elmquist, Plaintiff, represented by:

Bruce E Miller, Esq.
BRUCE E MILLER LAW OFFICE
147 Wappoo Creek Dr #603
Charleston, SC 29412
Telephone: 843-579-7373

Defendants, represented by Alice Fountain Paylor --
apaylor@rrhlawfirm.com -- Lorene Stuhr Dukes --
rdukes@rrhlawfirm.com -- at Rosen Rosen and Hagood


HAYWARD INDUSTRIES: Settlement in Pool Products Suit Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) asked District Judge Sarah S.
Vance of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana to grant final approval of separate class action
settlements the DPPs entered into with Hayward Industries Inc. and
with Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc.  The case is captioned, IN RE: POOL
PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Section: R (2),
Case No. MDL No. 2328.

The case was an antitrust case that direct-purchaser plaintiffs
(DPPs) and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs) filed against Pool
and Manufacturer Defendants. DPP alleged (1) that Pool monopolized
and attempted to monopolize the Pool Products distribution market
in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
by acquiring rival distributors and by entering into agreements
with manufacturers to exclude Pool's rivals; (2) that Pool and the
Manufacturer Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by
engaging in an unlawful Cconspiracy to exclude Pool's competitors;
and (3) that defendants fraudulently concealed their illegal
conduct and thus are liable for damages outside of the statutory
limitations period. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants'
allegedly illegal conduct caused plaintiffs to pay more for Pool
Products than they would have absent the unlawful activity.

Negotiations leading to the Hayward settlement agreement took
place over the course of a year. Class Counsel for DPPs and
counsel for Hayward mediated this action before Layn Phillips, a
former federal district judge and a respected mediator of
antitrust disputes. The parties negotiated the settlement
agreement, which they signed on May 13, 2014.

Judge Vance in the Order and Reasons dated June 2, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/C76mDEfrom Leagle.com, granted final approval of
the DPPs' settlements with Hayward; and with Zodiac.  The Court
also ordered that Class Counsel receive $3,316,667 from the fund
for reimbursement of litigation expenses.

The Court held a preliminary fairness hearing and settlement class
certification hearing for the DPP-Hayward Settlement on August 14,
2014. The Court preliminarily approved the DPP-Hayward settlement
and certified its settlement class on September 26, 2014.

The Court preliminarily approved the DPP-Zodiac settlement and
certified its settlement class on December 22, 2014. The
settlement classes in the two settlements are identical. The terms
of the two settlements are also similar.
Consistent with the agreements, the Court appointed seven named
Class Settlement Representatives: Aqua Clear Pools & Decks; A Plus
Pools Corp.; Liquid Art Enterprises d/b/a Carl Boucher; Oasis Pool
Service, Inc.; Pro Pool Services; SPS Services, LLC d/b/a Premier
Pools & Spas; and Thatcher Pools, Inc. The Court approved the
firms of Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC; Bernstein Leibhard LLP;
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP; and Labaton Sucharow LLP as
Settlement Class Counsel for the purposes of Rule 23. The Court
also approved Garden City as the Claims Administrator for the
settlement and Citibank as escrow agent. The Court further
approved the proposed notice and claim forms, as well as deadlines
for submitting claims forms, opting out, and filing objections.
The Court scheduled a fairness hearing on May 14, 2015, to
determine whether the settlement is fair and to determine an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Plaintiffs are respresented by Russ M. Herman, Esq. -- HERMAN,
HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, LLP, 820 O'Keefe Ave., New Orleans, LA
70113; Arnold Levin, Esq. -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN,
FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, Daniel W. Krasner, Esq. --
krasner@whafh.com -- WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ,
LLP, Douglas G. Thompson, Esq. --
dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com -- FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP, Jay
L. Himes, Esq. -- jhimes@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP,
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. -- NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C., Matthew B.
Moreland, Esq. -- mmoreland@bcnellaw.com -- BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC

Defendants are represented by William Bernard Gaudet, Esq. -
william.gaudet@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP, David H.
Bamberger, Esq. -- david.bamberger@dlapiper.com & Deana L. Cairo,
Esq. -- deana.cairo@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER, LLP


HOLLISTER CO: Appellate Court Affirms Certification Order
---------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr. of the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Appellate Division affirmed the trial court's grant of
class certification in the case VINCENT DANIELS, individually and
on behalf of a class, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. HOLLISTER CO., a
Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, NO. A-3629-13T3 (N.J.
Super. App. Div.)

Plaintiff Vincent Daniels commenced a lawsuit on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated against defendant Hollister Co., a
clothing retailer with outlets throughout the United States.
Plaintiff alleges that in or around December 2009, defendant
conducted a promotion by which customers purchasing at least $75
of merchandise were given a $25 gift card for use in its stores
and on its website. Plaintiff alleges that even though these
transferable gift cards possessed no expiration date, defendant
voided all outstanding cards on January 30, 2010. Plaintiff
alleges a gift card, which stated it had no expiration date, was
dishonored when presented by him at one of defendant's stores in
New Jersey on January 22, 2011.  Claiming in-store signs during
the promotion asserted that $25 gift card expires 1/30/10, but
also acknowledging some cards expressly stated they had no
expiration date, and others were silent in that regard, defendant
admits that as January 30, 2010 approached it sent emails to
customers who had registered their email addresses to remind them
of the upcoming expiration date.

The trial court granted class certification over the matter, which
the defendant contests. The defendant contends that the defined
class fails the ascertainability requirement and violates due
process because defendant will have no ability to test class
membership, because absent class membership will have no
opportunity to opt-out, and because the preclusive effect of any
judgment will be unknowable and enforceable.

Presiding Judge Fisher affirmed the trial court's granting of
class certification.

A copy of Presiding Judge Fisher's opinion dated May 13, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/4e1jvTfrom Leagle.com.

Brian J. Murray (Jones Day) of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac
vice, argued the cause for appellant (Grossman, Heavey & Halpin,
P.C., and Mr. Murray, attorneys; Richard A. Grossman, of counsel
and on the briefs; Mr. Murray, on the briefs)

James Shedden (Shedden Law) of the Illinois bar, admitted pro hac
vice, argued the cause for respondent (Flitter Lorenz, P.C., and
Mr. Shedden, attorneys; Cary L. Flitter, Theodore E. Lorenz and
Andrew M. Milz, of counsel and on the brief; Mr. Shedden and
Vincent L. DiTommaso (DiTommaso Lubin, P.C.) of the Illinois bar,
admitted pro hac vice, on the brief)

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division panel
consists of Presiding Judge Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr. and Judges
Allison E. Accurso and Thomas V. Manahan.


JC FODALE: "Berry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Berry and William Carr, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. JC Fodale Energy Services, LLC, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00443 (W.D. Tex., May 27, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

JC Fodale Energy Services, LLC is an oilfield services provider,
which provides containment berms, vacuum trucks, wire line/TCP
services, mixing plants, laydown machines, frac tanks, gas
busters, construction services and 24-hour emergency response.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allison Sarah Hartry, Esq.
      THE MORALES FIRM, P.C.
      115 E. Travis St., Suite 1530
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 225-0811
      Facsimile: (210) 225-0821
      E-mail: ahartry@themoralesfirm.com


JEWISH FAMILY SERVICE: 11th Cir. Upheld Dismissal of "Langermann"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, affirmed a
district court ruling in the case, ROBERT LANGERMANN, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. SAMUEL J. DUBBIN, JONATHAN W. CUNEO, STEVE W.
BERMAN, ILYA RUBINSTEIN, "Elie", DAVID C. WROBEL, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-15136 (11th Cir.).

Robert Langermann brought the action alleging that the Defendants
improperly denied him benefits he was due under a class action
settlement.  He alleged that the United States government's
conduct related to the so-called Hungarian Gold Train violated,
among other things, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.

In the waning months of World War II, United States Army forces in
Austria seized a train laden with gold, jewelry, works of art and
other valuable personal property -- riches that had been
confiscated from some 800,000 Jews by Hungary's Nazi-allied
government. In the spring of 1945, the Hungarian government
secreted the loot westward into Austria, away from the advancing
Soviet Army, where it was intercepted. The United States
government, which kept and housed the seized property, declared
the treasure's rightful owners "unidentifiable." Despite pleas
from organizations representing Hungarian Jewry, the United States
refused to return or repatriate the property, which it deemed
ownerless. Some was auctioned off, some was transferred to the
Austrian postwar government, some was pilfered from U.S. storage,
and some was requisitioned by high-ranking U.S. officers for their
own personal use. The train, owing to its origin and its surfeit
of gold, became known as the "Hungarian Gold Train."

More than 55 years later, a group of Hungarian Jews brought a
putative class action against the United States in the District
Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that the
United States government's conduct related to the Gold Train
violated, among other things, the Fifth Amendment's Takings
Clause.

In 2005, a district court certified a class of nearly 50,000
people with ownership claims to property on the Gold Train and
approved a $25.5 million settlement. The settlement did not call
for direct distribution of funds to class members. Instead, it
created a cy pres distribution system: the funds would "be used
for the direct provision of social services and humanitarian
relief to eligible Victims of Nazi Persecution who are in need."
To effect this goal, social service agencies would field requests
for settlement funds from needy Holocaust survivors. The agencies
would be responsible for verifying the requesters' eligibility and
need for funds based on documentation or home visits.

Langermann is a member of the certified plaintiff class: a Jew who
was born in Hungary in 1935, survived the Holocaust, immigrated to
the United States in 1958, became a citizen in 2002, and lives in
Nevada. This action is Langermann's third attempt to convince a
court that the social service agencies responsible for disbursing
the funds violated the terms of the settlement.

Two agencies named as Defendants in this action -- Jewish Family
Service Agency of Las Vegas (JFSA) and The Blue Card, Inc. (TBCI)
-- were responsible for determining Langermann's eligibility for
settlement funds. Langermann received over $7,000 from 2006
through 2009. But after a dispute over whether he was married, he
refused to provide documentation to TBCI, to sign a release
allowing TBCI to obtain information about him, or to permit a home
visit to verify his continuing eligibility and need for settlement
funds. Because he refused, TBCI denied Langermann's requests for
funds. In response, he filed a motion for contempt in the class
action. He alleged that TBCI and JFSA should be held in contempt
because by demanding he sign a release or permit a home visit,
they violated both the terms of the class settlement and his
constitutional rights. The district court, which continued to
oversee the class action, denied Langermann's motion.

Langermann then filed a new civil action in the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada, making the same
substantive allegations against TBCI, JFSA, and a host of other
Defendants, including one of the class's lawyers and the District
Judge presiding over the class action. In response, class counsel
filed a motion in the class action (in the Southern District of
Florida) seeking an injunction to prevent Langermann from
collaterally attacking the class settlement in Nevada. The motion
was granted, and a Southern District of Florida District Judge
enjoined Langermann from prosecuting the ancillary action in
Nevada. The District Judge observed that each of Langermann's
Nevada claims were premised on the class action, its settlement,
its allocation plan, and its final order, and that pursuing the
Nevada action would lead to relitigation of rulings made in the
class action, including the earlier order denying Langermann's
motion for contempt.

The District Court for the District of Nevada dismissed
Langermann's action with prejudice. Langermann's appeal of that
dismissal remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The appeal arises out of Langermann's third attempt to show that
JFSA and TBCI violated the terms of the settlement. He filed this
action in the Southern District of Florida, again naming JFSA and
TBCI as well as, this time, three of the class's lawyers (Samuel
Dubbin, Jonathan Cuneo and Steve Berman), the executive director
of TBCI (Ilya Rubinstein), and TBCI's attorney (David Wrobel).

