CAR_Public/150615.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 15, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 118


                            Headlines


3332 BOSTON: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Shareholders Win $275-Mil. Settlement
ADAMS & REESE: 2 Law Firms to Pay $5MM to Stanford Ponzi Victims
AFNI INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Beneli" Suit Claims
AKI RENOVATIONS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Salddivar" Suit Says

ALABAMA: Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional, Court Rules
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act
AMSPEC SERVICES: Faces "Atanassov" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ANTHEM INC: To Defend Against Gold Class Action
ANTHEM INC: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Writ of Certiorari

ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in BCBSA Lawsuits
ANTHEM INC: Bid to Transfer Cyber Attack Incident Cases Heard
AOL INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Verizon, Class Suit Claims
ARK 48: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AT&T CORP: Training Manager's Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime

AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in Massachusetts
AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Suit Over Bogus Buyout Offer
BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Oregon-Led FX Class Suit for $180-Mil.
BAPTIST HEALTH: Removed "McMaster" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
BBY: Irate Clients to Sue ASX, ASIC Over Losses

BIG 5: Objector to Settlement Withdraw Notices of Appeal
BIG 5: Hearing Held on Settlement in Pedro Duran Case
BOX OFFICE: Faces "Blahnik" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BP PLC: Riney Not Guilty of Making False Statements, Jury Rules
BUTLER & HOSCH: Violates WARN Act, Fla. Class Suit Alleges

CADIZ INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Howard G. Smith Firm
CALIFORNIA: Cannot Place Liens on Tribal Assets, Court Rules
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: S.C. to Review Navy-Recruitment Texts Suit
CANADIAN HEATING: Settlement Looms on Gas Fireplace Class Suit
CANADIAN PACIFIC: Sept. 8 Trial on Derailment Suit

CARVER BIBLE: Withheld Financial Aid from Students, Suit Claims
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Class Suit for Mishandling Clients' Money
CHC GROUP: Accused of Withholding Negative Information During IPO
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Decision Still Pending in PAO Case
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Cemig D Facing Municipal Assoc. Lawsuit

COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Case in "Proofs of Performance" Phase
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Facing Class Action Over Outsourced Labor
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Public Illumination Contribution
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Impact from Plant Construction
COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Environmental Protection Revenue

COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Permanent Preservation Area
COMPTON UNIFIED: Faces Class Suit Filed by Traumatized Students
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settles SEC Fraud Charges for $190 Million
CRST EXPEDITED: Sued by Female Truck Drivers Over Rape Claims
CYAN INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Ciena Corp., Suit Claims

DART CHEROKEE: Evidentiary Proof Not Needed, High Court Rules
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Sued By Traditional Taxicab Drivers
DOLLAR TREE: To Pay $300,000 to Settle Workers' Class Action
EBAY INC: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Complaint
ENTERPRISE LEASING: To Pay $22.7MM to Settle Concession Fees Suit

ETSY INC: July 13 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid
ETSY INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Gainey McKenna
ETSY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: To Pay $2.1MM to Settle Software Glitch Suit
EXELON CORPORATION: ComEd in Process of Obtaining Settlement Okay

EXPERIAN SERVICES: Accused of Scheming With Info Bounty Hunter
EXXON: Public Comment Period on $225MM Settlement Ends
FOREST LABORATORIES: Limits Namenda IR Availability, Suit Says
FORMFACTOR INC: No Motion to Certify Class in Ex-Employee's Suit
FOUR BLR: "Blanco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Sued for Not Paying Mgmt. Trainees' Overtime
GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Andrea Katz Case
GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Brian Meyers Case
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Heard Argument on Dismissal Bid
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Hialeah Case

GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Entered Into Settlement
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: All Claims in Goodman & Brown Case Dismissed
GLOBAL POWER: Faces Securities Suit Filed By Wolf Haldenstein
GOLD AND SILVER: Dancers to Be Asked to Join Class Suit
GOOGLE INC: Accused of Not Redeeming Value of Play Gift Cards

GREENPOINT AG: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
HAWAII: Part-time Teachers, Subs Awarded Another $46-Mil.
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Selling Subscribers' Private Info
HERBALIFE LTD: Issues Statement on Approval of Class Settlement
HMSHOST CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT, "D'Addario" Suit Claims

HOLLISTER CO: Decision Makes State Courts Favorable, Attys. Say
HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Embattled Dentist Gives Up License
HSBC: 7th Cir. Grants New Trial in $2.4-Bil. Securities Suit
IG INVESTMENT: Costs Principles in Class Suits Not Asymmetrical
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement

INSULET CORP: July 6 Deadline to Lodge Lead Plaintiff Bid
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
ISORAY INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Rosen Law Firm
J ROMAN: Faces "Segovia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JC CHRISTENSEN: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Class Suit

JP MORGAN: Sends Cash Refunds in McDonald's Debt Card Case
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Court Dismisses MLB Teams From "Senne" Suit
KIND LLC: Removed "Molina" Class Suit to Middle District Florida
KING OF CLUBS: Sued for Charging Exotic Dancers $60 per Shift Fee
L'OREAL USA: Falsely Advertised "Lush Lash System," Suit Says

LA CHEMICAL: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
LEGALZOOM.COM: North Carolina Court Junks Class Suit
LEGEND ENERGY: "Dudymott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LINKEDIN CORP: California Court Dismisses "Sweet" Class Suit
LOS ANGELES CTY, CA: Faces Suit Over Unearned Probation Charges

LOUISIANA: Accused by Angola Prisoners of Medical Neglect
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hagens Berman Files New Suit Over Flooring
MANNY PACQUIAO: Faces 32 Class Suits Over Fight with Mayweather
MARYLAND: Sued Over Violation of Sex Offenders' Rights
MASTEC INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Suit

MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $731MM Liability in Merchant Litigation
MASTERCARD INC: Parties Appealed Certification Decision
MASTERCARD INC: UK Court Scheduled Trial for January 2016
MASTERCARD INC: Appeal Filed in ATM Surcharge Complaints
MCKEE FOODS: Removed "Martin" Suit to Central Dist. California

MELROSE CAFE: Faces "Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
METLIFE INC: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Suit in Illinois
MICHIGAN: Nonunion Staff Can't Sue as Class, 6th Cir. Rules
MORGAN STANLEY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Mortgage Suit
MRI INT'L: Accused Ponzi Schemers Appeal Freeze of All Assets

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Approval of Likeness Suit Settlement Affirmed
NATIONAL HOCKEY: Classes Certified in Sports Cable Package Suit
NEUSTAR INC: Counsel for IPRS Filed Notice of Appeal
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces Suit Over Rape & Abuse at Rikers Island
NUCOR CORP: 4th Cir. Upheld Class Cert. for Black Steelworkers

OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Fla. Court Denies "Shamblin" Class Cert.
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold Too Cheaply to Hua, Suit Says
ORANGE COUNTY, CA: To Refund Fines Over Red-light Tickets
ORLANDO HEALTH: Faces $5-Mil. Suit Over FICA Refunds
PACIFIC WEST: Accused of Charging Monthly Fees Before Activation

PENNYSAVER USA: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
PETROCHINA CO: Bid for Submission of Supplemental Pleadings Nixed
PHILADELPHIA: DA Says Forfeiture Protocols Necessary
PHILLIP MORRIS: Ill. High Court Hears Arguments on $10BB Verdict
PRICE CHOPPER: Team Leaders to Get Invite to Join OT Class Suit

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Not Liable for Collapse of MF Global
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Will Continue to Defend McCaffree Case
PROGRESO LATINO: "Matute" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Firm Prepares Suit Over Montara Oil Spill
QEP RESOURCES: Accord in "Gagne" Contingent Upon Court Approval

REDBOX AUTOMATED: Lies About Quality of Discs, Class Suit Claims
ROBERT BOSCH: Sued in Michigan for Fixing Prices of Spark Plugs
RW INSTALLATION: Faces "Montesano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Denied Class Cert. for Stonewalled Cops
SEGA OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Certify "Aliens" Gamers Class

SF FORTY-NINERS: Class Must Be Certified First in Antitrust Suit
SHORTERS UNIVERSITY: Attorneys to Argue Over Jurisdiction
SLEEP TRAIN: Fails to Pay OT to Drivers & Truckers, Suit Says
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
SPRINT SPECTRUM: TCPA Class Suit Goes to Arbitration

STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Misleading Ads
TAKATA CORP: Sutts Strosberg to Expand Air Bags Class Suit
TOP RANK: Faces "Bradley" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment
TRILOGY FLORAL: "Urra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
UNITE GRILL: "Pintens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

VI GROUP: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Faces "Heller" Suit in New York District Court
WAL-MART STORES: Settles "Odle" Suit Alleging Sex Discrimination
WELLS FARGO: Sued for Charging Customers for Unneeded "Solutions"
YONKERS, NY: Sued for Charging Residents Annual Inspection Fees


                            *********


3332 BOSTON: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Monje Maldonado, Judith Lopez, and Petra Perea,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 3332
Boston Road Realty Corp. d/b/a Crown Motor Inn, Konstantinos
Paxos, and John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-04159 (S.D.N.Y., May 29,
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 short stay motel located at 3320
Boston Rd, Bronx, New York 10469.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACTIVISION BLIZZARD: Shareholders Win $275-Mil. Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service reports that approving
the largest cash award ever in a derivative suit, a judge signed
off on a settlement to Vivendi's restructuring that gives
Activision Blizzard $275 million.

Vivendi had a controlling equity position in Activision, but the
video game giant behind "Call of Duty" announced on July 26, 2013,
that the French multinational had agreed to sell back 85 percent
of that stake for $8.17 billion.

With Vivendi desperate for cash to pay of more than $17 billion in
debts, Activision bought 439 million of Vivendi's shares for $5.83
billion, and an investment group headed by company insiders CEO
Bobby Kotick and co-chairman Brian Kelly picked up 172 million
shares in a private sale for $2.34 billion via an investment
vehicle called ASAC.

The prices included a 10 percent discount on Activision's closing
price the day before the deal's announcement.

Coupled with the jolt to Activision's stock price, the discounted
sale price earned the Kotick-led investment group an unrealized
gain of more than $725 million on the first day of trading after
the deal closed.

Activision's board initially refused to approve the transaction
unless ASAC's voting rights were capped at 19.9 percent, but
Kotick and Kelly rejected the cap, and refused to support any deal
except their own.

Vivendi ultimately negotiated directly with Kotick and Kelly, and
the deal that the board approved capped ASAC's voting power at
24.9 percent.

Approving a settlement of the case shareholders eventually brought
in Delaware Chancery Court, Vice Chancellor J. Travis noted May 20
that "Activision indisputably received significant benefits from
the restructuring."

"The problem with the transaction was not the lack of benefits to
Activision, but rather the extraordinary benefits that Kotick and
Kelly extracted for themselves," Laster added.

The directors personally gained $178 million when Activision's
share price jumped at the deal's announcement.  They also stood to
double their money if Activision's stock price remained at $17.4
per share, or make nine times their money if Activision's stock
price doubled to $35 per share in four years.  They would lose
nothing if the company's stock price declined by 20 percent from
the post-announcement price.

In addition, Kotick and Kelly won direct control over 26 percent
of Activision's voting power, although it was capped at 24.9
percent.  ASAC affiliates controlled another 9 percent of the
voting power.  Kotick was also able to place two close friends on
the board of directors, making a majority of directors likely to
vote with ASAC.

In the $275 million settlement to Activision that Laster approved
May 20, Vivendi will pay $67.5 million of the total, while ASAC
will pay more than $150 million.

The deal reduces Kotick and Kelly's voting power to 19.9 percent,
and it creates two new spots on the board, to be filled by
individuals unaffiliated with Kotick or Kelly.

Laster noted that "the monetary consideration of $275 million is
the largest cash recovery ever achieved on stockholder derivative
claims."

"The magnitude of the settlement reflects that lead counsel
advanced strong claims for breach of the duty of loyalty," Laster
added.

While the settlement allocates all the money to Activision, rather
than individual class members, the class directly benefits through
an increase in voting power and influence of unaffiliated shares,
the chancellor found.

"Although these corporate governance measures can be viewed as
good for Activision, they are primarily good for the class,"
Laster said.

The judge awarded lead counsel $72.5 million, citing the
complexity of the litigation, and the substantial nonmonetary
relief won for the class. Lead plaintiff Anthony Pacchia will also
receive a special award of $50,000.

Lead Plaintiff Anthony Pacchia is represented by:

          Joel Friedlander, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
          FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
          222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573-3500
          Facsimile: (302) 573-3501
          E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com
                  jgorris@friedlandergorris.com

               - and -

          Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
          ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
          919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 656-4433
          Facsimile: (302) 658-7567
          E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
          Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
          BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
          885 3rd Avenue, Suite 3040
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 308-5858
          Facsimile: (212) 486-0462
          E-mail: eagel@bespc.com
                  squire@bespc.com

Defendants Vivendi S.A., Philippe Capron, Frederic Crepin, Regis
Turrini, Lucian Grainge, Jean-Yves Charlier, and Jean-Francois
Dubos are represented by:

          Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esq.
          Susan M. Hannigan, Esq.
          RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
          One Rodney Square
          920 North King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-7700
          Facsimile: (302) 651-7701
          E-mail: dicamillo@rlf.com
                  hannigan@rlf.com

               - and -

          Joel A. Feuer, Esq.
          Michael M. Farhang, Esq.
          Alexander K. Mircheff, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7005
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6005
          E-mail: mfarhang@gibsondunn.com
                  amircheff@gibsondunn.com

Defendants Robert A. Kotick, Brian G. Kelly, ASAC II LP, and ASAC
II LLC are represented by:

          R. Judson Scaggs, Jr., Esq.
          Shannon E. German, Esq.
          MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
          1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
          P.O. Box 1347
          Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
          Telephone: (302) 351-9340
          Facsimile: (302) 425-3014
          E-mail: rscaggs@mnat.com
                  sgerman@mnat.com

               - and -

          Robert A. Sacks, Esq.
          Diane L. McGimsey, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          1888 Century Park East
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-1725
          Telephone: (310) 712-6600
          Facsimile: (310) 712-8800
          E-mail: sacksr@sullcrom.com
                  mcgimseyd@sullcrom.com

               - and -

          William H. Wagener, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004-2498
          Telephone: (212) 558-4000
          Facsimile: (212) 558-3588
          E-mail: wagenerw@sullcrom.com

Defendants Robert J. Corti, Robert J. Morgado, and Richard Sarnoff
are represented by:

          Garrett B. Moritz, Esq.
          Eric D. Selden, Esq.
          ROSS ARONSTAM & MORITZ LLP
          100 S. West Street, Suite 400
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 576-1600
          Facsimile: (302) 576-1100
          E-mail: gmoritz@ramllp.com
                  eselden@ramllp.com

               - and -

          William Savitt, Esq.
          Ryan A. McLeod, Esq.
          Benjamin D. Klein, Esq.
          WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ
          51 West 52nd Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 403-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 403-2000
          E-mail: WDSavitt@wlrk.com
                  RAMcLeod@wlrk.com
                  BDKlein@wlrk.com

Nominal Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc. is represented by:

          Edward P. Welch, Esq.
          Edward B. Micheletti, Esq.
          Sarah Runnells Martin, Esq.
          Lori W. Will, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Rodney Square
          920 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 651-3000
          Facsimile: (302) 651-3001
          E-mail: edward.welch@skadden.com
                  edward.micheletti@skadden.com
                  sarah.martin@skadden.com
                  lori.will@skadden.com

The consolidated case is titled In re Activision Blizzard, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 8885-VCL, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.


ADAMS & REESE: 2 Law Firms to Pay $5MM to Stanford Ponzi Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that two
Louisiana law firms will pay $5 million to settle claims they
referred clients to R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme
and gave fake opinions to Antiguan banking authorities.

A proposed class of Stanford investors sued New Orleans-based
Adams & Reese, Baton Rouge-based Breazeale Sachse & Wilson and
several individuals in Federal Court in 2011.

Court-appointed receiver Ralph Janvey filed a second suit in 2012,
accusing the defendants of negligence, breach of fiduciary duty,
aiding and abetting.  Janvey also sued Adams & Reese attorneys
Robert Schmidt and James Austin, Breazeale Sachse & Wilson
attorney Claude Reynaud and Stanford Trust Co. directors Cordell
Haymon and Thomas Frazier.

Janvey said the defendant law firms "embarked on their own
campaign to enrich themselves at their other clients' expense,"
and that while providing legal services to Stanford Financial,
they referred their own clients to Stanford .

The law firms and Janvey settled the bulk of the claims May 12 in
a stipulation and proposed order.

Adams & Reese will pay the receivership $1 million and Breazeale
Sachse & Wilson will pay $1.53 million and release $198,000 held
in escrow, according to a 40-page motion to approve the proposed
settlement .

Haymon will pay the receivership $2 million and Frazier will pay
$175,000.

"Movants jointly request that this court find the settlements are
in the best interest of the Stanford Estate and the Stanford
investors, and approve the settlements," the motion states.

Adams & Reese will be dismissed from Janvey's lawsuit, with
Breazeale Sachse & Wilson remaining only on a claim of vicarious
liability.

The settling defendants still "vigorously dispute" the claims in
both lawsuits, but say the settlement is "a fair and reasonable
compromise" given the "uncertainties inherent in litigation" and
issues with collectability.

Janvey claimed in his lawsuit that Renaud and Breazeale Sachse &
Wilson were brought in to help with Stanford's purchase of
Southern Trust Co., a Baton Rouge-based trust company, which
established the investment retirement account component of the
Ponzi scheme.

He alleged Renaud and BSW delivered a letter, purportedly from
Antigua's Minister of Finance, to Louisiana state authorities that
attested to the "integrity" and "professional competence" of
SIBL's operations.

In reality, this letter was actually written by Stanford Financial
-- most likely [Stanford Financial general counsel Yolanda] Suarez
or one of her staff -- and Reynaud knew this letter was actually
written by Stanford Financial because Suarez provided him with a
draft copy of the letter when Reynaud met with Suarez on June 4,
1998, before it was purportedly signed by Antigua's Minister of
Finance," the complaint stated.

Janvey said the fake letter worked, as the state's Office of
Financial Institutions conditionally approved the acquisition,
which was closed by BSW in July of 1998.  The company's name then
was changed to Stanford Trust Company.

Two months later, Stanford Trust Co. (STC) opened its doors and
Stanford Financial began implementing its fraudulent IRA plan by
promoting STC as a trustee and custodian for Stanford Group
Company's IRA investor clients, the complaint stated.

Janvey claimed STC and its parent company executed reciprocal
referral agreements that gave both companies incentives to
"recklessly promote" STC so the parent company's IRA clients could
invest their retirement funds in SIBL CDs.

The complaint accuses Renaud of knowing about Stanford's failure
to obtain security for its fictitious investments, which is a
breach of fiduciary duty to IRA accountholders.

Janvey's attorney, Kevin Sadler with Baker Botts in Palo Alto,
said Janvey is "pleased" with the settlement.

"This case is but one of more than 50 that the receiver has
pursued to recover funds for the benefit of the victims of the
Stanford Ponzi scheme," Sadler said May 13 in an e-mail.  "This
settlement is in the best interests of those victims.  The
receiver will continue to prosecute his cases against other
defendants who benefited from the Stanford Ponzi scheme."


AFNI INC: Illegally Collects Debt, "Beneli" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
David Beneli, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AFNI, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03605
-FLW-DEA (D.N.J., May 29, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and  unconscionable means to collect a debt.

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


AKI RENOVATIONS: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Salddivar" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Saldivar and Emmanuel Saldivar, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Aki Renovations Group, Inc., Aki
Renovations, Inc., Aki Todic, Mujo Todic, and Halil Todic, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03130 (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a full service construction company
that provides new construction and renovation work in the New York
Tri-State Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 564-5468
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com


ALABAMA: Gay Marriage Ban Is Unconstitutional, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on May 21 ruled that Alabama's ban on same-sex
marriage is unconstitutional and enjoined probate judges from
enforcing it, then stayed her decision pending a U.S. Supreme
Court ruling on the issue, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News
Service.

U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade has been sparring with the
state of Alabama since January, when she initial ruled its same-
sex marriage ban was illegal.

Three weeks later, the Alabama Supreme Court order the judges to
stop issuing licenses to the couples.

Judge Granade's latest ruling came after the ACLU of Alabama and
three other civil rights organizations requested she expand an
ongoing lawsuit, Strawser v. Strange, to cover all same-sex
couples and probate judges across the state.

The district court's order will take effect when the United States
Supreme Court issues its decision in several pending cases seeking
the freedom to marry in four states.  The Supreme Court marriage
cases were argued in April, and a ruling is expected by the end of
June.

"This is a victory for the LGBT community of Alabama," said Susan
Watson, executive director for the ACLU of Alabama, after
Granade's ruling was announced.  "We applaud the court for its
ruling that puts an end to the chaos created by the Alabama
Supreme Court.  Today love is triumphant."

The American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, Americans United
for Separation of Church and State, the National Center for
Lesbian Rights and the Southern Poverty Law Center jointly filed
the motion March 6, asking Granade to expand her ruling to apply
to all same-sex couples and all probate judges throughout the
state.

The motion sought class action status to include all same-sex
couples in Alabama who wish to marry and have their marriage
recognized by the state as plaintiffs and all probate judges of
the state as defendants.

In her ruling expanding the plaintiff class, Granade said the
"Defendants' alleged conduct is directed against a specific class
of people, same-sex couples, and is uniform in its application."

Therefore, she said, "All Plaintiff Class members have been harmed
by being denied the ability of obtaining a marriage license and
their injury can be properly addressed by class-wide injunctive
relief."

Strawser v. Strange was brought by five same-sex couples after
previously obtaining an order from Granade requiring the issuance
of marriage licenses in Mobile County.

Also on May 21, Granade rejected a motion by Probate Judge Tim
Russell who sought to reverse her January ruling on the grounds
she failed to address his legal argument that he is entitled to
quasi-judicial immunity.  Russell argues his actions, refusing to
issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, are not prejudicial,
but only a manifestation of his enforcing a state supreme court
order.

Granade noted that the plaintiffs in Strawser are not seeking to
hold Russell liable for complying with the Alabama Supreme Court's
decision, "but seek only to redress the deprivation of their
constitutional rights."

"Under the circumstances here present, the Court finds that quasi-
judicial immunity does not apply," she wrote.

The case is James N. Strawser, et al. v. Luther Strange, in his
official capacity as Attorney General for the State of Alabama, et
al., Case No. 14-0424-CG-C, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division.

                           *     *     *

Sunnivie Brydum, writing for SheWired, reported that the federal
judge who twice struck down Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage
issued another pro-equality decision, granting class action status
to all same-sex couples seeking to marry in Alabama, and rebuking
state officials who have tried to ignore her earlier rulings.

U.S. District Judge Callie V.S. Granade, who in January found
Alabama's statutory and constitutional bans on marriage equality
to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the
U.S. Constitution, reaffirmed that all state agencies are bound to
abide by her earlier rulings.

While Granade's 14-page order prohibited state officials from
enforcing the state's ban on same-sex marriage, it also included a
stay pending the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the marriage
cases currently before it. That decision is expected in June,
which means the Alabama ruling will not take effect until that
time.

Ruling is the latest to add to the complicated state of marriage
equality in Alabama. The decision responds to a March petition
from several civil rights groups to recognize all same-sex couples
seeking marriage licenses in the state with a class action status.
That motion, which Granade's decision granted, came as part of a
lawsuit brought by five same-sex couples in Mobile County who had
sued over Probate Judge Don Davis's refusal to issue licenses. In
Alabama, probate judges are responsible for issuing marriage
licenses.

Judge Granade's latest ruling directly addressed Davis, who has
repeatedly refused to abide by earlier pro-equality rulings,
claiming there was legal uncertainty about whether he was bound by
the federal judge's decision or by the decision of the Alabama
Supreme Court, which intervened in early March and stopped same-
sex couples in Alabama from marrying after Judge Granade's
original ruling brought marriage equality to the state in
February.