The district court dismissed his suit as barred by res judicata
and denied his summary judgment motion as moot. The district court
also imposed a filing injunction against Langermann as sanction
under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 11 because it was his third attempt to
litigate these same claims. He appealed.

Circuit Judges Stanley Marcus, William H. Pryor and Beverly B.
Martin of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit in a Per Curiam decision dated June 3, 2015, available at
http://is.gd/ex3ykBfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the district judge's
order dismissing the complaint as barred by res judicata, its
imposition of a filing injunction as a permissible Rule 11
sanction, and its dismissal of his summary judgment motion as
moot.  The 11th Circuit held that the District Court did not err
in denying the motion as moot.

Plaintiffs are represented by Abigail Evans Shafroth, Esq. --
ashafroth@cohenmilstein.com -- Joseph Marc Sellers, Esq. --
jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC,
Matthew J. Murray, Esq. -- mmurray@altshulerberzon.com -- Michael
Rubin, Esq. -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Barbara Jane
Chisholm, Esq. -- bchisholm@althshulerberzon.com and Patrick Casey
Pitts, Esq. -- ppitts@atlahulerberzon.com -- ALSTHULER BERZON LLP

Defendants are represented by Brent D. Knight, Esq. --
bdknight@jonesday.com -- Jonathan M. Linus, Esq. --
jlinus@jonesday.com -- Lawrence C. DiNardo, Esq. --
ldinardo@jonesday.com -- Allison B. Moser, Esq. --
amoser@jonesday.com -- Catherine Suzanne Nasser, Esq. --
csnasser@jonesday.com and Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq. --
emcree@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY


JIN & MIN: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
De Quan Li, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. Jin & Min LLC d/b/a Tulips Nail Spa, Xiao
Min Ye, John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-00801 (D.
Conn., May 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a nail salon located at 39 Danbury
Rd. Wilton, CT 06897.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8388
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


JL VENDING: Faces "Schwarz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Schwarz and Bobback Cyrus Davarmanesh v. JL Vending, Inc.
and Joseph Levy, Case No. 9:15-cv-80671 (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2015,
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

JL Vending, Inc. is a small organization in the merchandising
machine operators industry located in Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Brian Roller, Esq.
      SCHWARTZ ZWEBEN ROBINS BURNETTE & ROLLER
      3876 Sheridan Street
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 966-2483
      Facsimile: (954) 374-6974
      E-mail: broller@szalaw.com


INKO'S TEA: Falsely Marketed Tea Products, "Collazo" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zabrina Collazo, Mark Flolo, John Doe (Florida), John Doe (New
Jersey), John Doe (Illinois), John Doe (Michigan) and John Does 1-
100, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v.
Inko's Tea, LLC and Wholesome Tea Company, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03070-BMC (E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
proposed consumer and all other persons nationwide, who, purchased
for consumption and not resale the Defendants' Inko's(R) White Tea
ready-to-drink tea products, that were falsely marketed as "100%
Natural" and "100% All-Natural".

The tea products at issues contain ascorbic acid, also known as
Vitamin C, a non-natural, highly chemically processed ingredient
regularly used as a preservative in ready-to-drink tea products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


KIND LLC: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, "Cavanagh" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Cavanagh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kind, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04064-UA (S.D.N.Y., May
27, 2015), is brought on behalf of the California consumers who
purchased KIND Healthy snack bars that are falsely and deceptively
marketed and labeled as made with "All Natural" ingredients.

The varieties of KIND "Fruit & Nut" bars, KIND "Plus" bars, KIND
"Nuts & Spices" bars, and KIND "Healthy Grains(R)" bars at issue
contain more than the maximum amount of saturated fat allowable
under the federal requirements for use of the nutrient content
claim "healthy" on a food label.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Antonio Vozzolo, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: avozzolo@ffifaruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
      E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com


LIQUE MIAMI: Removed "Turos" Suit to Southern District Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit ccaptioned Norbert Turos, Eva Hajnal,
Zsolt Balla and others similarly-situated v. Lique Miami Lounge,
LLC and Aleksandr Podolny, Case No. 15-007623-CA 01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade,
Florida to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-21995-
DPG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edilberto O. Marban, Esq.
      1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher John Whitelock, Esq.
      WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES
      300 SE 13th Street
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1154
      Telephone: (954) 463-2001
      Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
      E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com


LIVE CHEAP: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elviro Brown, and other similarly situated individuals v. Live
Cheap, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-21985-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 27,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Live Cheap, LLC operates apartment buildings in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


LIVE CHEAP: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Giannina Gutierrez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Live Cheap, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-21988-UU (S.D. Fla., May
27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Live Cheap, LLC operates apartment buildings in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Dunn" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Dunn, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators Inc., et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-
02553 (D. Minn., May 26, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karl L. Cambronne, Esq.
      Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
      Francis J. Rondoni, Esq.
      CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
      17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-7300
      Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
      E-mail: kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com
              bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
              jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
              frondoni@chestnutcambronne.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
------------------------------------------------------------
Terri Roberts, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-
00292-KGB (E.D. Ark., May 27, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that fails to
comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde standards. The
Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive levels of
formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human carcinogen by
the United States National Toxicology Program and the
International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chad E. Ihrig, Esq.
      NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
      3600 N. Capital of Texas Hwy, Bldg. B, Suite 350
      Austin, TX 78746
      Telephone: (512) 328-5333
      Facsimile: (512) 328-5335
      E-mail: cihrig@npraustin.com

         - and -

      Louis B. (Brady) Paddock, Esq.
      Ben King, Esq.
      NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
      2900 St. Michael Drive, Suite 500
      Texarkana, TX 75503
      Telephone: (903) 223-3999
      Facsimile: (903) 223-8520
      E-mail: bpaddock@nixlawfirm.com
              benking@nixlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Nelson J. Roach, Esq.
      NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
      205 Linda Drive
      Daingerfield, TX 75638
      Telephone: (903) 645-7333
      E-mail: njroach@nixlawfirm.com


MAXPHOTO NY: Faces "Wu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tao Rui Wu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similiarly situated v. MaxPhoto NY Corp., Max Huang, Tung Chen Ya,
John Doe and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-03050 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Defendants operate an event planning and services company
located at 249-12 Jericho Turnpike #A, Floral Park, NY 11001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


MAZDA MOTOR: Court Narrows Claims in "Stevenson" Warranty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey ruled on defendant's motion
to dismiss filed in the case captioned, JAMES STEVENSON, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAZDA
MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-5250(FLW)(DEA)
(D.N.J.).

Mazda markets its vehicles with a warranty which provided coverage
for repairs needed in the first few years following the purchase
of a new vehicle . In January 2012, Mazda sent a letter to certain
vehicle owners, including Plaintiff, stating that Mazda was
"conducting a Special Service Program (SSP) to extend the warranty
coverage for the specific repair of variable valve timing (VVT)
noise and/or timing chain noise concern. On or around November 13,
2012, Plaintiffs' vehicle experienced a VVT-related failure.  At
that time, the vehicle had 63,562 miles.  Mazda refused to cover
the repairs under the warranty.  Plaintiff paid $3384.87 for
repairs, and $960.02 for a rental car.

Stevenson brought a lawsuit under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), alleging that Mazda
fraudulently concealed the fact that certain of its vehicles
contained a defective engine component. Plaintiff asserted the
following claims: Count 1, violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act (NJCFA); Count 2, violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C Sec. 2301 et seq.; Count 3, breach of
express warranty; Count 4, breach of implied warranty; and Count
5, fraudulent concealment.

Defendant moved to dismiss Counts 1, 4, and 5 in their entirety
and Counts 2 and 3 in part for failure to state a claim.

District Judge Wolfson, in the Opinion dated June 2, 2015
available at http://is.gd/shk1tqfrom Leagle.com, granted
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the entirety of Count 1, violation
of the NJCFA; Count 4, breach of implied warranty; and Count 5,
fraudulent concealment. Count 2, violation of the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act, and Count 3, breach of express warranty, are
dismissed in part; claims based on Defendant's express extension
of warranty on the variable valve timing assembly survive.

Plaintiff is respresented by Mitchell Mark Breit, Esq. --
mbreit@simmonsfirm.com -- SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC

Mazda Motor is represented by Michael Lawrence Mallow, Esq. --
mmallow@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP


MCROWD GP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Peralta" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diego Peralta, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. MCROWD GP, LLC and Mercury Grill, Ltd. d/b/a "The
Mercury", Case No. 3:15-cv-0183-B (N.D. Tex., May 27, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation for work over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 350 E.
Royal Lane, Building 4, Suite 126, Irving, TX 75039.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W Branham III, Esq.
      Corinna Pia Chandler, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Telephone: (214) 722-5990
      Facsimile: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com
              cchandler@dobllp.com


MERACORD INC: Fidelity & Platt River Can't Intervene
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma denied a motion to intervene in the case AMRISH
RAJAGOPALAN, MARIE JOHNSON-PEREDO, ROBERT HEWSON, DONTE CHEEKS,
DEBORAH HORTON, RICHARD PIERCE, ERMA SUE CLYATT, ROBERT JOYCE, AMY
JOYCE, ARTHUR FULLER, DAWN MEADE, WAHAB EKUNSUMI, KAREN HEA, and
ALEX CASIANO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. MERACORD, INC., Defendant, and FIDELITY
AND DEPOSIT COMPANY OF MARYLAND and PLATT RIVER INSURANCE COMPANY,
Proposed Defendant-Intervenors, CASE NO. C12-5657 BHS (W.D. Wash.)

On July 24, 2012, plaintiffs Marie Johnson-Peredo, Dinah Canada,
and Robert Hewson filed a class action complaint against defendant
Meracord, LLC, (Meracord) and its CEO, Linda Remsberg. On March 2,
2015, after an appeal and a consolidation, plaintiffs Alex
Casiano, Donte Cheeks, Erma Sue Clyatt, Wahab Ekunsumi, Arthur
Fuller, Karen Hea, Robert Hewson, Deborah Horton, Marie Johnson-
Peredo, Amy Joyce, Robert Joyce, Dawn Meade, Richard Pierce, and
Amrish Rajagopalan filed an amended complaint against Meracord.
Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of "all persons in a Surety
State who established an account with Meracord LLC" during defined
"Bond Periods."

On March 26, 2015, Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland and
Platte River Insurance Company filed a motion to intervene
requesting the court to allow them to intervene either as matter
of right or under principles of permissive intervention.

Judge Settle denied the motion to intervene.  A copy of Judge
Settle' order dated May 12, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/uL19E7from Leagle.com.

Marie Johnson-Peredo, Robert Hewson, Amrish Rajagopalan,
Plaintiffs, represented by Celeste H. G. Boyd --
cboyd@paynterlawfirm.com -- Jennifer L Murray --
jmurray@paynterlawfirm.com -- Stuart M Paynter --
stuart@paynterlawfirm.com -- at THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC; Thomas
E Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- at HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Karen Hea, Erma Sue Clyatt, Wahab Ekunsumi, Robert Joyce, Donte
Cheeks, Deborah Horton, Richard Pierce, Amy Joyce, Alex Casiano,
Dawn Meade, Arthur Fuller, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas E
Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- at HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP

Meracord, LLC, Defendant, Pro Se

Platte River Insurance Company, Intervenor Defendant, represented
by Claire L. Rootjes -- crootjes@schwabe.com --
jcampbell@schwabe.com -- Bert W. Markovich --
bmarkovich@schwabe.com -- at SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT


MERACORD LLC: "Rajagopalan" Case May Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case AMRISH RAJAGOPALAN, MARIE JOHNSON-
PEREDO, ROBERT HEWSON, DONTE CHEEKS, DEBORAH HORTON, RICHARD
PIERCE, ERMA SUE CLYATT, ROBERT JOYCE, AMY JOYCE, ARTHUR FULLER,
DAWN MEADE, WAHAB EKUNSUMI, KAREN HEA, and ALEX CASIANO on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MERACORD, LLC, Defendant, NO. 12-CV-05657-BHS (W.D. Wash.)