Davis found support for his defiance of a federal court order in
the Alabama Supreme Court's Chief Justice Roy Moore, a staunch
marriage equality opponent who had told probate judges not to
grant licenses to same-sex couples and claimed the federal
judiciary had no authority over marriage in the state.

"Because the issuance of marriage licenses is a purely ministerial
act, Judge Davis, Judge Russell and the members of the Defendant
Class have only a ministerial interest in issuing marriage
licenses and would suffer little if any actual harm from the
injunction," writes Judge Granade in decision.

The federal judge then effectively shuts down the legal arguments
advanced by Davis and the state's attorney general, Luther
Strange, who claim that a pro-equality ruling from Judge Granade
puts probate judges in conflict with the Alabama Supreme Court,
which upheld the state's ban on marriage equality in a separate
case brought by several right-wing groups.

"It is true that if this Court grants the preliminary injunction
the probate judges will be faced with complying with either
Alabama's marriage laws that prohibit same-sex marriage as they
have been directed by the Alabama Supreme Court or with complying
with the United States Constitution as directed by this Court,"
Judge Granade concedes. "However, the choice should be simple.
Under the Supremacy Clause, the laws of the United States are 'the
supreme Law of the Land.'"

"It's a shame that it had to come to this," said Americans United
Legal Director Ayesha N. Khan in a statement. "Probate judges, and
the Alabama Supreme Court, should have seen the writing on the
wall with the federal court's earlier rulings. It is time for
bigotry against same-sex couples to come to an end -- in Alabama
and elsewhere."

Shannon Minter, legal director at the National Center for Lesbian
Rights, added that  ruling is a powerful affirmation of the rule
of law and the founding princiiple of our nation that states may
not deny rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution."

"Judge Granade's ruling is decisive and definitive," said David
Dinielli, deputy legal director at the Southern Poverty Law
Center. "It ends the chaos and confusion that Attorney General
Strange and Chief Justice Moore have intentionally caused through
their reckless rejection of federal constitutional principles."


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Sued Over Violation of Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Violet Tawil, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Medical Collection Agency and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03615-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., May 29, 2015), 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


AMSPEC SERVICES: Faces "Atanassov" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jivko Atanassov, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Amspec Services, L.L.C., Case No. 3:15-cv-
03628-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., May 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Amspec Services, L.L.C. is a New Jersey corporation that provides
inspection, testing, and verification services to its clients in
the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patricia A. Barasch, Esq.
      SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC
      Moorestown Office Center
      110 Marter Avenue, Suite 302
      Moorestown, NJ 08057-3124
      Telephone: (856) 914-9200
      E-mail: pbarasch@schallandbarasch.com


ANTHEM INC: To Defend Against Gold Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. intends to vigorously defend the Gold class action
lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company said, "We are defending a certified class action filed
as a result of the 2001 demutualization of Anthem Insurance
Companies, Inc., or Anthem Insurance. The lawsuit names Anthem
Insurance as well as Anthem, Inc. and is captioned Ronald Gold, et
al. v. Anthem, Inc. et al. Anthem Insurance's 2001 Plan of
Conversion, or the Plan, provided for the conversion of Anthem
Insurance from a mutual insurance company into a stock insurance
company pursuant to Indiana law. Under the Plan, Anthem Insurance
distributed the fair value of the company at the time of
conversion to its Eligible Statutory Members, or ESMs, in the form
of cash or Anthem common stock in exchange for their membership
interests in the mutual company. Plaintiffs in Gold allege that
Anthem Insurance distributed value to the wrong ESMs. Cross
motions for summary judgment were granted in part and denied in
part on July 26, 2006 with regard to the issue of sovereign
immunity asserted by co-defendant, the state of Connecticut, or
the State. The trial court also denied our motion for summary
judgment as to plaintiffs' claims on January 10, 2005. The State
appealed the denial of its motion to the Connecticut Supreme
Court. We filed a cross-appeal on the sovereign immunity issue. On
May 11, 2010, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial
court denying the State's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims
under sovereign immunity and dismissed our cross-appeal. The case
was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification was granted on December
15, 2011. We and the plaintiffs filed renewed cross-motions for
summary judgment on January 24, 2013. On August 19, 2013, the
trial court denied plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The
trial court deferred a final ruling on our motion for summary
judgment. On March 6, 2014, the trial court denied our motion for
summary judgment finding that an issue of material fact existed. A
trial on liability commenced on October 14, 2014 and concluded on
October 16, 2014. The matter was taken under advisement by the
trial court, which has requested post-trial briefing. We expect
the trial court to issue its decision on liability sometime in
2015. We intend to vigorously defend the Gold lawsuit; however,
its ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: Supreme Court Denied Petition for Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the U.S. Supreme Court
denied a petition for writ of certiorari.

"We are currently a defendant in eleven putative class actions
relating to out-of-network, or OON, reimbursement that were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re
WellPoint, Inc. (n/k/a Anthem, Inc.) Out-of-Network "UCR" Rates
Litigation that is pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California," the Company said.  "The
lawsuits were filed in 2009. The plaintiffs include current and
former members on behalf of a putative class of members who
received OON services for which the defendants paid less than
billed charges, the American Medical Association, four state
medical associations, OON physicians, OON non-physician providers,
the American Podiatric Medical Association, California
Chiropractic Association and the California Psychological
Association on behalf of putative classes of OON physicians and
all OON non-physician health care providers. The plaintiffs have
filed several amended complaints alleging that the defendants
violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
or RICO, the Sherman Antitrust Act, ERISA, federal regulations,
and state law by using an OON reimbursement database called
Ingenix and by using non-Ingenix OON reimbursement methodologies.
We have filed motions to dismiss in response to each of those
amended complaints. Our motions to dismiss have been granted in
part and denied in part by the court. The most recent pleading
filed by the plaintiffs is a Fourth Amended Complaint to which we
filed a motion to dismiss most, but not all, of the claims. In
July 2013 the court issued an order granting in part and denying
in part our motion. The court held that the state and federal
anti-trust claims along with the RICO claims should be dismissed
in their entirety with prejudice. The court further found that the
ERISA claims, to the extent they involved non-Ingenix
methodologies, along with those that involved our alleged non-
disclosures should be dismissed with prejudice. The court also
dismissed most of the plaintiffs' state law claims with prejudice.
The only claims that remain after the court's decision are an
ERISA benefits claim relating to claims priced based on Ingenix, a
breach of contract claim on behalf of one subscriber plaintiff, a
breach of implied covenant claim on behalf of one subscriber
plaintiff, and one subscriber plaintiff's claim under the
California Unfair Competition Law. The plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss order, which the
court granted in part and denied in part. The court ruled that the
plaintiffs adequately allege that one Georgia provider plaintiff
is deemed to have exhausted administrative remedies regarding non-
Ingenix methodologies based on the facts alleged regarding that
plaintiff so those claims are back in the case. Fact discovery is
complete. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in
November 2013 seeking the following classes: (1) a subscriber
ERISA class as to OON claims processed using the Ingenix database
as the pricing methodology; (2) a physician provider class as to
OON claims processed using Ingenix; (3) a non-physician provider
class as to OON claims processed using Ingenix; (4) a provider
ERISA class as to OON claims processed using non-Ingenix pricing
methodologies; (5) a California subscriber breach of
contract/unfair competition class; and (6) a subscriber breach of
implied covenant class for all Anthem states except California.
Following expert discovery and briefing, oral argument was held on
the motion. In late 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in its entirety. The California subscriber
plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion for
class certification with more narrowly defined proposed classes,
which the court denied. Earlier in the case, in 2009, we filed a
motion in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, or the Florida Court, to enjoin the claims
brought by the physician plaintiffs and certain medical
association plaintiffs based on prior litigation releases, which
was granted in 2011. The Florida Court ordered those plaintiffs to
dismiss their claims that are barred by the release. The
plaintiffs then filed a petition for declaratory judgment asking
the court to find that these claims are not barred by the releases
from the prior litigation. We filed a motion to dismiss the
declaratory judgment action, which was granted. The plaintiffs
appealed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the
dismissal was upheld. The enjoined physicians and some the medical
associations did not dismiss their barred claims. The Florida
Court found those enjoined plaintiffs in contempt and sanctioned
them in July 2012. Those plaintiffs appealed the Florida Court's
sanctions order to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the Florida court's
enforcement of the injunction as it relates to the plaintiffs'
RICO and antitrust claims, but vacated it as it relates to certain
ERISA claims. The plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en
banc as to the antitrust claims only, which was denied. The
plaintiffs then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the
U.S. Supreme Court. The American Medical Association filed an
amicus brief in support of the petition. The U.S. Supreme Court
denied the petition on February 23, 2015. We intend to vigorously
defend these suits; however, their ultimate outcome cannot be
presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: Discovery Commenced in BCBSA Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery has
commenced in multiple lawsuits against the BCBSA.

"We are a defendant in multiple lawsuits that were initially filed
in 2012 against the BCBSA as well as Blue Cross and/or Blue Shield
licensees across the country," the Company said. "The cases were
consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit called In re
Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation that is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Generally, the suits allege that the BCBSA and the Blue plans have
engaged in a conspiracy to horizontally allocate geographic
markets through license agreements, best efforts rules (which
limit the percentage of non-Blue revenue of each plan),
restrictions on acquisitions and other arrangements in violation
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and related state laws. The cases
were brought by two putative nationwide classes of plaintiffs,
health plan subscribers and providers. Subscriber and provider
plaintiffs each filed consolidated amended complaints on July 1,
2013. The consolidated amended subscriber complaint was also
brought on behalf of putative state classes of health plan
subscribers in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii,
Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New
Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. Defendants filed motions to
dismiss in September 2013, which were argued in April 2014. In
June 2014, the court denied the majority of the motions, ruling
that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts at this stage of the
litigation to avoid dismissal of their claims. Following the
subsequent filing of amended complaints by each of the subscriber
and provider plaintiffs, we filed our answer and asserted our
affirmative defenses in December 2014. Discovery has commenced. We
intend to vigorously defend these suits; however, their ultimate
outcome cannot be presently determined."


ANTHEM INC: Bid to Transfer Cyber Attack Incident Cases Heard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthem, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a motion to transfer
was filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
related to the Cyber Attack Incident and heard by the Panel on May
28, 2015.

"In February 2015, we reported that we were the target of a
sophisticated external cyber attack," the Company said. "The
attackers gained unauthorized access to certain of our information
technology systems and obtained personal information related to
many individuals and employees, such as names, birthdays, health
care identification/social security numbers, street addresses,
email addresses, phone numbers and employment information,
including income data. To date, there is no evidence that credit
card or medical information, such as claims, test results or
diagnostic codes, were targeted, accessed or obtained, although no
assurance can be given that we will not identify additional
information that was accessed or obtained."

"Currently, we are in the process of addressing the cyber attack
and supporting federal law enforcement efforts to identify the
responsible parties. Upon discovery of the cyber attack, we took
immediate action to remediate the security vulnerability and
retained a cybersecurity firm to evaluate our systems and identify
solutions based on the evolving landscape. We will provide credit
monitoring and identity protection services to those who have been
affected by this cyber attack. While the cyber attack did not have
an impact on our business, cash flows, financial condition and
results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2014, we
have incurred expenses subsequent to the cyber attack to
investigate and remediate this matter and expect to continue to
incur expenses of this nature in the foreseeable future. Although
we are unable to quantify the ultimate magnitude of such expenses
and any other impact to our business from this incident at this
time, they may be significant. We will recognize these expenses in
the periods in which they are incurred.

"Actions have been filed in various federal and state courts and
other claims have been or may be asserted against us on behalf of
current or former members, current or former employees, other
individuals, shareholders or others seeking damages or other
related relief, allegedly arising out of the cyber attack. State
and federal agencies, including state insurance regulators, state
attorneys general, the Health and Human Services Office of Civil
Rights and the Federal Bureau of Investigations, are investigating
events related to the cyber attack, including how it occurred, its
consequences and our responses. Although we are cooperating in
these investigations, we may be subject to fines or other
obligations, which may have an adverse effect on how we operate
our business and our results of operations. With respect to the
civil actions, a motion to transfer was filed with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 10, 2015 and will be
heard by the Panel on May 28, 2015.

"We have contingency plans and insurance coverage for certain
expenses and potential liabilities of this nature, however, the
coverage may not be sufficient to cover all claims and
liabilities. While a loss from these matters is reasonably
possible, we cannot reasonably estimate a range of possible losses
because our investigation into the matter is ongoing, the
proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not
been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues
to be resolved."


AOL INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Verizon, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling AOL too
cheaply through an unfair process to Verizon, for $4.4 billion or
$50 a share, shareholders claim in a class action in Delaware
Chancery Court.


ARK 48: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Lopez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Ark 48 Corporation d/b/a Toasties, Toasties Deli Corp.
d/b/a Toasties, Toasties One Corp. d/b/a Toasties, jin
Choi, Raymond Kim, Robert Kim, Susan Kim, and Elliot Lee, Case No.
1:15-cv-04160 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of delicatessens in New
York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AT&T CORP: Training Manager's Suit Alleges Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that AT&T is in the cross-hairs
of an unpaid overtime class action lawsuit brought by a training
manager who alleges the company is in violation of California
labor law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Specifically, the AT&T lawsuit contends that the
telecommunications giant intentionally misclassified the workers
as being exempt from overtime requirements in order to avoid
giving them the extra pay they were entitled to under state and
national employment laws.

Filed in the US District Court for the Central District of
California, plaintiff Wendell Watson alleges that despite
assigning the trainers their work and being aware that they often
worked longer than 40 hours a week, AT&T refused to pay overtime
to training specialists nationally.

Here's the skinny, according to a statement issued by attorney's
representing the plaintiff:  AT&T employees involved in designing
company trainings often work nights and weekends interviewing
experts at the company and then passing the information on to
instructors. In the lawsuit, Watson, an AT&T training design
manager since 2001, states that the workers not only did not
receive overtime but also regularly worked more than five
consecutive hours without a required half-hour meal break or a
second break after working for 10 hours.

The lawsuit also states that "In addition, the California
plaintiff and California class members regularly work and have
worked without being afforded at least one 10-minute rest break,
in which they were relieved of all duty, per four hours of work."
AT&T is also being accused of failing to provide accurate wage
statements, such that workers were not able to determine how much
and for what hours they were being paid. Not an uncommon complaint
these days, sadly.

The case is Walton v. AT&T Inc., case number 2:15-cv-03716, in the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


AT&T MOBILITY: Faces Wage and Hour Class Suit in Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that AT&T Mobility makes assistant
store managers work off the clock, a class action claims in
Massachusetts Federal Court.


AVON PRODUCTS: Faces Securities Suit Over Bogus Buyout Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister and Marley Jay, writing for The Associated Press,
report that federal regulators say a Bulgarian man was part of a
scheme to manipulate the stocks of Avon Products and two other
companies by issuing fake takeover offers.

Nedko Nedev, 37, of Sofia, Bulgaria, and four other defendants
worked together to violate securities laws over the last four
years, according to a lawsuit filed in Manhattan federal court by
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4.

One defendant, PTG Capital, filed an offer for Avon in May
claiming it had proposed buying all the company's stock for a
large premium, the suit said.  As a result, Avon's shares soared
as much as 20 percent on May 14.  The SEC said the company seems
to have been formed only to manipulate stocks.

Mr. Nedev and others who were not identified pulled off a similar
scheme with the stock of Tower Group International, a reinsurance
company, on May 13, 2014, and with Rocky Mountain Chocolate
Factory on Dec. 18, 2012, the lawsuit said. Shares of both
companies soared on those days.

The SEC's filing system is a trusted source for investors seeking
important and timely disclosures from companies that can affect
stock prices.  The fact that a fake filing about a major company,
like Avon, managed to get posted through the SEC came as a big
surprise to many in the markets.

The SEC lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and the court's help in
preventing Nedev and the other defendants from committing fraud.
Email messages sent to defendants were not immediately returned.

The SEC said Mr. Nedev controlled at least one of two now-frozen
brokerage accounts containing approximately $2 million in assets.

"Even when traders attempt to hide behind proxy servers, false
filings, and phony foreign entities, we are able to quickly
identify patterns and relationships to focus our investigation and
identify who is behind the manipulative trading," said
Daniel Hawke, chief of the SEC Enforcement Division's Market Abuse
Unit.

Avon Products said it is continuing to work with regulators on the
matter.  Rocky Mountain Chocolate didn't immediately respond to a
request for comment.

Tower had already agreed to be acquired by another company when it
received its suspicious bid last year.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Settles Oregon-Led FX Class Suit for $180-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Arleen Jacobius, writing for Pensions & Investments, reported that
the state of Oregon, on behalf of Oregon Public Employees
Retirement Fund and Oregon Common School Fund, is settling a
class-action lawsuit against Bank of New York Mellon (BK) Corp.
(BK) for $180 million, said Michael Cox, spokesman for state
Treasurer Ted Wheeler, in an e-mail.

Oregon was the lead plaintiff in the class-action filed in
February 2012 seeking losses suffered by the $70.3 billion Oregon
Public Employees Retirement Fund, Salem, and the $1.5 billion
Oregon Common School Fund, Salem, and other shareholders,
including public pension funds and mutual funds, when BNY Mellon's
stock price fell after news reports about BNY Mellon's alleged
foreign-exchange fraud.

Whistleblowers alleged that BNY Mellon rigged prices to obtain
higher profits; news of the alleged fraud resulted in a 41% drop
between April 2008 and June 2011 in BNY Mellon's share price.

The settlement will be submitted for preliminary approval within
the next 30 days to U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan in New
York. If the judge initially approves the settlement, notices will
be sent to class members and the agreement will then be submitted
to the judge for final approval later this year.

In a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, BNY
Mellon said it had reached a $180 million settlement in regard to
a "pending foreign exchange-related putative class-action lawsuit
asserting securities law violations."

"This settlement effectively resolves virtually all of the
currently pending foreign exchange-related actions, with the
exception of several lawsuits brought by individual customers. The
settlement is subject to court approval," the statement said.
Kevin Heine, BNY Mellon spokesman, declined to comment beyond the
statement in the SEC filing.


BAPTIST HEALTH: Removed "McMaster" Class Suit to W.D. Arkansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Debbie McMaster and all others
similarly situated v. Baptist Health and John Bowen, Case No. 10-
CV-15-29, was removed from the Circuit Court of Clark County,
Arkansas to the U.S. District Court Western District of Arkansas
(Hot Springs). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-
06047-RTD to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges employment discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lucien Gillham, Esq.
      HARRILL & SUTTER, P.L.L.C.
      310 West Conway Street
      P.O. Box 2012
      Benton, AR 72018
      Telephone: (501) 315-1910
      Facsimile: (501) 315-1916
      E-mail: lucien.gillham@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Byron L. Freeland, Esq.
      MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD
      425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 1800
      Little Rock, AR 72201-3525
      Telephone: (501) 688-8800
      Facsimile: (501) 688-8807
      E-mail: Bfreeland@mwlaw.com


BBY: Irate Clients to Sue ASX, ASIC Over Losses
-----------------------------------------------
Elysse Morgan, writing for ABC News, reported that irate clients
of the collapsed broker BBY are blaming the ASX and ASIC for the
loss of potentially millions of dollars and are considering legal
action.  BBY clients' money is in limbo after the company entered
administration and the ASX ordered the closure of options
positions, action that stripped investors of their ability to
manage their positions and potentially exposed them to heavy
losses.

Malcolm McLoughlin, a client of BBY, is astounded at what has
happened.  "It is shameful. I'm still waiting on information as to
what's happened with my options. I've had no information from the
ASX," he told the ABC.

The market, he said, moved badly against his positions but he has
been powerless to do anything. He believes he will be hundreds of
thousands of dollars out of pocket.

"Did the ASX even have a right to do what it has done?

"I didn't do anything wrong, I was all paid up, all my positions
were covered. I followed all the rules and now I'm getting
punished. All the clients of BBY are being punished for something
BBY did," he said.

The ASX said its market rules gave it no choice but to close out
the options once administrators moved in.

Clients, BBY brokers not notified of changed deadline

BBY emailed all options clients telling them that BBY was exiting
that business and clients had to transfer to another broker.

"If all your open positions are not transferred to another
clearing participant by 1 June 2015, BBY intends to close out all
your open positions," chief executive Glenn Rosewall wrote.

Mr McLoughlin had begun the process of switching to rival broker
Pattersons.

However, in a move that has angered and mystified him, the ASX
moved the goal posts on 18 May at 11.53am, telling all BBY clients
that they had only until 1.30pm that day to move their accounts.

Mr McLoughlin missed the deadline because he was at work.  He said
he was not sent an alert by the ASX and his BBY broker was not
alerted to it until after the deadline had passed.

When he contacted Pattersons they told him it was too late.

The ABC has spoken to another BBY client who believes he has lost
in excess of $2 million because of the actions taken by the ASX.

The Melbourne doctor had also received the email from BBY
regarding the June 1 deadline and was also in the process of
trying to move his accounts.  He has been trading options since
the 1970s and was shocked by the market regulator's actions.

"The dispute was over a couple million dollars between the
regulator and BBY and it's created losses of hundreds of millions
of dollars," he said.

Collapse will result in a 'lawyers' picnic'

BBY collapsed. Mr Rosewall appointed KPMG as administrators after
the ASX suspended trading because the broker breached capital
rules.

The Melbourne doctor said serious questions need to be asked.

"How can they [the ASX] sell something that is legally mine,
without telling me, without giving me an option to get out, for a
price that I don't know and potentially at a loss?"

Mr McLoughlin and the Melbourne doctor said they would be
enthusiastic supporters of any class action on the matter,
describing it as a "lawyers' picnic".

The doctor believes the regulators, the ASX and ASIC, failed to
properly oversee BBY's operations and magnified their mistakes in
their handling of the administration.

"It is like a bank foreclosing on a property where all repayments
have been made on time and in full," he said. "It makes no sense."


BIG 5: Objector to Settlement Withdraw Notices of Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that a Notice
of Appeal was filed by an objector to a class action settlement,
which was withdrawn on April 17, 2015.

The Company was served on the following dates with the following
nine complaints, each of which was brought as a purported class
action on behalf of persons who made purchases at the Company's
stores in California using credit cards and were requested or
required to provide personal identification information at the
time of the transaction: (1) on February 22, 2011, a complaint
filed in the California Superior Court in the County of Los
Angeles, entitled Maria Eugenia Saenz Valiente v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455049; (2) on February 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Scott Mossler v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455477; (3) on February 28,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Yelena Matatova v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC455459; (4) on March 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of Los Angeles, entitled Neal T. Wiener v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. BC456300; (5) on March 22,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Donna Motta v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-509228; (6) on March
30, 2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in
the County of Alameda, entitled Steve Holmes v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. RG11563123; (7) on March 30,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Francisco, entitled Robin Nelson v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. CGC-11-508829; (8) on April 8,
2011, a complaint filed in the California Superior Court in the
County of San Joaquin, entitled Pamela B. Smith v. Big 5 Sporting
Goods Corporation, et al., Case No. 39-2011-00261014-CU-BT-STK;
and (9) on May 31, 2011, a complaint filed in the California
Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles, entitled Deena
Gabriel v. Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation, et al., Case No.
BC462213.

On June 16, 2011, the Judicial Council of California issued an
Order Assigning Coordination Trial Judge designating the
California Superior Court in the County of Los Angeles as having
jurisdiction to coordinate and to hear all nine of the cases as
Case No. JCCP4667. On October 21, 2011, the plaintiffs
collectively filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, alleging
violations of the California Civil Code, negligence, invasion of
privacy and unlawful intrusion. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that customers making purchases with credit cards at the
Company's stores in California were improperly requested to
provide their zip code at the time of such purchases. The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of the class members, the following:
statutory penalties; attorneys' fees; expenses; restitution of
property; disgorgement of profits; and injunctive relief.