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and the court
finds that the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable, there are questions of law or fact that are common
to the class, the claims of the class representatives are typical
of the claims of the class and the class representatives will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.

Judge Settle granted plaintiffs' motion and certified a class
consisting of all persons in a Surety State who established an
account with Meracord, LLC (formerly NoteWorld) or any subsidiary
thereof from which Meracord processed any payments related to debt
settlement, including MARS, within the Bond Period of their state
of residence.

The court appoints plaintiffs Amrish Rajagopalan, Marie Johnson-
Peredo, Robert Hewson, Donte Cheeks, Deborah Horton, Richard
Pierce, Erma Sue Clyatt, Robert Joyce, Amy Joyce, Arthur Fuller,
Dawn Meade, Wahab Ekunsumi, Karen Hea, and Alex Casiano as class
representatives. The court also appoints the law firms of Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP and The Paynter Law Firm PLLC as class
counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g).

The Court finds that certification is appropriate under Rule
23(b)(1) because there are limited and insufficient funds
available to compensate the Class.

A copy of Judge Settle's order dated May 14, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/yqawMUfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas E. Loeser -- toml@hbsslaw.com -- Steve W. Berman --
steve@hbsslaw.com -- at HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP; Stuart M.
Paynter -- stuart@paynterlawfirm.com -- Jennifer L. Murray --
jmurray@paynterlawfirm.com -- at THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs


MIDLAND FUNDING: Judge Narrows Claim in "Walkabout" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the Western District of
Oklahoma granted in part defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
LORI WALKABOUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, CASE NO. CIV-14-939-M (W.D. Okla.)

Plaintiff Lori Walkabout opened a credit card account with HSBC
Bank Nevada, N.A. (HSBC) on or about May of 2007. Plaintiff
incurred consumer credit card debt to HSBC related to consumer
purchases, and on or about February 2010, HSBC charged off
plaintiff's debt in the amount of $2,311.00 and reported to the
credit agency Experian that the account was closed and written off
in the amount of $2,311.00 as of the reporting date of October of
2010.

On September 3, 2013, defendant Midland Funding, LLC (Midland
Funding) sued plaintiff for the debt incurred with HSBC in the
District Court of Canadian County, State of Oklahoma, and alleged
that plaintiff owed $2,311.52 as of April 8, 2013.

Plaintiff filed an action individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated consumers. Plaintiff alleges that defendants
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the
Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act (OCPA), and the Truth in Lending
Act (TILA), and that defendants were negligent per se.

Defendants moved the court to dismiss plaintiff's claims, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Judge Miles-LaGrange granted defendants' motion to dismiss as to
plaintiff's claim that defendant violated the OCPA and dismisses
plaintiff's claim that defendants violated the OCPA. The court
however granted plaintiff leave to amend her complaint as to her
claims that defendants violated the FDCPA and the TILA. Plaintiff
shall file her amended complaint on or before May, 28, 2015.

A copy of Judge Miles-LaGrange's order dated May 14, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/oUWXNlfrom Leagle.com.

Lori Walkabout, individually, Plaintiff, represented by:

M Kathi Rawls, Esq.
Minal Gahlot, Esq.
RAWLS LAW OFFICE PLC
2404 S Broadway St
St. Moore, OK 73160
Telephone: 405-912-3225

Defendants, represented by Jon E Brightmire --
jbrightmire@dsda.com -- Sierra G Salton -- ssalton@dsda.com -- at
Doerner Saunders Daniel & Anderson


MIDTOWN EAST: Faces "Antonio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Antonio, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Midtown East Wings d/b/a Atomic Wings, Terry Mohamed,
Adam Lippin, and Michael Mcdermott, Case No. 1:15-cv-04070-CM
(S.D.N.Y., May 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chicken wing counter located at
1140 Second Avenue, New York, New York 10021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


MIKADO JAPANESE: Faces "Dong" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chao Hung Dong, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Mikado Japanese Inc. d/b/a Tenda Asian
Fusion, Xiao Yan Chen, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03031
(E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Tenda Asian Fusion restaurant at
1734 Sheepshead Bay Road, Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street, Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


MILLERCOORS: Faces Class Action Over Blue Moon Beer Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Tatro and Matt Rascon, writing for NBC San Diego, report
that a San Diego man is suing MillerCoors, claiming the company's
Blue Moon beer is not truly a craft beer.  Evan Parent claims
MillerCoors deceived him by advertising their product, Blue Moon,
as a craft beer produced in a small brewery when in actuality the
product is made in large plants, according to the lawsuit.  The
product is marketed as "artfully crafted," but, Mr. Parent says,
the product does not qualify as a craft brewery product.

"What this case is really about is people think they're buying
craft beer and they're actually buying crafty marketing," Parent's
lawyer Jim Treglio told NBC7.

In the lawsuit, Mr. Parent says that despite the fact that
MillerCoors has been brewing the beer for the past 20 years,
"Defendant [MillerCoors] goes to great lengths to disassociate
Blue Moon beer from the MillerCoors name.  MillerCoors does not
appear anywhere on the Blue Moon bottle," the lawsuit claims.

By misleading the people who buy the beer, the lawsuit claims,
they are able to charge up to 50 percent more for the product.

Mr. Parent said he cares about it because he is a beer aficionado
and home brewer.  "It matters to me because I'm a craft brew fan
. . . I take care in where I spend my money," Mr. Parent said.

After learning the way the beer was made and marketed in 2012, he
stopped purchasing the beer.

"When someone's deceiving me into giving them my money for the
wrong reasons that's upsetting," Mr. Parent told NBC7.

The class-action suit was filed in San Diego Superior Court.
A spokesperson for MillerCoors company says the lawsuit lacks
merit.


NATIONWIDE DEBT: Faces "Liversage" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Liversage and Patricia Liversage, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Nationwide Debt Management
Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-01266 (D. Md., May 1, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for violation of the is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. David Hoskins, Esq.
      Max F. Brauer, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF E DAVID HOSKINS LLC
      16 E. Lombard Street, Suite 400
      Baltimore, MD 21202
      Telephone: (410) 662-6500
      Facsimile: (410) 662-7800
      E-mail: davidhoskins@hoskinslaw.com
              maxbrauer@hoskinslaw.com


NETHERLANDS: Class Action Seeks Cut in Carbon Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------
Ari Shapiro, writing for NPR, reports that a lawsuit in the
Netherlands is taking an unusual approach to climate change. So
unusual, in fact, that experts around the world are watching it
closely, wondering whether it might spark a major shift in
environmentalists' efforts to limit carbon emissions.  If that
happens, it won't be the first time that Marjam Minnesma has
turned the status quo on its head.

She's founder and director of a Dutch environmental organization
called Urgenda, an abbreviation for "urgent agenda."

"Sometimes you have to do something, and then everybody's like,
'Oh, that's quite easy. Why don't we do that?' and then people
follow," she says at her office in Amsterdam.

For example, a few years ago the Dutch government told her that
solar panels weren't feasible. Not enough people wanted them, she
was told, and the price was far too high.

So Ms. Minnesma started taking orders herself.  She had a massive
contact list from an earlier project, establishing the Dutch
equivalent of Earth Day.  People from that list started to sign up
to buy solar panels, paying her 20 percent in advance.  Once she
had enough orders for 50,000 panels, she flew to China to
negotiate with the manufacturers.

They offered her a good bulk rate and said they would lower the
price even more if she paid up front.

"So we emailed all those people and said, 'Yeah, we did it, and
it's going to happen! And if you want a little bit more discount,
pay us two weeks before you get the solar panels.'  And everyone
did.  So I had 20 million euros in a totally new bank account even
before any solar panel arrived," she remembers, laughing.

Her crazy-sounding plan has now become common.  Today there are
"hundreds of collective buying initiatives," she says.  "So we
really set a new standard."

Ms. Minnesma could have remained in the bulk solar panel
purchasing business.  Or she could have changed her name and
escaped with the 20 million euros to a distant tropical island.
But she's more interested in successfully doing something that has
never been done before, and then moving on.  Today, she's working
on another climate change moon shot.

Her Urgenda colleague Dennis van Berkel takes me to the outskirts
of Amsterdam to explain.  We walk up a small hill.  On the far
side, there's a wide stretch of water where ducks and geese paddle
in the shallows. Behind us, sheep graze in broad green fields.

"The thing about the Netherlands is that, as you can see here, the
water on our left side is higher than the land on our right side,"
says Mr. van Berkel.  "We're about 3 meters below sea level here.
What this place reminds me of is that for the Netherlands really
in the long run, climate change is almost an existential issue."

Mr. Van Berkel notes that the Dutch monarchy is 500 years old.
Given threatened sea level rise, he wonders whether the country
will last another 500 years.

The Netherlands is a land of levees and dikes that hold water at
bay.  The country has a reputation as a progressive place.  But on
carbon emissions, it's not progressive at all.  Never mind the
iconic windmills and bicycles -- the Netherlands still relies
heavily on coal-fired power plants.  And the country's goals to
cut emissions are far less ambitious than its European neighbors.

That's why Urgenda filed a very unusual class action lawsuit.  The
case argues that the country is failing to protect Dutch citizens.
The lawyers are asking a judge to order the government to cut the
country's carbon emissions.

Almost 900 people have joined the case, including an event planner
named Natasja Vandinberg.

"I'm the mother of an 8-year-old boy and an almost 4-year-old
girl," Ms. Vandinberg says at a small cafe near her office.  "And
they are also plaintiffs."  She explains that her children will be
more affected by climate change than she will, since they will
live longer.

Ms. Vandinberg heats her house through solar power, she recycles,
and she rides a bicycle. But she believes that individual action
is not enough.

"Even if I would do everything correct," she says, "the government
buildings, the companies, the way we produce things in this
country -- I cannot change that by myself.  We need the
collective."

The Dutch government declined my interview request.  But in 2013,
Environment Minister Wilma Mansveld told the Dutch newspaper Trouw
that she thinks the lawsuit is "a good thing," since it may force
the government to take politically difficult steps.  That is not
the official government position, and Ms. Mansveld has made few
public comments about the case since then.

The suit does have its critics.

"I think you can probably find 900 people to join in frivolous
nonsense in any country," says Tim Worstall of the Adam Smith
Institute in London.

Mr. Worstall is author of a book called Chasing Rainbows, How the
Green Agenda Defeats Its Aims.  He argues that it is inappropriate
to blame the government for carbon emissions, because "it's the
Dutch citizenry who actually use fossil fuels, and so it's the
citizenry themselves who are causing the damage."

There's another obvious shortcoming to this lawsuit.  The
Netherlands is a small country, and if it totally stopped emitting
carbon tomorrow, climate change would continue at the same rate.

NPR's Shapiro ask plaintiff Joos Ockels about this, sitting at her
kitchen table in a row house overlooking one of Amsterdam's iconic
canals.  She's a grandmother, and she shared this home with her
husband, the first Dutch astronaut, who died almost a year ago.

Ms. Ockels explains that she became an environmentalist through
him. Seeing the planet from space, she says: "You want to take
care of Earth.  And being married to a man like that, it
influences you."

Ms. Ockels admits that climate change is "a global problem.  But I
cannot handle a global problem.  I can only handle my own.  And if
we make many, many, many people aware, well perhaps then I hope
for a movement."