In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the
Company and plaintiffs engaged in Mandatory Settlement Conferences
conducted by the court on February 6, 2013, February 19, 2013,
April 2, 2013, September 12, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and
also engaged in mediation conducted by a third party mediator on
July 15, 2013. As a result of the foregoing, the parties agreed to
settle the lawsuit. On March 23, 2014, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement. On December 5, 2014, the
court granted final approval of the settlement and on January 2,
2015, entered judgment on the settlement.

On February 2, 2015, a Notice of Appeal was filed by an objector,
which was withdrawn on April 17, 2015.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company distributed to
class members who submitted valid and timely claim forms either a
$25 gift card (with proof of purchase) or a $10 merchandise
voucher (without proof of purchase). Additionally, the Company
paid plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs awarded by the court,
enhancement payments to the class representatives and claims
administrator's fees. Furthermore, to the extent that if the total
amount paid by the Company for the class payout, class
representative enhancement payments and claims administrator's
fees was less than $1.0 million, the Company issued merchandise
vouchers to a charity for the balance of the deficiency in the
manner provided in the settlement agreement. The Company's
estimated total cost pursuant to this settlement is reflected in a
legal settlement accrual initially recorded in the third quarter
of fiscal 2013, and subsequently adjusted in fiscal 2014 to
reflect the settlement. The Company admitted no liability or
wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in the lawsuit.
The settlement constitutes a full and complete settlement and
release of all claims related to the lawsuit.


BIG 5: Hearing Held on Settlement in Pedro Duran Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the
court has scheduled a hearing for June 8, 2015, to consider the
parties' request to preliminarily approve the proposed settlement
in the case filed by Pedro Duran.

On September 10, 2014, a complaint was filed in the California
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled Pedro Duran
v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. BC557154. On October 7, 2014, an
amended complaint was filed. As amended, the complaint alleges the
Company violated the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code. The complaint was brought as a
purported class action on behalf of certain of the Company's
hourly employees who worked as "warehousemen" in the Company's
distribution center in California for the four years prior to the
filing of the complaint. The plaintiff alleges, among other
things, that the Company failed to pay such employees for all time
worked, failed to provide such employees with compliant meal and
rest periods, failed to properly itemize wage statements, and
failed to pay wages within required time periods during employment
and upon termination of employment. The plaintiff seeks, on behalf
of the purported class members, an award of statutory and civil
damages and penalties, including restitution and recovery of
unpaid wages; pre-judgment interest; an award of attorneys' fees
and costs; and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Company
believes that the complaint is without merit. The Company has not
yet been served with the complaint or the amended complaint.

In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the
Company and plaintiff engaged in mediation on January 28, 2015. On
April 1, 2015, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. The court
has scheduled a hearing for June 8, 2015, to consider the parties'
request to preliminarily approve the proposed settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the Company agreed to
pay approximately $1.4 million, which includes payments to class
members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses, an enhancement
payment to the class representative, claims administration fees
and payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency. The Company's anticipated total payments pursuant to this
settlement have been reflected in a legal settlement accrual
initially recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014 prior to
the settlement and subsequently adjusted in the first quarter of
fiscal 2015 to reflect the settlement. The Company admitted no
liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in
the lawsuit. Once final approva is granted, the settlement will
constitute a full and complete settlement and release of all
claims related to the lawsuit. If the court does not grant
preliminary or final approval of the settlement, the Company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. If the settlement is not
finally approved by the court and the lawsuit is resolved
unfavorably to the Company, this litigation could have a material
negative impact on the Company's financial condition, and costs
associated with any judgment, defense of this litigation as well
as any required change in the Company's labor practices, could
have a material negative impact on the Company's results of
operations.


BOX OFFICE: Faces "Blahnik" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Blahnik and Addison Poppas, individually and for all others
similarly situate v. Box Office Ticket Sales, LLC, Tickets in
Time, LLC, John Urich and Howard Schwartz, Case No. 1:15-cv-04735
(N.D. Ill., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an online ticket broker which is in the
business of buying and selling tickets for customers in the
secondary market for events including, but not limited to,
concerts, sporting events and theatre shows across the United
States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jorge A. Gamboa, Esq.
      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: jgamboa@stephanzouras.com
              rstephan@stephanzouras.com
              jzouras@stephanzouras.com


BP PLC: Riney Not Guilty of Making False Statements, Jury Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGill and Rebecca Santana, writing for The Associated
Press, report that the June 5 acquittal of a former high-ranking
BP executive charged with lying to investigators looking into the
2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill marked the latest setback for
federal prosecutors pursuing criminal charges in the disaster.

A federal jury took about two hours to find David Rainey not
guilty of making false statements.  Days before, U.S. District
Judge Kurt Engelhardt had tossed out a related charge that
Mr. Rainey obstructed a congressional investigation of the spill.
Judge Engelhardt told jurors before discharging them on June 5
that he agreed with their verdict.

Mr. Rainey's acquittal came days after prosecutors asked a federal
appeals court to reinstate the conviction of a former BP engineer,
Kurt Mix.

Mr. Mix, in 2013, had been acquitted on one criminal count but
convicted on a charge that he knowingly deleted text messages
about the spill.  However, that victory for prosecutors was tossed
out by a judge who said the verdict was tainted by a jury
forewoman's remark -- to an apparently deadlocked panel -- about
something she had heard outside the courtroom.

The appeals court decision in the Mix case is pending.

As for Mr. Rainey, he had been tasked, in the days after the
Deepwater Horizon explosion, with calculating the amount of oil
gushing into the gulf.

Prosecutors said he manipulated his calculations to match a far-
too-low government estimate of the flow rate.  He was charged with
lying about having done so during an interview with federal
investigators almost a year later.

"We respect the jury's verdict," said Leo Tsao, a prosecutor with
a federal Deepwater Horizon task force.

Environmental lawyer David Uhlmann said the government faced tough
odds in the oil spill case.

"The verdict demonstrates how difficult it is to prosecute
individuals when the primary culprit is a corporate culture run
amok," Mr. Uhlmann, a University of Michigan law professor and
former chief of the Justice Department's environmental crimes
section, said in an email.

"In its case against David Rainey, the Justice Department also
faced a significant evidentiary hurdle, which is that no one knows
how much oil gushed into the Gulf of Mexico during the Gulf oil
spill," Mr. Uhlmann added.

Indeed, Mr. Rainey's attorneys built much of their defense on the
inability of anyone, in the early days of the spill, to figure out
how much oil was flowing.  And, they argued, an estimate was
largely irrelevant because an all-out effort was being made to cap
the well, regardless of how much was spewing.

"It was a fool's errand," defense lawyer Reid Weingarten said of
Mr. Rainey's task.  "It was demanded by politicians and the press.
And he reluctantly took up the cudgel and came up with his best
response."

BP declined comment on June 5.  Mr. Rainey, whose defense was paid
for by his former employer, smiled but declined to talk to
reporters as he walked briskly out of the courtroom to hug family
members.

The government has had some successes.  In November of 2012,
federal authorities and the oil giant announced a settlement of
criminal cases arising from the explosion, the resulting deaths of
11 rig workers, and the aftermath.  The corporation agreed to
plead guilty to charges including 11 felony counts of misconduct
or neglect of a vessel's officers, one felony count of obstruction
of Congress, and one misdemeanor count each under the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and the Clean Water Act. Penalties totaled $4.5
billion.

Trial is pending for BP well-site leaders Robert Kaluza and Donald
Vidrine, who have pleaded not guilty to manslaughter charges
stemming from the 11 deaths.  They are charged with repeatedly
disregarding abnormal high-pressure readings that should have been
glaring indications of trouble just before the blowout.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion resulted in the nation's worst
offshore oil spill -- an 87-day underwater gusher.  A federal
judge overseeing civil litigation in the case acknowledged this
year that estimates of how much oil was released vary widely, but
he settled on a figure of about 3.19 million barrels -- a rate of
more than 36,000 barrels per day.

Various early estimates were much lower.  Mr. Rainey's trial
focused on an early National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration estimate, days after the spill began, of about
5,000 barrels a day, and whether Mr. Rainey had "backed into" his
own calculations to match that estimate.


BUTLER & HOSCH: Violates WARN Act, Fla. Class Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that the
failure of executives to warn employees about the pending collapse
of the Butler & Hosch law firm was illegal, a new federal lawsuit
alleges.  The suit, filed late in Fort Lauderdale federal court,
names two former Butler employees as plaintiffs, Stephen Regal and
Gianna Hills, but it seeks class action status on behalf of 700
former employees of the firm.

The lawsuit alleges that the firm failed to abide by the federal
WARN Act (Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification). The act
requires most companies with 100 or more employees to warn of mass
layoffs 60 days in advance.

"Butler & Hosch knew that terminations were anticipated, but
failed to provide employees. . . with advance notice as required
under the WARN Act," the lawsuit states. "The employees were
provided with no notice, severance, and barely an opportunity to
gather their personal items before security badges and telephone
extensions were deactivated."

The suit also alleges that the firm failed to reimburse employees
for company expenses they had covered and deceived employees from
looking for other work and/or making contingent plans.

The suit seeks unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, all
accrued paid time off, pension and 401k contributions and other
benefits, for 60 days, that would have been covered; and all
unreimbursed expenses.

The suit mentions a previous round of layoffs, in December 2014,
which had also cut many Orlando employees, but the suit is only
directed employees who were terminated May 14 this year.
Besides the impact on employees, the Butler law firm was handling
up to 60,000 foreclosure cases when it closed, half of which were
in Florida. Those cases are in limbo now, according to court
officials.

The employees are represented by Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards
Fistos & Lehrman partners Gary Farmer, Steven Jaffe, Mark Fistos
and Lehrman in Fort Lauderdale.

Roy Kobert, a shareholder in the Orlando and Tampa offices of
GrayRobinson, is representing Butler & Hosch. He did not respond
to a request for comment by deadline.


CADIZ INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Howard G. Smith Firm
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action has
been filed on behalf of investors of Cadiz, Inc. ("Cadiz" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CDZI) who purchased shares from March 10, 2014
through April 21, 2015, inclusive (the, "Class Period").

The class action concerns the Company's and its officers' possible
violations of federal securities laws, and the subsequent damage
to Cadiz investors upon disclosure of these violations of law and
the Company's true operations and prospects. Investors who
purchased shares during the Class Period are encouraged to contact
Howard G. Smith, Esquire, prior to the lead plaintiff deadline of
June 23, 2015.

Cadiz operates as a land and water resource development company in
the United States. It engages in the water resource, and land and
agricultural development activities in San Bernardino County
properties. On April 21, 2015, areport was published on
seekingalpha.com that cited documents, received pursuant to a
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, concerning Cadiz's
water project. According to the seekingalpha.com report, the FOIA
documents reveal that the Company's main water project has
effectively failed due to regulatory concerns and budgetary
constraints; and, that the Company is nearing bankruptcy. On this
news, the Company's shares fell $0.72 or nearly 8% per share, to
close on April 21, 2015 at $8.98 per share.

If you purchased shares of Cadiz between March 10, 2014 through
April 21, 2015, inclusive, have information or would like to learn
more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices
of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem,
Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at
(888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or
visit our website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/

The firm may be reached at:

         Howard G. Smith, Esq.
         Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
         3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
         Bensalem, PA 19020
         Tel: 215-638-4847
         Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Cannot Place Liens on Tribal Assets, Court Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
California cannot place liens on tribal assets to collect unpaid
state unemployment reimbursements, reports Elizabeth Warmerdam at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge John Mendez on May 13 granted summary judgment
to Blue Lake Rancheria, a federally recognized tribe in Humboldt
County.  Mendez ruled that any alleged misuse of the tribe's
sovereign immunity was not relevant to whether California's
Employment Development Department (EDD) can attach liens on the
tribe's property.