Urgenda is working to get this approach to catch on, just as the
solar panels did. From the beginning, lawyer van Berkel and others
translated all of their documents and research from Dutch into
English.  They posted everything online.  It was a huge and
expensive effort specifically designed to encourage others to crib
from Urgenda's work.

Now lawyers in Belgium have filed a similar lawsuit. Lawyers from
Australia and Canada have been in touch with the Dutch advocates.
It has even caught the attention of American experts.

"I think the people who are following climate change law are
watching this case very carefully around the world," says
Michael Gerrard, who directs the climate change law center at
Columbia Law School.

"If the Dutch court were to rule against the state in this case,"
he says, "that would be a very powerful signal that would probably
then lead to similar litigation in many other countries."

The court heard arguments at The Hague in mid-April.  The judges
say they will issue their ruling on June 24.


NEVADA: Judge Wants Updated Address on Former Inmate
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Andrew P. Gordon of the District of Nevada ordered
plaintiff to update his address in the case DONALD W. MOON and
DONALD J. BOGOTAITIS, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES COX et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2140-APG-GWF (D. Nev.)

Pro Se plaintiffs Donald Moon and Donald J. Bogotaitis were in
custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) at the time
the case was initiated. Plaintiff Moon has updated his address
with the court and is no longer incarcerated. Plaintiff Bogotaitis
has not updated his address with the court but, according to the
NDOC website, appears to have been released from prison.
Plaintiffs each submitted their own applications to proceed in
forma pauperis but submitted identical complaints. Plaintiff Moon
submitted a motion for leave to file a longer than normal
complaint, a motion for class action certification, and a motion
for appointment of counsel on behalf of both plaintiffs. In the
caption of their complaints, they allege that they are proceeding
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

Judge Gordon expresses that pro se litigants have no authority to
represent anyone other than themselves. Plaintiff Bogotaitis has
30 days from date of entry of the order to file his upgraded
address and the same 30 days is given to plaintiff Bogotaitis to
notify the court whether he intends to proceed his application to
proceed in forma pauperis and complaint or the court will dismiss
his complaint without prejudice.

A copy of Judge Gordon's order dated May 6, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/Rvsliufrom Leagle.com.


NEW YORK TIMES: Judge Denies Teamsters' Bid for Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Sweet of the Southern District of New
York denied plaintiff's motion to compel in the case NEW ENGLAND
TEAMSTERS 7, TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE NEW
YORK TIMES COMPANY, Defendant, NO. 14 MISC. 59 (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff New England Teamsters and Trucking Industries Pension
Fund brought a securities class action suit against HCA Holdings,
Inc. (HCA), in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.

As part of its ongoing coverage of waste and expense in medical
care, defendant the New York Times published an article about
unnecessary surgical procedures that were performed at hospitals
owned by HCA. The article was the result of reporting by Times
reporters Reed Abelson and Julie Creswell, and was based in part
on internal HCA documents provided to them by anonymous sources to
whom they promised confidentiality.

Plaintiff served a subpoena on The Times seeking documents used by
the reporters in preparing the Article. The Times timely objected
to the Subpoena, citing the reporter's privilege.

The plaintiff filed a motion to compel before the court and that
motion was denied by Amended Opinion dated April 21, 2014 because
plaintiff had not exhausted alternative sources.

On November 12, 2014, plaintiff filed its supplemental motion to
compel two documents. The first is an internal memorandum written
by an HCA ethics officer, Stephen Johnson, substantiating a
nurse's allegations that unnecessary procedures were being
performed at Lawnwood Regional Medical Center (Lawnwood), an HCA
facility in Florida. The second document sought is a 2010 internal
HCA review authored by George Ebra showing that some 1,200
surgeries were performed on patients who did not have serious
heart disease at Lawnwood.

The Tennessee court, by order of September 16, 2014, upheld a
claim of privilege with respect to some 800 HCA documents. The
plaintiff has sought reconsideration of the Tennessee Court's
privilege ruling.

Judge Robert Sweet denied plaintiff's supplementary motion but
granted leave to renew upon the resolution of the reconsideration
motion.

A copy of Judge Sweet's opinion dated May 7, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/wH06LFfrom Leagle.com.

Scott H. Saham, Esq. -- scotts@rgrdlaw.com -- Samuel Howard
Rudman, Esq. -- SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- at ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN &
DOWD LLP, Attorneys for Plaintiff

THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY, By: David Edward McCraw, Esq., Diana
Victoria Baranetsky, Esq., New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant

J. Christian Word, Esq. -- christian.word@lw.com -- Sarah A.
Greenfield, Esq. -- sarah.greenfield@lw.com -- at LATHAM &
WATKINS, LLP, Attorneys for Non-Party HCA Holdings, Inc.


NJ MANUFACTURERS: "Myska" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Presidng Judge Marie E. Lihotz of the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Appellate Division, affirmed the Law Division's conclusion
in the case PATRICIA C. MYSKA, DAX MORALES and KATHERINE K.
WAGNER, Plaintiffs, and JOHN B. TODISCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE COMPANY and AAA MID-ATLANTIC
INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, Defendants, and PALISADES
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent. PATRICIA MYSKA and
KATHERINE WAGNER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and JOHN B. TODISCO and
DAX MORALES, Plaintiffs, v. NEW JERSEY MANUFACTURERS INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant-Respondent, and PALISADES INSURANCE COMPANY and
AAA MID-ATLANTIC INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW JERSEY, Defendants,
DOCKET NOS. A-4398-13T4, A-0275-14T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div.)

Patricia C. Myska and Katherine Wagner insured their vehicles with
defendant New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company (NJM). Both
of their vehicles suffered physical damage, in which NJM satisfied
their claims in accordance with the terms of their respective
policies. Despite repair, Myska and Wagner each maintained their
vehicles' values had decreased as a direct result of the
accidents. In April 2013, Myska and Wagner separately submitted a
second claim for payment, seeking payment for diminution of value.

NJM responded to Myska and Wagner in separate, but identical
letters, stating NJM denies payment of the diminished value
claims.

John B. Todisco insured two automobiles under a policy issued by
defendant Palisades. A 2007 Bentley Continental, covered under the
policy, was involved in an accident with an uninsured or
underinsured tortfeasor on June 13, 2012. Todisco submitted a
claim to repair the damage sustained to the Bentley, which
Palisades paid in accordance with the policy terms. Subsequently,
Todisco advised Palisades he was making a claim for diminished
value damages and requested the insurer's "position with respect
to a diminished value claim, pursuant to the policy's UM/UIM
coverage provisions. Palisides denies payment.

NJM plaintiffs Myska and Wagner filed a putative class action
complaint on behalf of NJM insureds, alleging the insurer's
actionable denial of payment for diminution of value represented a
breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and violation of the CFA. On behalf of the class, the NJM
plaintiffs sought to put an end to NJM's systematic practice of
denying, obfuscating coverage of, or otherwise avoiding claims by
New Jersey consumers for the diminution of value of insured
vehicles resulting from third-party UM/UIM. Further, the NJM
plaintiffs asserted NJM failed to disclose the right to submit
third-party UM/UIM diminution of value claims at the time their
respective repair claims were made.

NJM moved to dismiss the NJM plaintiffs' complaint for failure to
state a claim for relief, contending the NJM policies provided
coverage for diminution of value damages, if supported. NJM argued
it did not fail to pay the claims, plaintiffs simply failed to
submit adequate proof to support the substantial diminution of
value damages claimed via the opinion of Collision Consulting,
therefore, there was no breach of contract. Palisades filed its
own motion to dismiss Todisco's claims, asserting that Todesco
never submitted a claim for diminution of value or identified a
policy provision that was breached and argued that coverage
disputes must be determined in an arbitral form.

The Law Division judge entered two orders, an order striking
plaintiffs class allegations and dismissing their claims against
defendant insurers for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act (CFA),
N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to-195.

The NJM plaintiffs appealed from the provisions of the March 21,
2014 order striking the class allegations and dismissing their CFA
claims. Todisco separately appealed from the dismissal of his
claims in favor of complying with the policy's arbitration clause.
Plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal, which was denied by the
present court. By order dated September 9, 2014, the Supreme Court
granted leave for plaintiffs to appeal and summarily remanded the
matter to the present court for review of the merits.

Presidng Judge Lihotz affirmed the Law Division's conclusions with
modifications and concluded that the CFA does not apply to the
dispute regarding payment of scope of coverage and that, although
the arbitration clause in the Palisides policy is enforceable, the
court nevertheless conclude dismissal of Todisco's complaint for
his noncompliance with the unambiguous claims procedure.

A copy of Presiding Judge Lihotz's opinion dated May 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/pLvXOMfrom Leagle.com.

For Appellants:

Eric D. Katz, Esq.
David M. Estes, Esq.
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC
103 Eisenhower Parkway 2nd Floor
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: 973-228-9898
Facsimile: 973-228-0303

     - and -

Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
KEEFE BARTELS, LLC
170 Monmouth Street
Red Bank, NJ 07701
Telephone: 877-288-9247

Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. -- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- at Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC; Daniel J. Pomeroy --
dpomeroy@pomeroyhellerley.com -- Karen E. Heller --
kheller@pomeroyhellerley.com -- at Pomeroy, Heller & Ley, LLC for
respondent New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company

Robert J. DelTufo -- robert.deltufo@skadden.com -- at Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, for respondent (Palisades
Insurance Company

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division panel
consists of Presiding Judge Marie E. Lihotz, Judges Marianne
Espinosa and Jerome M. St. John.


OHIO: Oil & Gas Companies Can Drill New Wells Amid Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Kilpatrick, writing for Cleveland.com, reports that residents
who oppose gas and oil drilling in backyards and near baseball
fields should push their cities to create bills of rights, a
community advocate said at a forum.

"Our problem is not only has federal law failed to protect the
environment, but the current structure of law prevents the
communities most affected by the environmental destruction from
adopting any local law to protect themselves," said Tish O'Dell,
who leads Mothers Against Drilling in our Neighborhoods.  "So they
stripped us, saying we can't do anything about it."

Oil and gas companies now have freedom to drill new wells in
Broadview Heights after a Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas
judge last month overturned voter-approved ban.  Judge Michael K.
Astrab ruled state law trumped the city's 2012 block on new wells.

Mothers Against Drilling in Our Neighborhoods filed a lawsuit in
December in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court that claims the
U.S. and Ohio constitutions guarantee the rights of citizens to
govern themselves locally and protect their communities -- in this
case, from detrimental effects of oil and gas wells.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, which would allow the
activists to represent all Broadview Heights residents.  It says
the group has legal standing to sue because members started the
campaign for the Community Bill of Rights and worked hard to pass
it on the ballot.


OKLAHOMA: Co-Neutrals See Progress in DHS Child Welfare Efforts
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoman reports that there is some reason for encouragement
in the latest report by out-of-state experts who are overseeing
Oklahoma's child welfare reform efforts.  More so than in their
previous three critiques, this time they found a few things worth
praising at the Department of Human Services.

The three experts, called "co-neutrals," are monitoring Oklahoma's
efforts to comply with a 2012 settlement agreement that resolved a
federal class-action lawsuit against DHS. The state subsequently
created the Pinnacle Plan, which sets improvement goals in several
areas of the child welfare system, ranging from reducing worker
caseloads to eliminating the use of state shelters for abused and
neglected children.

In their latest report issued, the co-neutrals said DHS had made a
"good faith effort" in some areas.  They praised DHS's decision to
close children's shelters in Tulsa and Oklahoma City, and said DHS
had met target goals for caseworkers making regular visits,
keeping small caseloads for supervisors and doing away with
shelters for children younger than 5.