The tribe established Mainstay Business Solutions in 2003 as a
for-profit business to provide employee leasing and temporary
staffing for businesses in California, Hawaii and Nevada.

Mainstay participated in a joint federal-state unemployment
insurance program and became a "reimbursable employer," which
meant that the state would pay former employees and Mainstay would
reimburse the state for those costs.

A dispute arose in 2008 about how much Mainstay owed in
reimbursement, leading EDD to attach liens to the tribe's property
in several counties and issue subpoenas to Blue Lake's banks
seeking information about the tribe's assets.

The tribe filed a lawsuit against officers of EDD to stop them
from their collections and to cancel the liens.  It also asked the
court to declare that the state's actions violate Blue Lake's
sovereign immunity.

Mendez rejected the state's argument that sovereign immunity does
not apply to tax enforcement, saying the state failed "to
recognize 'the difference between the right to demand compliance
with state laws and the means available to enforce them.'"

"Here, the tribe does not contest that defendants had authority to
demand compliance with state law: that is, to require the tribe to
pay reimbursements consistent with the unemployment insurance
program.  The real issue is whether defendants could enforce
compliance by initiating collection actions," Mendez wrote.

Courts have established that immunity bars methods of enforcement
similar to this case, Mendez said, finding that the state is
barred by sovereign immunity from placing a lien on Blue Lake's
tribal property.

"The fact that some of that property may be located outside of the
reservation does not avoid the sovereign immunity bar," Mendez
ruled.

The state failed to show that the tribe waived its sovereign
immunity, but merely argued that Blue Lake's evidence that it did
not waive immunity was insufficient.

Blue Lake provided evidence that neither its general or business
councils had passed a resolution waiving sovereign immunity in
favor of the EDD or any of the other defendants in this action.

The law does not require Blue Lake to disprove every possible
means of waiver, Mendez found. It is sufficient for the tribe to
point out the absence of evidence to support the state's case.

"Because defendants have provided no facts supporting a theory of
waiver, summary judgment is warranted," Mendez said.

Whether Blue Lake invoked sovereign immunity in order to delay or
defraud EDD from collecting unemployment insurance from the tribe
is not relevant in this case, which involves only the issue of
whether the state violated the tribe's immunity through its
collection actions.

"This court makes no decision about plaintiff's liability arising
from Mainstay's role as a reimbursable employer," Mendez wrote,
disregarding the state's attempt to raise disputes about how much
the tribe owes.

The tribe has established that it will suffer irreparable harm
without injunctive relief, which is the only relief available.

"(I)f the court does not enjoin the liens, plaintiff would be
unable to obtain damages from defendants because of the state's
own immunity.  And this unavailability of alternate remedies makes
the harm from the violation of sovereign immunity irreparable,"
Mendez wrote.

The parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Blue Lake Rancheria has an interesting and complex history.

The 26-acre reservation was established in 1908 for homeless
Indians.  The federal government "terminated" the reservation in
1954 under a policy that was supposed to integrate Native
Americans with Anglo society.  The termination policy was widely
viewed as disastrous, and in 1966 the federal government returned
the 26 acres to the Native Americans -- but without the rights
accorded to other Native Americans and tribes.

Blue Lake then joined 16 other rancherias in a class action
lawsuit, Tillie Hardwick et al. v. the United States, which the
rancherias won.  The United States granted them their native
rights in 1989, and Blue Lake now operates under its own
constitution.

The case is Blue Lake Rancheria, et al. v. David Lanier, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency, et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-01124-JAM-
JFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California.


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: S.C. to Review Navy-Recruitment Texts Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed May 18 to look at a case where
consumers received unsolicited text messages on their cellphones
to recruit them to the Navy, reports Barbara Leonard at Courthouse
News Service.

Lead plaintiff Jose Gomez filed the class action after receiving a
text message on May 11, 2006, stating: "Destined for something
big?  Do it in the Navy.  Get a career.  An education.  And a
chance to serve a greater cause.  For a FREE Navy video call
[number]."

The Navy, which is not a defendant had hired a marketing
consultant, Campbell-Ewald Co., to develop and execute a
multimedia recruiting campaign, targeting people between the ages
of 18 and 24 who had consented to solicitation.

Campbell-Ewald in turn hired Mindmatics to generate a list of
phone numbers fitting these conditions and transmit the messages.

Though a Navy representative testified that the Navy did not
authorize messages to be sent to people who had not opted in,
Gomez, well outside of the specified age range at 40 years old,
said he did not consent to receiving the text message.

California-based U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee nevertheless found
in favor of Campbell-Ewald, holding that the company was immune
because it was working at the Navy's direction to implement the
text-message recruitment campaign.

The 9th Circuit vacated that decision last year, however, finding
that Gee applied the standard for liability under the wrong
precedent, the 1940 Supreme Court decision in Yearsley v. W.A.
Ross Construction Co.

In Yearsley, the Supreme Court held a contractor immune from suit
over the unconstitutional taking of property because its work was
done in accordance with express congressional directive and
because the government had impliedly promised to compensate the
plaintiffs.

The 9th Circuit deemed such reasoning irrelevant to Gomez's case,
however, because his claims do not implicate a constitutional
promise to compensate injured plaintiffs.

"Instead, Congress has expressly created a federal cause of action
affording individuals like Gomez standing to seek compensation for
violations of the TCPA.  In the 70-year history of the Yearsley
doctrine, it has apparently never been invoked to preclude
litigation of a dispute like the one before us," Judge Fortunato
Benavides wrote for the court.  "This court, in particular, has
rarely allowed use of the defense, and only in the context of
property damage resulting from public works projects."

Benavides also rejected Campbell-Ewald's argument that more recent
cases provide the company with immunity, as they were not
applicable to Gomez's case.

Campbell-Ewald had argued for a new immunity for government-
service contractors, but the 9th Circuit declined, noting that
"immunity must be extended with the utmost care."

"The record contains sufficient evidence that the text messages
were contrary to the Navy's policy permitting texts only to
persons who had opted in to receive them.  Consequently, we
decline the invitation to craft a new immunity doctrine or extend
an existing one," Benavides wrote.

The 9th Circuit also rejected Campbell-Ewald's argument that it
cannot be held liable for Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
violations because it outsourced the sending of the text messages
to Mindmatics.

Several federal courts have concluded that the TCPA imposes
vicarious liability between a defendant and a third-party caller,
and the Federal Communications Commission recognizes vicarious
liability for violations committed by third-party telemarketers,
according to the ruling.

"The present case affords an opportunity to clarify that a
defendant may be held vicariously liable for TCPA violations where
the plaintiff establishes an agency relationship, as defined by
federal common law, between the defendant and a third-party
caller," Benavides wrote.

As to Campbell-Ewald's claim that the federal statute restricting
unsolicited text messaging is unconstitutional, the court saw no
evidence that the government's interest in privacy ends at home.

Furthermore, "the nature of cell phones renders the restriction of
unsolicited text messaging all the more necessary to ensure that
privacy," Benavides wrote.  "After all, it seems safe to assume
that most cellular users have their phones with them when they are
at home.  Campbell-Ewald itself notes that in many households a
cell phone is the home phone."

Campbell-Ewald additionally failed to show that the military-
recruiting messages were a form of government speech, afforded
greater protection by the First Amendment.

Benavides called the government-speech doctrine "simply immaterial
to the present dispute, in which the plaintiff is not advocating
for viewpoint neutrality, but is instead challenging the
regulation of a particular means of communication."

Following its custom, the Supreme Court issued no comment on the
case in granting Campbell-Ewald a writ of certiorari May 18.

The case is Campbell-Ewald Company v. Jose Gomez, Case No. 14-857,
in the United States Supreme Court.

                           *     *     *

Patrick Lewis, in an article for Mondaq News Alerts, reported that
the United States Supreme Court accepted certiorari to review the
Ninth Circuit's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 768 F.3d
871 (9th Cir. 2014), which involved a TCPA class action brought by
the recipient of a text message that a contractor, defendant
Campbell-Ewald, sent on behalf of the U.S. Navy in May 2006. The
text message read:

   "Destined for something big? Do it in the Navy. Get a career.
An education. And a chance to serve a greater cause. For a FREE
Navy video call [number]."

Plaintiff brought both individual and class claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), seeking to represent a
putative nationwide class of "nonconsenting recipients of the
Navy's recruiting messages." Before plaintiff moved for class
certification, the defendant tried to moot plaintiff's claims by
tendering an offer of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure that, in the defendant's view, would have fully
satisfied plaintiff's claims. (Defendant offered to pay $1,503 per
violation, plus reasonable costs.) Plaintiff rejected the offer
and then moved for class certification.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the defendant's position that its offer
of judgment mooted plaintiff's individual and class claims,
relying on its precedents in Diaz v. First Am. Home Buyers Prot.
Corp., 732 F.3d 948, 950 (9th Cir. 2013) ("an unaccepted Rule 68
offer that would fully satisfy a plaintiff's claim is insufficient
to render the claim moot") and Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653
F.3d 1081, 1081-1082 (9th Cir. 2011) ("an unaccepted Rule 68 offer
of judgment -- for the full amount of the named plaintiff's
individual claim and made before the named plaintiff files a
motion for class certification -- does not moot a class action").
The court declined to reconsider Diaz and Pitts in light of the
Supreme Court's ruling in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133
S.Ct. 1523, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013) that a Rule 68 full-relief
offer mooted a collective action brought under the FLSA. (The
Court assumed, without deciding, that such a Rule 68 offer mooted
the plaintiff's individual claim.) While the Ninth Circuit
acknowledged that language in Genesis Healthcare "undermined some
of the reasoning" employed in Diaz and Pitts, it held its prior
cases were still good law because of the important differences
between class actions and FLSA collective actions.

The questions presented were:

   (1) Whether a case becomes moot, and thus beyond the judicial
       power of Article III, when the plaintiff receives an offer
       of complete relief on his claim.

   (2) Whether the answer to the first question is any different
       when the plaintiff has asserted a class claim under Federal
       Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but receives an offer of
       complete relief before any class is certified.

   (3) Whether the doctrine of derivative sovereign immunity
       recognized in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Construction Co., 309
       U.S. 18 (1940), for government contractors is restricted to
       claims arising out of property damage caused by public
       works projects.

We will continue to follow this case, which will hopefully bring
clarity to the role Rule 68 offers of judgment have in class
action proceedings.


CANADIAN HEATING: Settlement Looms on Gas Fireplace Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Sinoski, writing for Vancouver Sun, reported that three gas
fireplace manufacturers have agreed to provide free screens or
barriers for all appliances sold between 2001 and 2014 following a
class-action lawsuit triggered two years ago when a toddler burned
his hand on a glass-fronted fireplace.

The companies -- Canadian Heating Products, Inc., Monessen Hearth
and Miles Industries Ltd. -- have agreed to the settlement but do
not admit to any liability or wrongdoing.  The agreement requires
approval from B.C. Supreme Court Justice Wendy Harris, who will
determine whether it is "fair and reasonable" and legally binding.
Harris has reserved her decisions.

The class action was launched by Craig and Charity Cantlie in 2012
after their one-year-old son Owen was seriously burned after
briefly touching the glass on the family's Montigo fireplace. The
Cantlies argued the fireplace was at toddler height, could reach
temperatures as high as 315 C and did not come with a screen or
grate to prevent direct contact.  The deal would apply to
fireplace brands including Montigo, Valor, Majestic, Vermont
Castings, Monessen, Lexington Forge and DutchWest, but not to
outdoor fireplaces and stoves or those used commercially, or
fireplaces manufactured by Valor U.K. and distributed by Miles
Industries Ltd. before 2004.

The Cantlies' lawyer, Rob Anderson of Farris, Vaughan, Wills &
Murphy, urged the judge to approve the settlement, saying the
warnings on fireplaces are not effective enough to prevent severe
injury while "all of the retrofits will significantly reduce the
burn risk," whether it be a new screen, a screen enhancement or a
free-standing barrier.  He noted the settlement took more than a
year to hammer down. "The settlement was a back-and-forth
compromise," Anderson said. "There were a number of tough issues."

If the settlement is approved, the screens and barriers would be
offered to an estimated "tens if not hundreds of thousands" of
fireplace owners in the year following the agreement.

The lawsuit alleged the defendants and other manufacturers
supplied hundreds of thousands of gas-burning glass-fronted
fireplaces, inserts and stoves that are a danger to anyone who
touches the hot glass, particularly young children, since the
1980s. Calling the defendants' actions "high-handed, outrageous
and reckless," it sought safety improvements for the fireplaces as
well as health costs for the injured.

"The defendants knew or ought to have known, for many years and at
material times, of the dangers posed by the fireplaces and yet did
not address them," the claim states.

Canadian Heating has filed a counterclaim against the Cantlies,
alleging negligence with respect to Owen's injuries. That claim
would be thrown out if the settlement is approved by the courts.
The Cantlies won't get a cash settlement, according to the
agreement, but Anderson has asked for an honorarium to compensate
them.

Anderson cited an affidavit from Dr. Cynthia Verchere, a plastic
surgeon and medical director of the burn unit at B.C. Children's
Hospital, showing the industry had been considering the burn issue
as far back as 1991.

"There was a standard in the industry but it was a standard that
the glass didn't break," Anderson said. "It had nothing to do with
the safety of children; it was that the glass didn't blow up."
Lawyer Mike Wagner, who was on the case with Anderson, said the
improvements would help prevent similar injuries in the future.
Wagner became interested in the lawsuit after his two-year-old
daughter Annie suffered second-degree burns to both palms and
fingers after touching the glass-fronted fireplace in a restaurant
in 2011. She spent two weeks at Children's Hospital and returned
several times to have her dressing changed or dead skin cut off.

Others have faced situations as bad or worse. Steven Ryder swore
in an affidavit that his daughter Riley, who suffered second and
third-degree burns to both her hands and her nose when she was 13
months old, cannot hang from the monkey bars at the playground or
do other "elementary childhood things" as a result.

Verchere was unavailable for an interview but said in an affidavit
that she has personally treated more than 100 children whose hands
or faces were burned through contact with a gas fireplace. She is
also the co-author of a study documenting more than 600 serious
burns suffered by children across Canada from glass-fronted
fireplaces and has tried for years to deal with the issue.

Many of those children endure painful dressings, skin grafts,
casts, and pressure gloves, and multiple visits to doctors and
clinics. Verchere had noted the U.S. requires screens to be sold
with fireplaces, a decision that arose partly out of several
lawsuits.

In the mid-1990s, Hearth and Home Technologies, another fireplace
manufacturer, decided to include effective screens with all
fireplaces after the grandchild of one of its executives was
burned.

Anderson noted it may be difficult contacting fireplace owners,
noting there is no definitive list held by the defendants, who are
mainly fireplace distributors.


CANADIAN PACIFIC: Sept. 8 Trial on Derailment Suit
--------------------------------------------------
HazMat.com reported that a class-action lawsuit in Quebec has been
approved for victims of the fiery 2013 Lac-Megantic derailment
that killed 47 people, but some of the major companies involved in
the disaster won't be part of the lawsuit's proceedings.

Quebec Justice Martin Bureau has given the plaintiffs the
greenlight to sue World Fuel Services and Canadian Pacific Railway
Ltd. Other notable players, however, filed for protection from
creditors following the tragedy, and also filed a request to have
the lawsuit suspended.

The lawsuit alleges that Canadian Pacific Railway was negligent
and showed a lack of due diligence in all circumstances leading up
to the July 6, 2013 derailment.  The exact financial amount being
sought will be determined at a later date.

The lawsuit was filed by three Lac Megantic residents -- Guy
Ouellet, Serge Jacques and Louis-Serge Parent -- on behalf of all
the derailment victims.

The trial date is to be set Sept. 8.


CARVER BIBLE: Withheld Financial Aid from Students, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Officers and board members of an Atlanta college withheld federal
financial aid from students and lied about it, a student says in
court, reports Aimee Sachs, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Carver Bible College student Donovan Gardner filed a class action
lawsuit against the school and its personnel in the Atlanta
Federal Court on May 19.

The 30-page complaint alleges the college's president and chief
financial officer, Robert W. Crummie, Sr., and other school
officers defrauded Gardner and other students out of receiving
their financial aid and falsely blamed the U.S. Department of
Education for withholding the funds.

The other defendants are Board of Trustees member Thomas G. Fritz,
Chairman of the Board Frank Oakley and Vice President of Business
Affairs Terry Alexander.

"In advancing their fraudulent scheme, the Officers represented to
the students that the federal student loans would be properly
applied to educational expenses, and any refunds of the federal
student loans would be properly disbursed to the students," the
complaint says.

According to the complaint, Crummie "falsely blamed the DOE,
indicating that Carver was 'waiting for their approval to release
the rest of the funds.'"

But the DOE sang a different tune and indicated that the
"Department did not instruct Carver College personnel to freeze
the disbursement of school refunds to the students," Gardner says.

"As a result of their fraudulent scheme, Defendants have
accumulated funds that rightfully belong to Plaintiff," the
complaint continues.  "To this day, those funds continue to be
withheld from Plaintiff."

Carver's officers are accused of using the United States Postal
Service and e-mail to execute their scheme.

Gardner says he was approved to receive more than $14,000 in
federal financial aid, as was fellow student Alethea Hutchinson.

"Despite being awarded federal student financial aid, neither
Plaintiff Gardner nor Hutchinson received proper disbursement of
the federal student financial aid," the complaint states.

Instead, Crummie sent Gardner and other students a series of
letters, in which he blamed the DOE for the funds not being
disbursed.

In a letter sent to students on Jan. 5, Crummie indicated that
"Carver had not received the funds from the DOE and asking the
students to 'return and register for the spring 2015 semester' and
that Carver had 'worked through the issues with the Department of
Education and [was] confident that the same scenario will not be
repeated.'"

Crummie sent another letter to the students on Jan. 17, stating
that the DOE "are the ones in control, not Carver" and that Carver
would "contact you [the students] immediately when the funds
arrive to inform you when to come pick up your disbursements."

A Feb. 12 letter from Crummie indicated that the DOE "had rejected
the request for funds and that Carver could not release the
funds."

Another letter written by Crummie was sent to students on
March 24, this time saying "the U.S. Department of Education
requires us to post aid to student accounts and show refund
amounts, if any, to student accounts before we actually receive
the funds."

Despite the fact that none of the student aid had been disbursed,
Alexander posted that $10,388 had been disbursed to Gardner.

As of May 18, Gardner says he does not have access to Carver's
website and is unable to reach the school by phone.

The complaint says it is "entirely possible" that others were
aware of and involved in the scheme.

Gardner is represented by Atlanta-based DeWoskin Law Firm.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Class Suit for Mishandling Clients' Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal NewsLine reported that a large brokerage firm is being
accused of mishandling its clients' money and routing most trades
to a specific securities firm.

Louis Lim filed the lawsuit on May 8 in U.S. District Court in
California against Charles Schwab, claiming the firm routed nearly
95 percent all of the clients' non-directed orders to UBS
Securities LLC.  The lawsuit claims Charles Schwab did this
because of "legally binding Equities Order Handling Agreements" it
had with UBS. The suit said Charles Schwab breached its fiduciary
duties by directing funds to UBS, and it "violates Schwab's duty
of best execution."

Lim is seeking class status for those who had non-directed orders
handled by Charles Schwab, and is also seeking more than $5
million in damages plus court costs. Furthermore, the lawsuit
seeks to prevent Charles Schwab from continuing to route nearly
all of its non-directed orders to UBS.

Lim is represented by Timothy G. Blood, Esq. -- tblood@bholaw.com
-- Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- and
Sarah Boot, Esq., of Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP; Brian J.
Robbins, Esq. -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- Kevin A. Seely,
Esq. -- kseely@robbinsarroyo.com -- Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq. --
arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com -- and Leonid Kandinov, Esq. --
lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com -- of Robbins Arroyo LLP; and Jeffrey
R. Krinsk, William R. Restis and David J. Harris Jr of Finkelstein
& Krinsk LLP. All the firms are located in San Diego.


CHC GROUP: Accused of Withholding Negative Information During IPO
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CHC Group raised $294 million
in an IPO by withholding negative information, shareholders claim
in a federal class action against the company and its
underwriters.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Decision Still Pending in PAO Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a
decision by the Court has been pending since March 2008 in the
case filed by the Federal Public Attorneys' Office.

The Federal Public Attorneys' Office filed a class action against
the Company and Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica (the
Brazilian National Electric Energy Agency), or ANEEL, to avoid
exclusion of consumers from classification in the Low-income
Residential Tariff Sub-category, requesting an order for the
Company to pay 200% of the amount allegedly paid in excess by
consumers. Judgment at first instance was given in favor of the
plaintiffs. Cemig D and ANEEL have filed an interlocutory appeal
with the Regional Federal Appeal Court. A decision by the Court
has been pending since March 2008. On December 31, 2014 the amount
of the contingency was approximately R$189.6 million. The Company
has classified the chances of loss as 'possible' due to other
favorable precedents, both in the judiciary and in the
administrative sphere, in favor of the argument put forward by
Cemig D.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Cemig D Facing Municipal Assoc. Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Cemig
D is defendant in several legal actions, and in particular a class
action filed by the Municipal Association for Protection of the
Consumer and the Environment (Associacao Municipal de Protecao ao
Consumidor e ao Meio Ambiente, or Amprocom), challenging amounts
of tariffs charged by the Company after 2002 and its method of
calculation, and applying for restitution, to all the consumers
allegedly damaged in the processes of Periodic Review and Annual
Adjustment of tariffs, in the period 2002 to 2009, of any amounts
allegedly unduly charged.' At December 31, 2014, the amount
involved in this action was R$233.8 million. The chances of loss
in this action have been assessed as 'possible', due to the fact
that there is no precedent.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Case in "Proofs of Performance" Phase
-----------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
class action against Cemig taken by the Federal Public Attorneys'
Office for Employment Matters is now in the phase of proofs of
specific performance as required.

In June 2007 judgment was given against Cemig in a class action
taken by the Federal Public Attorneys' Office for Employment
Matters early in 2003, to prevent the Company from using
outsourced workers for its end-activities. The judgment ordered
the payment of damages for collective pain and suffering in the
amount of R$0.3 million and gave the Company nine months to cease
to contract employees through outsourced companies as
intermediaries. In March 2008 the Higher Employment Law Appeals
Court gave an interim decision suspending the effects of the
previous judgment until a final decision had been given. In
October 2012, the Higher Employment Law Appeals Court reversed the
judgment and the judgment of the Regional Employment Court,
absolving Cemig from paying moral damages and the collective fines
that had been ordered. However, in November 2013, the Higher
Employment Law Appeals Court, in a motion for clarification filed
by the Public Attorneys' Office for Employment Matters, revised
its decision and partially re-established the judgment ordering
payment of damages for pain and suffering, setting them at R$0.15
million; and maintained the decision to reject the action that
claimed outsourcing to be against the law. The decision became
subject to no further appeal in September 2014, and the payment of
R$0.375 million for moral damages was made. The case is now in the
phase of proofs of specific performance as required, after which
it will be extinguished.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Facing Class Action Over Outsourced Labor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Company is a party in a class action brought by the Public
Attorneys for Employment Matters, in which the discussion centers
on outsourcing of labor in a company's end-activity. The amount of
the contingency is approximately R$ 0.3 million (R$ 59 million at
December 31, 2013), and carries the possibility of a penalty if
the Company does not comply with a requirement for specific
performance within a period determined by the court. Due to the
decision in the Company's favor by the Higher Employment-Law
Appeal Court (Tribunal Superior do Trabalho, or TST), on
acceptability of the action, in September 2014, the issue of
penalty for non-compliance with specific performance was
finalized, pending only the discussion of indemnity for collective
moral losses. On this, the chances of loss continue to be assessed
as 'possible', based on the opinion of the Company's legal
advisors.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Public Illumination Contribution
----------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Cemig
is a defendant in several public civil actions (class actions),
claiming nullity of the clause in the Electricity Supply Contracts
for public illumination, signed between the Company and the
various municipalities of its concession area, and restitution by
the Company of the difference representing the amounts charged in
the last 20 years, in the event that the courts recognize that
these amounts were unduly charged. The actions are grounded on a
supposed mistake by Cemig in the estimate of time that was used
for calculation of the consumption of electricity for public
illumination, funded by the Public Illumination Contribution
(Contribuicao para Illuminacao Publica, or CIP).