These kudos are an improvement from their October 2014 report in
which they noted that despite $93 million in additional state
funding over three years, DHS had long delays in answering child
abuse hotline calls and a thick backlog of child abuse and neglect
investigations.

Yet there are significant areas of concern that merit DHS's
continued attention.

High caseloads for front-line workers remain a problem, as do
delays in achieving permanent placements for children, the experts
said.  They also noted that while the number of nights spent in
shelters by children younger than 6 had dropped by almost 73
percent compared with the previous reporting period, the number of
nights spent in shelters by children 13 and older had increased by
22 percent.

In addition, too many kids are being abused and neglected while in
foster care.  DHS reported that 206 out of 16,272 children in
agency custody were victims of abuse or neglect between October
2013 and September 2014.  The experts said that's 154 more than
would have been harmed if the state had met its goal of keeping at
least 99.68 percent of foster children safe.

Another problem involves use of current foster homes, and
recruitment of others.

The co-neutrals were understandably troubled by the fact that 604
of the 2,139 foster homes reported as open Jan. 1 were instead
unused, and 152 of them had been that way for at least six months.
Also, DHS says it has a waiting list of 160 to 180 children
needing therapeutic foster homes, but agency records showed there
were at least that many therapeutic foster care beds available and
not being used, the report said.

DHS Director Ed Lake said the private agencies DHS uses to recruit
foster parents are struggling to do so.  "We need more Oklahomans
to step up and become foster and adoptive families," Mr. Lake
said.  "Having enough foster homes for children we serve is the
key to success in so many of our improvement goals."

That's what is distressing about the co-neutrals' findings -- they
have the potential to hurt DHS's efforts to convince more
Oklahomans to open their homes.  But this is exactly what is
needed if the state has any hope of reducing its reliance on
shelters and giving these children a chance at a new beginning.


PENNSWOOD PARTNERS: Ill. App. Ct. Narrows Claims in GM Sign Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Robert D. McLaren of the Appellate Court of Illinois,
Second District reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial
court's decision in the appealed case entitled G.M. SIGN, INC.,
Plaintiff and Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellee and Cross-
Appellant, v. PENNSWOOD PARTNERS, INC., Defendant-Appellee and
Cross-Appellant. (Maryland Casualty Company and Assurance Company
of America, Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants-Appellants and Cross-
Appellees), NO. 2-12-1276 (Ill. App. Ct.)

Pennswood Partners, Inc. (Pennswood) is an executive placement
services provider, a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal
and only place of business in Pennsylvania.

G.M. Sign, a recipient of unsolicited faxed advertisements from
Pennswood, filed a class action complaint against Pennswood
alleging that: (1) Pennswood violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA) (47 U.S.C. Section 27 (2006)), by
transmitting the advertisements to G.M. Sign and the other members
of the class and that Pennswood's actions caused damages to G.M.
Sign and the other class members, because their receipt of
Pennswood's unsolicited fax advertisements caused them to lose
paper and toner consumed as a result and cost them employee time;
(2) Pennswood was liable for common-law conversion of the
plaintiffs' fax machine toner, paper, memory, and employee time;
and (3) Pennswood violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2006)).

Pennswood's insurers, Maryland Casualty Company, a Maryland
corporation with its principal place of business in Illinois, and
Assurance Company of America, a New York corporation with its
principal place of business also in Illinois, are underwriting
insurance companies used by the Zurich Insurance Group's small
business unit to issue insurance policies.

Pennswood tendered its defense to Zurich, but the latter denied
Pennswood's tender of defense, disclaiming any obligation to
defend or indemnify.

Subsequently, G.M. Sign and Pennswood settled their lawsuit for $8
million. Zurich filed a declaratory judgment action against
Pennswood and G.M. Sign, seeking a declaration that their
insurance policies did not provide coverage to Pennswood for the
underlying lawsuit. The parties filed cross-motions for summary
judgment. Applying Illinois law, the trial court granted summary
judgment in favor of Pennswood and G.M. Sign and against Zurich,
determining that Zurich had a duty to defend and indemnify
Pennswood and that the settlement was reasonable. The trial court
entered judgment in favor of G.M. Sign in the amount of $8 million
and denied Pennswood and G.M. Sign's request for accrued post
settlement interest.

The parties appealed. On March 24, 2014, the present court issued
an opinion reversing in part and affirming in part the trial
court's judgment. G.M. Sign and Pennswood filed a motion for a
supervisory order in the Illinois Supreme Court, which the Supreme
Court granted.

On appeal Zurich argues: (1) Zurich had no duty to defend or
indemnify Pennswood in the underlying action under Pennsylvania
law; (2) Illinois courts are vested with the discretion to
consider federal courts' predictions in their conflict-of-law
analysis; and (3) in an insurance coverage case, a single state's
law should be applied to the interpretation of an insurance
policy. Pennswood and G.M. Sign argue that the trial court erred
by denying their request for accrued postsettlement interest.

The Illinois Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment
in favor of Pennswood and G.M. Sign, enter summary judgment in
favor of Zurich and against Pennswood and G.M. Sign. Affirmed the
trial court's order denying Pennswood and G.M. Sign's request for
accrued postsettlement interest and dismiss G.M. Sign's claim
against Zurich alleging statutory bad faith under Pennsylvania
law.

A copy of Justice McLaren's opinion dated May 13, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/kbvriWfrom Leagle.com.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District panel consists of
Justices Robert D. McLaren, Michael J. Burke and Robert B. Spence.


PERFORMANCE PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Moore, Roy Lewis, Josh Blaschke, Justin Blaschke, and Julio
Moreno, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Performance Pressure Pumping Services, LLC and Epic
Wireline Services, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00432 (W.D. Tex., May 26,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide products and services in the oil and gas
industry, throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford-Ste 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


RESTAURANT.COM: Must Face Gift Certificate Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dahlman, writing for Marina City Online, reports that
selling gift certificates with terms and fine print in violation
of New Jersey law could be costly for a Chicago company owned by
two River North residents.

A United States Court of Appeals ruled on April 30 that previous
rulings against Restaurant.com can be applied retroactively and
RDC is exposed to a $100 penalty for every certificate -- in
violation of New Jersey law -- sold in the past.  The penalties
could total $1 million.

Two New Jersey residents, Gregory Bohus and Larissa Shelton, sued
RDC in 2010 over certificates they bought on the company's website
that had expiration dates and a disclaimer in violation of New
Jersey law.  Three years, one dismissal, and an appeal later, the
New Jersey Supreme Court decided the suit, by then a class action
lawsuit, could continue.  The dismissal was reversed, the case
dismissed again, and an appeal filed last July.

Two attorneys, Bruce Greenberg for Ms. Shelton and Mr. Bohus, and
Michael McDonald for RDC, got 15 minutes each before three federal
appellate judges in Philadelphia on February 12.

Mr. Greenberg argued the Supreme Court of New Jersey said the
rulings apply retroactively and if there is any doubt, they should
be asked again.  RDC argued they should not be penalized as long
as their certificates continue to be in compliance.

"The end, one may hope, is finally near," wrote Kent A. Jordan,
one of the three judges, in the decision in favor of Ms. Shelton
and Mr. Bohus.

Mr. Jordan says while rulings against RDC are not fully
retroactive, they are not fully proactive, either.

"Under New Jersey law, judicial decisions that adopt new rules are
generally given retroactive effect.  Courts may, however, depart
from that general rule when they determine that retroactive
application could produce substantial inequitable results."

Applying the ruling retroactively, writes Jordan, could
potentially affect any business anywhere in the world that markets
intangible property to consumers in New Jersey.

"Common sense reveals that its impact will be truly far-reaching."

Dr. Kenneth Chessick, a lawyer, and his wife, Ellen Chessick, who
is president of Marina Towers Condominium Association, own
Restaurant.com.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
City Of Sterling Heights General Employees' Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Sandisk Corporation, Sanjay Mehrotra and Judy Bruner, Case No.
5:15-cv-02358 (N.D. Cal., May 27, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and
omitted adverse information regarding the Company's operations,
sales and product development.

Sandisk Corporation designs, develops, markets and manufactures
data storage solutions in a variety of form factors using its
flash memory, controller, firmware and software technologies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com


SEGA OF AMERICA: Judge Denied Parties' Motions in "Perrine Suit"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Donato of the Northern District of California
denied the parties' motions in the case DAMION PERRINE, Plaintiff,
v. SEGA OF AMERICA, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-
01962-JD (N.D. Cal.)

Gearbox Software, L.L.C. (Gearbox) developed a video game called
"Aliens: Colonial Marines" ("ACM"), and was produced by Sega of
America, Inc. the video game was held out as the canon sequel to
James Cameron's 1986 film Aliens.

Named plaintiff John Locke is an avid fan of the series that pre-
purchased a copy prior to its release. Damion Perrine, the other
named plaintiff, is also a fan of the Aliens franchise, and
purchased a copy of the game on its release date, February 13,
2013.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants developed a non-retail but
technically superior version of the game that featured, among
other things, advanced artificial intelligence programming,
certain gameplay sequences drawn from the Aliens movie, and a
highly advanced graphics engine, and presented this version and
described it to the public as actual gameplay.  The retail version
that was ultimately sold, however, allegedly utilized different
programming altogether and a different and much less advanced
graphics engine.

The complaint asserts six claims for relief: (1) violation of the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civil Code Section 1750 (CLRA);
(2) violation of the Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17200 (UCL); (3) violation of the False Advertising
Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17500 (FAL); (4) breach of
express warranties; (5) fraud in the inducement; and (6) negligent
misrepresentation.

Mr. Locke seeks certification of the following class against
defendant Gearbox only: "All persons in the United States who paid
for a copy of the Aliens: Colonial Marines video game either on or
before February 12, 2013." Plaintiff alternatively proposed the
certification of a more narrowed class at the hearing, which
plaintiffs' counsel also sought the application of California law
to a nationwide class under Gearbox's End User License Agreement
(EULA). Gearbox to filed a motion to dismiss or, in the
alternative, for judgment on the pleadings based on the
arbitration clause and class action waiver contained in the EULA.

Judge Donato denied the parties motions.

A copy of Judge Donato's order dated May 12, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/LOVrcRfrom Leagle.com.

Damion Perrine, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Scott Thomassen
-- bthomassen@edelson.com -- Christopher Lillard Dore --
cdore@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC; Samuel Lasser at Law
Office of Samuel Lasser

Sega of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Claude M. Stern
-- claudestern@quinnemanuel.com -- Evette Dionna Pennypacker --
evettepennypacker@quinnemanuel.com -- Sam Stephen Stake --
samstake@quinnemanuel.com -- at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
LLP; Robert Michael Schwartz -- Victor Jih -- at O'Melveny and
Myers; Jenny Grantz -- jgrantz@cbmlaw.com -- at Carroll, Burdick &
McDonough LLP

Gearbox Software, LLC, Defendant, represented by Robert Michael
Schwartz -- Victor Jih -- Daniel Innamorati -- at O'Melveny and
Myers


SELECTION.COM: Sued in Cal. Over Consumer Reporting Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Selection.com and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-02338
(N.D. Cal., May 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
willful failure to follow federal and state laws designed to
protect consumers from inaccurate, misleading, and manifestly
improper consumer reporting practices.

Selection.com is a consumer reporting agency that provides
consumer reports to employers, landlords, and creditors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devin H. Fok, Esq.
      DHF LAW
      234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (310) 430-9933
      Facsimile: (818) 484-2023
      E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com


SMITH & NEPHEW: Faces Suit Over Hip Replacement Design Flaws
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Naysmith, writing for Herald Scotland, reports that a 63
year old widow has become the latest Scot to take court action
against a medical firm over a failed hip replacement, which she
says has left her with ongoing health problems and unlikely to
ever work again.

Lawyers for former supermarket worker Valerie Greenhalgh claim
that the hip replacement supplied by Smith & Nephew, leaked metal
fragments inside her hip, leaving her unable to bend and with
limited mobility.  Mrs. Greenhalgh, of Perth, has raised a
GBP40,000 claim against the British firm at the local sheriff
court, but it has now been remitted to the court of Session where
she joins 27 others who have similar claims against the company.

The case centers on controversial "metal-on-metal" hip prostheses
from Smith & Nephew and other companies which have been blamed for
causing problems for patients around the world.

Campaigners say design flaws mean that friction between the two
metal plates in some metal-on-metal hip replacement scan produce
chemical fragments which leak into the blood.

Class action law suits are already under way in the US and
Australia, but there is no similar course available in Scots Law.
Instead, a high value test case is likely to be chosen from among
the 28 claims already lodged and its result used to guide the
remaining actions.

In court, Sheriff William Wood said it was right to remit the case
to the Court of Session, adding "technical issues are raised
regarding construction and use of the replacement hip.  It seems
appropriate that it is dealt with in a forum where other cases may
be being dealt with."

Councillor Alasdair Burnet, representing Smith & Nephew had asked
for the case to be remitted and said: "[the case] merits remit
both in terms of importance and complexity.  This is one of a
number of cases against manufacturers of metal hip replacements
around the world."


SOY SAUCE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Feng" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hanming Feng, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Soy Sauce LLC d/b/a Soysauce Glatt Kosher Chinese Take Out, and
John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-03058 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate restaurant located at 68-22 Main
Street, Flushing, New York 11367.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


SOUTH FLORIDA PATIENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Barrientos, and others similarly-situated v. South Florida
Patient Transportation, LLC and South Florida Pain &
Rehabilitation of West Dade, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-22022-RNS (S.D.
Fla., May 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing patient
transportation services for treatment at a location within Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


SPERIAN ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Petrasko" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Petrasko, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sperian Energy Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-04587
(N.D. Ill., May 26, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the telephones of
consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured
by its conduct.

Sperian Energy Corp.is a retail energy supplier operating in
multiple states across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Courtney C. Booth, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              cbooth@edelson.com

         - and -

      Stefan L. Coleman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
      1072 Madison Avenue, Suite 1
      Lakewood, NJ 08701
      Telephone: (877) 333-9427
      Facsimile: (888) 498-8946
      E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com


STANDARD GENERAL: Faces Suit by American Apparel Shareholders
-------------------------------------------------------------
Komfie Manalo, writing for Opalesque Asia, reports that a
shareholder class-action suit filed on April 29 accused New York-
based hedge fund Standard General of holding American Apparel
hostage. It would reportedly reap huge benefits if the clothing
company declared bankruptcy.

Standard General is the controlling stockholder at American
Apparel, reported California Apparel News.

In the lawsuit, the shareholders accused the former and current
board members of the apparel firm of breaching their fiduciary
duties by claiming in proxy statements that Dov Charney, the
company's founder, was an integral part of the brand.  The new set
of board members was elected in June and suspended him as the
firm's chief executive and eventually removed him as the chairman
of the board.  Mr. Charney was removed as American Apparel's CEO
in December 2014.

Shareholder and former American Apparel employee Eliana Gil
Rodriguez said in the lawsuit filed in the Court of Chancery in
Delaware, that Standard General was able to gain control of
American Apparel after its share prices dropped.  Mr. Charney
owned 43% of American Apparel's stock, but a secondary stock
offering of 61 million shares in March reduced his share to 27%,
says the report.

This is the fourth shareholder lawsuit against the company in
three weeks, according to the New York Post.  Like the previous
three other complaints -- also filed by people close to
Mr. Charney -- it alleges proxy fraud against the previous board,
in which shareholders were duped into re-electing three of five
directors who suspended and then fired Mr. Charney in December.


STUDIO DUART: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levyn Herrera and Angel Enoc Sanchez, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Studio Duart, Inc. and Inacio
Dias Duarte Jr., Case No. 2:15-cv-03053 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Studio Duart, Inc. is a high-end woodwork manufacturer of
cabinets, moldings, and other interior design features.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven John Moser, Esq.
      STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C.
      3 School Street, Suite 207B
      Glen Cove, NY 11542
      Telephone: (516) 671-1150
      Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
      E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


SYNERGETIC COMMUNICATIONS: Sued in Ariz. Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Fisher, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Synergetic Communications Incorporated, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00938 (D. Ariz., May 26, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Greenwald, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


TRASH TAXI: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trash Taxi of Alabama, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00871-SGC
(N.D. Ala., May 27, 2015),is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime compensation for work over 40 hours per
week.

Trash Taxi of Alabama, LLC owns and operates a solid waste and
recycling hauling company conducting business in the State of
Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Allen Schreiber, Esq.
      Robert E. Norton, Esq.
      BURKE HARVEY, LLC
      3535 Grandview Parkway, Suite 100
      Birmingham, AL 35243
      Telephone: (205) 930-9091
      Facsimile: (205) 930-9054
      E-mail: aschreiber@burkeharvey.com
              rnorton@burkeharvey.com


TRUECAR INC: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Satyabrata Mahapatra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Truecar, Inc., Jeffrey Katzenberg, and Lewis
W. Coleman, Case No. 2:15-cv-03979-R-PJW (C.D. Cal., May 27,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

TrueCar, Inc. operates as an Internet-based information,
technology, and communication services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 285-5330
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      C. Dov Berger, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
             fmcconville@pomlaw.com


UBER TECH: Stabbed Driver Files Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Fitzgerald Rodriguez, writing for The San Francisco Examiner,
reports that a former Uber driver who was stabbed in the face by a
passenger has filed a class-action lawsuit against Uber, alleging
the technology company inappropriately classifies its drivers as
independent contractors, when they are allegedly employees.

The former driver, Abdo Ghazi, also alleges he is owed workers'
compensation, which he would get if he were classified as an
employee by Uber.

To date, Uber has not paid Mr. Ghazi for his medical bills or any
other costs he bore after the night of the attack.

"They said they were sorry for it, but didn't offer any
compensation," Mr. Ghazi's attorney, Conor Granahan, told The San
Francisco Examiner.  Uber did not respond to request for comment.

The suit, filed on April 28, seeks to reclassify Uber drivers as
employees. Or at the very least, Mr. Granahan said, classified as
employees expressly for the purpose of workers' compensation.
Anyone who is an Uber driver, or who has worked in that capacity,
is included as a plaintiff in the suit.

Drivers can download the Uber app and begin picking up customers
after a background check, and other criteria.  The drivers are
classified as independent contractors, meaning they are not
considered legal employees of Uber.  Mr. Ghazi's suit joins a
rising number of class-action suits across the country alleging
technology companies like Uber, Lyft and others are actually
employers.

These companies maintain they are merely conduits that connect a
provider of a service with someone seeking a service.  Mr. Ghazi's
suit is different than previous suits in that it focuses on
workers' compensation, spurred by a gruesome attack that Mr. Ghazi
paid for twice: By blood and by wallet.

Mr. Ghazi has worked as a building maintenance worker in downtown
San Francisco since the 1980s, but drove a taxi part time to make
ends meet for his wife and children, according to the complaint.
As taxi fares began to decline, he started driving for Uber.

Mr. Ghazi was attacked in November after picking up two men and
one woman via the Uber app. After letting out one man and the
woman, Mr. Ghazi drove the last man to Clement Street and 18th
Avenue.  According to the complaint, 10 blocks from their
destination "without any provocation or warning" the passenger
leapt into the front seat with Mr. Ghazi.

The passenger punched Mr. Ghazi and stabbed him in the face.
Mr. Ghazi tried to escape, but the passenger held down the buckle
and continued to stab him.  After striking Mr. Ghazi a few more
times, the passenger abruptly fled.  "Stunned and badly wounded,
Mr. Ghazi dialed 911 on his phone as he lay bleeding," the
complaint writes.

Mr. Ghazi was treated at Kaiser hospital, and was contacted by
officers Faynshteyn and Campbell, according to the Richmond Police
Station newsletter.  The attacker was booked into county jail for
aggravated assault charges.

Mr. Ghazi incurred medical bills, and was unable to work until
January due to his injuries.  He will require further medical
attention for his injuries, which include a broken nose and four
puncture wounds to his chin and mouth.


UNITED CREDIT: Faces "Chapa" Suit in N.J. Over Violation of FDCPA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juliette Chapa, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Charles I. Turner, Esq., United Credit Specialists,
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03125 (D.N.J., May 4, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


UNITED EDUCATION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chelsey Wiedenbeck, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. United Education Institute, d/b/a UEI
College, Case No. 8:15-cv-00810 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2015), seeks
to put an end on the Defendant's practice of making calls to the
Plaintiff's wireless telephone using an automatic dialing system.

United Education Institute operates UEI College in San Bernardino,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Drive #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


US CHUTES: Faces "McDonald" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey McDonald, Elke Hupalo, Joshua Bishop, and all others
similarly situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(B) v. US Chutes LLC and
John Weber, Case No. 9:15-cv-80667-RLR (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

US Chutes LLC is a manufacturer of trash, linen, and debris, doing
business in Chutes Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      777 Brickell Avenue, Suite 500
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 458-1282
      Facsimile: (800) 407-1718
      E-mail: david.markel@markel-law.com


VITTAL ARGENTINA: Faces "Filgueiras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Filgueiras and other similarly situated individuals v.
Vittal Argentina, S.A., ZPH Healthcare LLC d/b/a Vittal d/b/a
Vittal2You, Claudio Waisbord, and Andrea Cobo, Case No. 1:15-cv-
22000-MGC (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants operate a healthcare facility in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


VOCATION: Faces $3 Million Claim by Yarra Advantage
---------------------------------------------------
Sarah Dancker, writing for WA Today, reports that deeply troubled
training provider Vocation is facing a legal claim for $3 million
-- a sum that would rip away a third of its forecast pre-tax
profit for the current half-year.  The claim could be the first of
many from third party service providers targeting ASX-listed
Vocation after sources suggested a class action could be on the
way.

The fresh legal claim comes on top of a separate shareholder class
action being prepared by Slater & Gordon and an investigation into
the company's disclosure in its 2013 prospectus by the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission.

In the latest case, Parkville-based education training provider
Yarra Advantage has filed a claim in the Supreme Court of Victoria
alleging the troubled ASX-listed group engaged in misleading and
deceptive conduct when dealing with the company.

Yarra was founded by George Petrovski and his lawyer Senad
Dizdarevic of Ascot Solicitors said the closure of Bawm and Aspin
had devastated his clients business.

"The actions of Vocation have destroyed our clients' business and
financially ruined its directors and employees and they must be
held accountable," Mr. Dizdarevic said.

Vocation has already had a settlement offer rebuffed by Yarra and
is expected to defend the claim.  A spokeswoman for the company
declined to comment.

Yarra alleges Vocation subsidiaries Aspin and Bawm engaged Yarra
to set up classes in July 2014 for the fourth term of the year and
the first term of 2015.  According to Yarra, representatives from
Bawm and Aspin told Yarra at the time that Vocation was under
investigation by state and federal authorities, well before those
inquiries became public.  It is alleged that Bawm and Aspin gave
Yarra assurances Vocation would not have its funding from the
Victorian Department of Education cut.

Yarra believed that these assurances were given despite the
company being aware that it would probably lose its funding.