The Company has not constituted a provision for this action, the
amount of which is estimated at R$ 1,457 million (R$ 1,291 million
on December 31, 2013). It has assessed the chances of loss in this
action as 'possible', due to the Consumer Defense Code (Codigo de
Defesa do Consumidor, or CDC) not being applicable, because the
matter is governed by the specific regulation of the electricity
sector, and because Cemig complied with ANEEL Resolutions 414 and
456, which deal with the subject.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Impact from Plant Construction
--------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that an
environmental association, in a class action, has claimed
indemnity for supposed collective environmental damages as a
result of the construction and operation of the Nova Ponte
Hydroelectric Plant.

Due to the changes made in the environmental legislation and the
trend toward a consensus in case law, the Company has re-evaluated
the amounts and probabilities of loss on the claims in this action
from: R$ 254 million, with chance of loss 'possible', and R$ 807
million with chance of loss 'remote', comprising a total of R$
1,061 million (R$ 1,801 million on December 31, 2013). The Company
believes it has arguments of merit for legal defense, and the
adversary party has not demonstrated elements to prove its
arguments, which will result in the need for an expert witness
proof to corroborate them.


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Environmental Protection Revenue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Public Attorney's Office of the State of Minas Gerais has brought
class actions requiring the Company to invest at least 0.5% of its
annual gross operating revenue, since 1997, in environmental
protection and preservation of the water tables of the
municipalities where Cemig's power plants are located, and
proportional indemnity for allegedly irreparable environmental
damage caused, arising from omission to comply with Minas Gerais
State Law 12,503/97.  The Company has filed appeals to the Higher
Appeal Court (STJ) and the Federal Supreme Court (STF).  No
provision has been constituted. The estimated amount of the
contingency is R$ 77 million (R$ 108 million on December 31,
2013).


COMPANHIA ENERGETICA: Sued Over Permanent Preservation Area
-----------------------------------------------------------
Companhia Energetica De Minas Gerais - Cemig said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April
29, 2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the
Public Attorneys' Office of Minas Gerais State has filed class
actions requiring the formation of a Permanent Preservation Area
(APP) around the reservoir of the Capim Branco hydroelectric
plant, suspension of the effects of the environmental licenses,
and recovery of alleged environmental damage. Based on the opinion
of its legal advisors in relation to the changes that have been
made in the new Forest Code and in the case law on this subject,
the Company has classified the probability of loss in this dispute
as 'possible'. The estimated value of the contingency is R$ 24
million.


COMPTON UNIFIED: Faces Class Suit Filed by Traumatized Students
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Compton school district fails to meet the needs of students who
suffer "complex trauma" from living with violence, abuse and
poverty, parents, teachers and children say in a federal class
action.

Five students so traumatized by their lives they say they are
legally disabled are joined as plaintiffs by their guardians and
Compton teachers who say they have lost "dozens of students to
violence and attended their funerals."  They claim Compton Unified
School District violates the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and federal regulations on public
education.

"Schools are obliged under the Rehabilitation Act and Americans
with Disabilities Act to accommodate students who are being denied
benefits of educational programs solely by reason of experiencing
complex trauma," the 50-page lawsuit states.

It recapitulates problems Compton children face, including
exposure to violence and loss, deportations and incarceration of
family members, living with someone with a drug or alcohol
problem, systemic racism and discrimination, and the stress from
lacking basic necessities such as food and shelter.

Such overwhelming deprivation can create "complex trauma:" a
concatenation of stresses so powerful they overwhelm a young
person's ability to cope, according to the complaint.

Citing a wide range of research, the plaintiffs say childhood
trauma blocks academic success for millions of children, leading
to low literacy, high dropout rates, repeating grades, and low
overall achievement.

The trauma must be dealt with to close the achievement gap, said
Mark Rosenbaum, an attorney with Public Counsel, a pro bono law
firm that filed the lawsuit along with Irell & Manella.

"Prolonged exposure to trauma results in injuries to the
developing minds of children," Rosenbaum said.  "It's the type of
roadblock to learning that our federal anti-discrimination laws
were created to address, so that students in these circumstances
are not denied equal opportunity public education.

"There is no greater enemy to learning than unaddressed trauma."

Research shows that traumatic experiences can physically alter the
developing brains and bodies of children, which can affect their
behavior for decades and lead to post-traumatic stress disorder
and mental health conditions such as attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and major depression.

But rather then taking reasonable steps to address the needs of
traumatized children, Compton Unified -- which serves 26,000
students -- has punished and excluded such students, leading to
their academic failure, said Kathryn Eidmann, an attorney with
Public Counsel.

Punishing the students "sends a damaging message that students are
responsible for the trauma they have endured and that their
futures are disposable," Eidmann said.

Plaintiff Peter P., 17, was repeatedly physically and sexually
abused by his mother's boyfriends during the early years of his
life and witnessed the abuse of his siblings and mother, the
lawsuit states.  He was placed in foster care after his mother, a
drug addict, lost her parental rights.  In middle school, Peter
watched as his best friend was shot death.  Last year Peter was
stabbed when he tried to protect a friend whose relative was
attacking her with a knife.

Peter's two older brothers are in jail and a man who served as a
caretaker for Peter and his siblings when they entered the foster
system is in prison for murder, the complaint states.  Peter was
homeless for two months this year and slept on the roof of the
Dominguez High School cafeteria, for which he was suspended.

"Although some personnel were aware of these circumstances, Peter
P.'s attempts to return to school were denied, and he was
threatened with law enforcement involvement if he persisted in
attempting to return," the complaint states.

The trauma caused Peter, who has shown an ability to achieve high
grades in honors classes, to suffer uncontrollable anger and to
say he sometimes feels like he has a demon inside of him,
according to the lawsuit.

"Although he has repeatedly missed classes due to the complex
trauma he has experienced, no mental health or attendance
counselor or other school official has intervened or inquired as
to the cause of these absences," the complaint states.  "CUSD has
also repeatedly subjected Peter P. to harsh punitive discipline.
Over the course of his academic career, he has been repeatedly
suspended for disobedient, angry, or aggressive behavior, and has
been involuntarily transferred" from seven CUSD schools.

Another student identified in the complaint has witnessed more
than 20 shootings, has been in the cross fire eight times, and has
suffered the deaths of two friends in the past year -- one of whom
he saw get shot in the head, the lawsuit states.  These
experiences are far from unique among Compton Unified students
because the district serves poor neighborhoods in which community
violence is disproportionately high, the complaint states.

The district operates 40 schools in the South Central Los Angeles
County, including the city of Compton and parts of Carson and Los
Angeles.  Compton is among the most socioeconomically distressed
cities in Southern California, with high rates of violent crime.

Compton is known for the profusion of hip-hop artists who grew up
there, many of whose songs glorify violence and drugs.  But the
reality for children is hardly glorious, according to the lawsuit.

"CUSD is comprised of high numbers of foster and homeless youth,
and nearly exclusively students of color who experience the
expression and consequences of racism.  Defendants are accordingly
on notice that CUSD schools serve a disproportionately high number
of students exposed to complex trauma.  Concentrating many
significantly trauma-impacted students in a school creates the
highest level of need, necessitating the implementation of
intensive systems of interventions," the complaint states.

The three Compton Unified teachers who joined the lawsuit say they
devote endless hours and emotional resources addressing student
trauma without the training or support necessary to do so.

For some teachers, this leads to burnout. Others begin to take on
the students' trauma themselves and develop "secondary traumatic
stress," which can create serious health consequences, the lawsuit
states.

Dominguez High School teacher Rodney Curry, a plaintiff, says he
"has lost dozens of students to violence and has attended their
funerals.  Even more of plaintiff Curry's students have been shot
of have witnessed or experienced traumatic violence but survived."

The students and teachers say the district needs to train staff to
recognize and respond appropriately to student trauma, provide
mental health services for students to cope with their conditions,
and to move from punitive disciplinary practices to restorative
strategies that keep children in school.

"The failure of defendants to properly account for the disabling
impact of complex trauma results in students with the greatest
needs and vulnerabilities being effectively denied access to
education," the lawsuit states.

Trauma-sensitive practices are being used in schools in Washington
state, Massachusetts, and parts of San Francisco, according to the
lawsuit.  Research shows that students who received trauma
intervention earned higher grades and suffered fewer behavioral
problems than children who did not, and that suspension rates at
schools with trauma-informed practices frequently drop sharply,
according to the complaint.

Officials with Compton Unified did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Settles SEC Fraud Charges for $190 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy Gordon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Computer Sciences Corp. is paying a $190 million penalty and a
former CEO is returning $3.7 million in compensation to resolve
federal regulators' charges of accounting fraud involving an
important foreign contract.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the settlement on
June 5 with the big information technology company. Computer
Sciences, based in Falls Church, Virginia, neither admitted nor
denied wrongdoing in the settlement of civil charges.

The SEC also brought charges against eight former finance
executives in the company's international businesses.  Five of the
executives, including former CEO Michael Laphen, agreed to settle
the charges; the other three are contesting them in federal court
in Manhattan.

The SEC recovered the $3.7 million from Mr. Laphen for the company
in a so-called "clawback," under a 2002 anti-fraud law that
requires senior executives to repay bonuses and stock profits they
received during a period in which their company violated financial
reporting rules.  Mr. Laphen also is paying a $750,000 penalty.
Former Chief Financial Officer Michael Mancuso is returning
$369,100 in compensation in a clawback and is paying a $175,000
penalty.  Mr. Laphen and Mr. Mancuso and the other three
executives agreeing to settlements neither admitted nor denied the
SEC's allegations.

The SEC said Computer Sciences and the executives improperly
inflated financial results in 2010 and 2011, and concealed the
company's losses on a multibillion-dollar contract with Britain's
National Health Service.

The company said it was pleased to settle the case.  "Putting this
matter behind us is in the best interest of CSC, our stakeholders
and our ongoing business transformation," spokesman
Richard Adamonis said in a statement.

Computer Sciences changed its executive leadership in 2012,
revised the affected financial statements and has made major
improvements to its programs for internal financial controls,
compliance and disclosure, Mr. Adamonis said.

The company agreed in the settlement to hire an independent
consultant to review its ethics and compliance programs.

"When companies face significant difficulties impacting their
businesses, they and their top executives must truthfully disclose
this information to investors," SEC Enforcement Director
Andrew Ceresney said in a statement.

The SEC said it also found that Computer Sciences executives in
Australia and Denmark manipulated the financial results of company
businesses in those regions.


CRST EXPEDITED: Sued by Female Truck Drivers Over Rape Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
female long-haul truck drivers must carry weapons to fend off
sexual assaults by co-drivers because CRST Expedited trucking
ignores their complaints, women claim in a federal class action.

Lead plaintiffs Cathy Sellars, Claudia Lopez and Leslie Fortune
sued CRST Expedited in Federal Court on May 18, in a lengthy
complaint alleging discrimination and retaliation.

Sexual assaults of female CRST drivers are so pervasive that
others in the trucking industry joke that the acronym, which
stands for Cedar Rapids Steel Transport, also stands for
"Constantly Raping Student Truckers," according to the lawsuit.

The women's attorney Joshua Friedman told Courthouse News that
CRST has been ignoring complaints of sexual harassment for more
than a decade.

"There have been allegations of rapes, sexual assaults, and
assaults with weapons.  Many women say they have taken to carrying
knives and Tasers to defend themselves," Friedman said in an
interview.

"Our client Leslie Fortune had to sleep with knives under her
pillow and refer to them to get her co-driver to leave her alone.
Another client had to have a screwdriver," co-counsel Giselle
Schuetz added on the conference call.

The attorneys said CRST's response to the allegations is "really
beyond