Vocation's share price has tumbled from a high of $3.30 on
September 8 last year to 15c at market close on May 1 after a
seven-month run of bad news that included some of its subsidiaries
it losing accreditation from federal and state authorities, the
loss of $16.9 million in Victorian government funding and the
closure of Bawm and Aspin.

The company booked a blistering $240 million impairment for the
half-year to December 31, thanks in large part to a massive write-
down of its goodwill.  It also set aside $1.7 million for
"professional and legal costs in relation to the Department of
Education and Early Childhood Development review and litigation
matters in relation to but not limited to the review".

The company has recently stemmed the bloodletting by selling off
its viable businesses to other vocational education providers
after the resignation of the company's chairman, former federal
education minister John Dawkins and chief executive Mark
Hutchinson.


WARRIOR ENERGY: Faces "Salas" Sui Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Salas, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons v. Warrior Energy Services Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-
01418 (S.D. Tex., May 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40
hours in a workweek

Warrior Energy Services Corporation is a Louisiana corporation
that provides natural gas and oil well services to the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop W, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Imhoff and Glen Aurelius, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Weatherford International
LLC, Weatherford U.S., L.P., and Weatherford International PLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00679 (W.D. Pa., May 26, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are providers of oil and natural gas services and
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. Chivers, Esq.
      100 First Avenue, Suite 1010
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 227-0763
      E-mail: jchivers@employmentrightsgroup.com


WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Maldonado" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ranasee Maldonado, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 4:15-cv-
02333-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 26, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of making calls to the Plaintiff's wireless
telephone using an automatic dialing system.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered
in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Brad King, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              bking@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Ismael T. Salam
      SIPRUT PC
      17 N. State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 236-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 241-1260
      E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
              isalam@siprut.com


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Removed "Spradley" Class Suit to N.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Alan Spradley, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Werner Enterprises
Inc., Case No. 01-2015-CA-001162, was removed from the Eighth
Judicial Circuit of Florida to the U.S. District Court Northern
District of Florida (Gainesville). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-00085-MW-GRJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis Aloysius Creed III, Esq.
      FELDMAN MORGADO PA
      501 N REO ST
      TAMPA, FL 33609
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Charles J. Thomas, Esq.
      Gregory Alan Hearing, Esq.
      THOMPSON SIZEMORE GONZALEZ ETC PA
      One Tampa City Center Ste 1600
      201 N Franklin St.
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 273-0050
      Facsimile: (813) 273-0072
      E-mail: cthomas@tsg-law.com
              ghearing@tsghlaw.com


WINE VAULT: "Zamora" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose E. Zamora Chacon, and others similarly-situated v. The Wine
Vault of Miami, Inc. and Michael Shapira, Case No. 1:15-cv-22019-
CMA (S.D. Fla., May 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a wine store in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


XPO LOGISTICS: Removed "Reyes" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Victor Reyes, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated v. XPO Logistics, Inc., Case No.
150401978, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Allentown). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 5:15-cv-02972-JLS to the proceeding.

The case alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
      Twining Office Center, Suite 211
      715 Twining Road
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Raymond A. Kresge
      COZEN O'CONNOR
      1900 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-3508
      Telephone: (215) 665-2128
      Facsimile: (215) 701-2434
      E-mail: rkresge@cozen.com


YAHOO INC: Appellate Court Affirms Dismissal of Pension Fund Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's dismissal in the case entitled In re: YAHOO! INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION. PENSION TRUST FUND FOR OPERATING ENGINEERS,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Appellant-
Appellant, v. YAHOO! INC.; CAROL A. BARTZ; JERRY YANG; TIMOTHY R.
MORSE, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 12-17080 (9th Cir.)

Appellant Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers appeals the
district court's dismissal of its class action securities fraud
complaint alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. 15 U.S.C. Securities 78j(b) and
78t(a).

The first alleged class period misrepresentation reported the
public market value of Alibaba.com and noted that the figures do
not include estimates of the value of Alibaba's privately held
businesses. The second alleged class period misrepresentation,
which appeared roughly three weeks later in Yahoo's 10-Q,
disclosed Alipay's restructuring, reporting that 100 percent of
its outstanding shares had been transferred to a Chinese domestic
company which is majority owned by Alibaba Group's chief executive
officer.

The district court held that appellees Yahoo! Inc. and three of
its principal officers had no duty to disclose the allegedly
omitted information at the time the class period statements were
made, and that, even if certain allegedly false pre-class period
statements gave rise to a duty to correct, disclosure was made
within a reasonable time period.
The 9th Cir. affirms the district court's dismissal of the class
actions securities fraud complaint.

A copy of the Ninth Circuit's memorandum dated May 15, 2015 is
available at http://is.gd/v3R1L6from Leagle.com.

The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Alex Kozinski,
Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Mary H. Murguia


YELLOWSTONE PROPERTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hector O. Santos, on behalf of himself, individually, and all
others similarly-situated v. Yellowstone Properties, Inc., and
Arthur Green, Orlando Franco, Andy "Doe", and Edgar Roman, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03986 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a housing management corporation,
which maintains its principal place of business at 1 Depot Plaza,
Suite #2, Mamaroneck, New York 10543

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vivian Walton, Esq.
      Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
      Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: vw@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com
              atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com


ZAPPOS.COM: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss With Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zappos.com Inc. filed motions to Strike Prayers for Punitive
Damages and Restitution and for Leave to File Excess Pages in the
case captioned, In re ZAPPOS.COM, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY
BREACH LITIGATION, Case No. 3:12-CV-00325-RCJ-VPC, MDL No. 2357.

On January 15, 2012, Zappos's servers located in Kentucky and
Nevada were targeted by a hacker or group of hackers. The servers
contained the personal identifying information of approximately 24
million Zappos's customers. On January 16, 2012, Zappos sent an
email to its customers notifying them that its servers had been
breached and that data had been stolen, including customers'
names, account numbers, passwords, email addresses, billing and
shipping addresses, phone numbers, and the last four digits of
their credit cards used to make purchases. Shortly thereafter, a
number of lawsuits were filed against Zappos seeking damages.

On June 14, 2012, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPML) granted Zappos's motion to create the present
case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, transferring six extra-
district actions to this District, consolidating them with three
actions from this District, and assigning the consolidated case to
this Court. Zappos moved to compel arbitration and stay the case
which was denied. The JPML transferred an additional action to be
consolidated with the instant case. Zappos filed a motion to
dismiss the complaints for lack of standing and for failure to
state a claim which was granted in part and denied in part on
September 9, 2013.

In Zappos' motions, it contended that Plaintiffs lack standing in
the case because they had not alleged any actual damages arising
from the data breach. Plaintiffs contended that their injury
stemmed from an increased risk that they would become victims of
identity theft or other fraudulent activities because their
personal information had been jeopardized.

District Judge Robert C. Jones of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada in the Order dated June 1, 2015
available at http://is.gd/WQ9fpVfrom Leagle.com, granted Zappos's
Motion to Dismiss but gave Plaintiffs leave to amend their
Complaints for a third time in the event an occurrence of actual
misuse of the stolen data transpired between the dates the Preira
and Stevens SACs were filed and now.  Although the Court found no
standing based on the facts as currently pleaded, the case would
be dismissed without prejudice. The Court further denied as moot
Defendant's Motion to Strike and granted Defendant's Motion for
Leave.

Zappos.com is represented by Brian C. Frontino, Esq.--
bfrontino@stroock.com -- Julia B. Strickland, Esq. --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Stephen J. Newman, Esq. --
snowman@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP, Raleigh C.
Thompson, Esq. -- rthompson@morrislawyers.com -- Robert R. McCoy,
Esq. -- rmccoy@morrislaw.com -- MORRIS LAW GROUP

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ben Barnow, Esq.
     BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1 N LaSalle St # 4600
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312)621-2000

          - and -

Brent A. Carson, Esq. -- bac@winnercarson.com -- WINNER AND
CARSON, D. Greg Blankinship, Esq. -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com --
Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. -- jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com -- Shin
Young Hahn, Esq. -- shahn@fbfglawlaw.com -- FINKELSTEIN,
BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP

          - and -

     David C. OMara, Esq.
     William M. O'Mara, Esq.
     THE O'MARA LAW FIRM, PC
     311 E Liberty St
     Reno, NV 89501
     Tel: (775)323-1321

          - and -

Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- TOSTRUD LAW
GROUP, P.C., Kara M. Wolke, Esq. Marc L. Godino, Esq. --
mgodino@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP


ZAZA JAPAN: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xu Chen, Jia Jun Xu and Jian Feng Liu, individually and on behalf
of all other employees similiarly situated v. Zaza Japan Inc.,
d/b/a Zaza Japan Asian Bistro & Hibachi, David Zhu, Zhong Yong
Lin, John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-03073
(E.D.N.Y., May 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant located at
4000 Jericho Turnpike, East Northport, NY 11731.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


ZODIAC POOL: Settlement in Pool Products Suit Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------
Direct-Purchaser Plaintiffs (DPPs) asked District Judge Sarah S.
Vance of the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Louisiana to grant final approval of separate class action
settlements the DPPs entered into with Hayward Industries Inc. and
with Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc.  The case is captioned, IN RE: POOL
PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Section: R (2),
Case No. MDL No. 2328.

The case was an antitrust case that direct-purchaser plaintiffs
(DPPs) and indirect-purchaser plaintiffs (IPPs) filed against Pool
and Manufacturer Defendants. DPP alleged (1) that Pool monopolized
and attempted to monopolize the Pool Products distribution market
in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act
by acquiring rival distributors and by entering into agreements
with manufacturers to exclude Pool's rivals; (2) that Pool and the
Manufacturer Defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by
engaging in an unlawful Cconspiracy to exclude Pool's competitors;
and (3) that defendants fraudulently concealed their illegal
conduct and thus are liable for damages outside of the statutory
limitations period. Plaintiffs claimed that the defendants'
allegedly illegal conduct caused plaintiffs to pay more for Pool
Products than they would have absent the unlawful activity.

Negotiations leading to the Hayward settlement agreement took
place over the course of a year. Class Counsel for DPPs and
counsel for Hayward mediated this action before Layn Phillips, a
former federal district judge and a respected mediator of
antitrust disputes. The parties negotiated the settlement
agreement, which they signed on May 13, 2014.

Judge Vance in the Order and Reasons dated June 2, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/C76mDEfrom Leagle.com, granted final approval of
the DPPs' settlements with Hayward; and with Zodiac.  The Court
also ordered that Class Counsel receive $3,316,667 from the fund
for reimbursement of litigation expenses.

The Court held a preliminary fairness hearing and settlement class
certification hearing for the DPP-Hayward Settlement on August 14,
2014. The Court preliminarily approved the DPP-Hayward settlement
and certified its settlement class on September 26, 2014.

The Court preliminarily approved the DPP-Zodiac settlement and
certified its settlement class on December 22, 2014. The
settlement classes in the two settlements are identical. The terms
of the two settlements are also similar.
Consistent with the agreements, the Court appointed seven named
Class Settlement Representatives: Aqua Clear Pools & Decks; A Plus
Pools Corp.; Liquid Art Enterprises d/b/a Carl Boucher; Oasis Pool
Service, Inc.; Pro Pool Services; SPS Services, LLC d/b/a Premier
Pools & Spas; and Thatcher Pools, Inc. The Court approved the
firms of Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC; Bernstein Leibhard LLP;
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP; and Labaton Sucharow LLP as
Settlement Class Counsel for the purposes of Rule 23. The Court
also approved Garden City as the Claims Administrator for the
settlement and Citibank as escrow agent. The Court further
approved the proposed notice and claim forms, as well as deadlines
for submitting claims forms, opting out, and filing objections.
The Court scheduled a fairness hearing on May 14, 2015, to
determine whether the settlement is fair and to determine an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses.

Plaintiffs are respresented by Russ M. Herman, Esq. -- HERMAN,
HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, LLP, 820 O'Keefe Ave., New Orleans, LA
70113; Arnold Levin, Esq. -- dlevin@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN,
FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN, Daniel W. Krasner, Esq. --
krasner@whafh.com -- WOLF, HALDENSTEIN, ADLER, FREEMAN & HERZ,
LLP, Douglas G. Thompson, Esq. --
dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com -- FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP, Jay
L. Himes, Esq. -- jhimes@labaton.com -- LABATON SUCHAROW, LLP,
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. -- NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C., Matthew B.
Moreland, Esq. -- mmoreland@bcnellaw.com -- BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC

Defendants are represented by William Bernard Gaudet, Esq. -
william.gaudet@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP, David H.
Bamberger, Esq. -- david.bamberger@dlapiper.com & Deana L. Cairo,
Esq. -- deana.cairo@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER, LLP


* Feminists Call for Passage of Paycheck Fairness Act
-----------------------------------------------------
Economics21.org reports that to see why some women make less than
some men, look no further than the Geller Law Group, described in
a front page New York Times Sunday Business section article by
reporter Noam Scheiber.  The women-owned Geller Law Group, based
in Fairfax, Virginia, is a small family-friendly law firm that
allows women time to be with their children.  The firm's credo:
women should not be judged by "face time" in the office.

Partners Maria Simon and Rebecca Geller "have a near-evangelical
determination to show that parents can nurture their professional
ambitions while being fully present in their children's lives,"
writes Mr. Scheiber.  The article is accompanied by photos of Ms.
Simon dropping off her four-year old son at school, and Ms. Geller
helping her four-year old with a toy swimming pool while sending
emails to clients.

Ms. Simon and Ms. Geller are fortunate to have flexible jobs as
law partners where they can give parenting the time they believe
it deserves.  Partners bill themselves out at $280 an hour, less
than at leading law firms, and allow time for kids' activities.
Ms. Simon stated that her pay is about half the $250,000 to
$300,000 she would have earned at major law firm, but "the freedom
she purchased has come at a relative bargain."

Feminists complain that women are victims of discrimination who
earn 78 cents on a man's dollar.  This misleading figure compares
earnings of full-time working women to those of men, irrespective
of type of job or time in the workforce.  But the story of the
Geller Law Group shows that women's choices can result in lower
pay.  Ms. Simon states that she is glad to be earning 50 cents on
a man's dollar, because this enables her to spend more time with
her family.

The same choices can be observed every day in women's search for
flexible jobs.  Yale Law School Women just released their 2015
list of the Top Ten Family Friendly Firms.  These firms, including
Arnold & Porter, Hunton & Williams, and Kirkland & Ellis, are
judged on the basis of their willingness to offer part-time and
flex-time working hours; family leave; gender equity; and parental
leave.  Some of the smartest young women in the country are
looking for family friendly jobs before they even have children,
and these family-friendly jobs tend to pay less.

Becoming a partner in a major law firm takes hours of work, not
all of it family-friendly.  Yale Law School Women found
improvements in parental accommodation, but concluded that usage
of these benefits has not increased.  The percentage of female
partners is 19 percent, the same as in 2008.

The causes of the average wage gap are not hard to find.  When in
college, women tend to major in the humanities rather than in
math, engineering and science.  Once they graduate, more women
than men work for non-profits, which pay less.  Twenty-four
percent of women work part-time, and full-time women work on
average fewer hours than do full-time men.

When women are compared to men in the same jobs, with the same
experience and job tenure, the wage gap practically disappears,
according to academics such as Professors June and David O'Neill
of Baruch College, coauthors of The Declining Importance of Gender
and Race In the Labor Market, and Professor Marianne Bertrand of
the University of Chicago in a study coauthored with Professor
Kevin Hallock of Cornell.  Single women between 25 and 35 earn
more than single men of the same age, according to the Bureau of
Labor Statistics.

Feminists are calling for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act, a
bill sponsored by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Rep. Rosa
DeLauro (D-CT) that would insert the government into firms'
compensation decisions.  Among other provisions, it would require
women to opt out of class action suits rather than opting in, as
is the case at present, which would be a boon to trial lawyers.
It would give the government broader powers to collect data on
wages by race and sex in order to be able to track compensation
decisions.  The Paycheck Fairness Act did not even pass in the
111th Democratic Congress in 2009-2010 in the first two years of
President Obama's term.

A choice of more leisure and less work is not a societal problem.
If a doctor took off every Wednesday afternoon to play golf and
earned 10 percent less, no one would call for government action.
But when women decide to work less, as do many women, feminists
call for passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act.  According to the
National Women's Law Center, "supporting the Paycheck Fairness Act
means closing the wage gap for working women."  This is only true
if women make the same choices as to fields of study, jobs, and
hours of work.

America has laws to protect women against discrimination.  The law
says equal pay for equal work.  Women sue, and sometimes win.  But
the example of Maria Simon and Rebecca Geller shows that women's
earnings are often the product of rational choice, not
discrimination.


* New Bill Eases Data Breach Alert Laws for Companies
-----------------------------------------------------
Joel Schectman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
U.S. companies wouldn't have to disclose some cybersecurity
breaches under proposed legislation introduced in both chambers of
Congress in recent months.

Under the proposed legislation, companies would be allowed to
decide whether a breach of consumer data merits notifying
customers.  Under the proposals, companies would need to quickly
notify customers about an intrusion if they believe there is a
risk that the breach would lead to serious identity theft or
fraud.  But if companies believe there is no reasonable chance
that a breach will hurt customers, the proposed legislation would
allow them to keep it under wraps.

The proposed law would override current state laws on
notification, many of which compel companies to tell customers if
there is any unauthorized access of their personal data,
regardless of perceived harm, said Gerald Ferguson a privacy
attorney at Baker & Hostetler LLP, who counsels companies on how
to handle breaches.

The standard "would lead to less notifications," said
Mr. Ferguson.  "It would permit companies to do a second analysis
of whether there is a reasonable risk of financial harm.  When you
are starting to do a risk of harm analysis there's is a lot of
discretion."

A spokesman for Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn), who sponsored
one of the proposals in April, said the lawmaker took into account
concerns that "too much notification undercuts the value of useful
notification."

Instead of forcing notification in every case, the bill is focused
"on what impacts consumers most and that is identity theft and
payment fraud," the spokesman said.  Several similar bills are
circulating in the Senate.

Companies spent an average of $145 for each sensitive record
exposed in a breach, according to a study last year sponsored by
International Business Machines Corp.  And a flood of class-action
suits, which often follow revelations of a breach, can dog
companies for years.

The cost of a massive, damaging breach can be enormous.  Target
Corp. has spent millions of dollars related to its 2013 breach.
The security breach at Target compromised 40 million credit and
debit card accounts.  A breach of that magnitude would have to be
disclosed in any case.

Some data-privacy attorneys are encouraging companies to think
long and hard before going public about a breach.  Most states
already have laws spelling out when a company must tell customers
about a breach.  Some have exemptions if the breach is minor;
others leave little wiggle room.  Complying with dozens of
separate requirements is costly and can slow a response when a
breach occurs, experts say.  Rather than dealing with a separate
attorney general in every state when a breach happens, companies
would mainly be answerable to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission
under the proposed law.

"Companies would benefit from reduced demands on compliance
functions," said Daren Orzechowski, a technology law specialist at
White & Case LLP.  "It would allow companies to focus more on
addressing the breach rather than running through volumes of
statutes."

And if companies decided that a breach had little risk of actually
hurting customers, "they'd have another path to take, short of
full-on breach notification to consumers," Mr. Orzechowski said.
A company attorney may conclude, "'yes, a breach occurred, but
nothing sensitive or meaningful was exposed in a way that would
allow someone to use it, therefore I shouldn't have to bear the
costs of notification.'"


* New Legislation Revisits Class Action Fairness Act
----------------------------------------------------
Tony Lathrop of Moore & Van Allen PLLC, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that class action lawsuits have become a commonplace
fixture in the American judicial landscape and carry the force to
extract billions of dollars from defendants, many of whom settle
once a class is certified due to the costs and risks of
litigation, regardless of the merits of the plaintiff's case.  Ten
years ago, Congress tackled several perceived abuses of the class
action mechanism by passing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005
("CAFA"), which allows defendants to remove certain class actions
filed in state court to the more neutral ground of the federal
system.

In February, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing to
examine the state of class action litigation and current concerns.
On April 22, 2015, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob
Goodlatte introduced H.R. 1927, The Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act of 2015, which seeks to further improve the
fairness of class actions by imposing limits on a court's ability
to certify classes in which members have not suffered the same
types of alleged injury/damages.  The Act also explicitly requires
that proof of similarity of alleged damages must be established
using admissible evidence at the class certification stage.  H.R.
1927 requires:

No Federal court shall certify any proposed class unless the party
seeking to maintain a class action affirmatively demonstrates
through admissible evidentiary proof that each proposed class
member suffered an injury of the same type and extent as the
injury of the named class representative or representatives.

Chairman Goodlatte's stated goal in introducing the Act: "to
supplement the protections afforded to victims in class actions,
and further reduce wasteful litigation in our courts."  Chairman
Goodlatte previously expressed his concern regarding the class
action abuses that have accompanied the shift from class actions
largely being used to effect landmark civil rights advancements to
"enterprising plaintiffs' attorneys seeking money damages on
behalf of consumers."

This proposed legislation comes on the heels of several recent
cases in which classes have been certified although many members
suffered no injury, and continued uncertainty regarding the extent
to which expert evidence proffered during class certification must
meet the admissibility standards established by Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S. Ct. 2786 (1993).
H.R. 1927 would serve defendants by preventing the certification
of large classes based only on alleged injury to a small number of
members and requiring plaintiffs to supply adequate, admissible
proof prior to class certification.  Opponents urge that
unintended consequences of the Act will do more harm than good,
and the Act is unnecessary given the effectiveness of the courts,
CAFA and proposed amendments to federal class action rules that
are in the works.  The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on
the Constitution and Civil Justice held a hearing to examine H.R.
1927 on April 29, 2015.


* Use of Unsafe Building Materials Poses Threat in Australia
------------------------------------------------------------
Elyse Perrau, writing for Residential Property Manager, reports
that hundreds of Australia's apartment buildings may be at risk
from the use of unsafe imported building materials.

Strata Community Australia (SCA) has urged owners' corporations
nationwide to carry out building inspections immediately as
concerns rise over the possibility of widespread use of unsafe
building materials.  Its comments follow the investigation of a
fire at a Melbourne apartment block, where a commonly used
aluminium cladding product was found to be the main cause.

SCA said more than 100 residents and owners of the Docklands
building are now reportedly considering a class action against the
builders.  The product at the centre of concern is Alucobest, a
cheaper, Chinese-made alternative to the Australian-made
Alucobond, which has greater fire-retardant properties.

Alucobest has been a popular choice for high-rise apartment
builders over the past 10 years, SCA said.

Chief executive Kim Henshaw said it is imperative that owners'
corporations take immediate steps to assess building safety.

"This is a concerning discovery for construction in Australia and
it bears direct impact on the strata sector," he said.

"The only way to find out whether a building is at risk is via a
building inspection, so strata managers should also be
recommending this action to their clients."

Strata Community Australia said there have been other instances
recently of faulty materials being used in Australian
construction.

"The focus here is very much on the fire risk associated with
unsafe cladding products," Mr. Henshaw said.

"However, we have seen worrying cases about other materials hat
also deserve attention through these recommended inspections."


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *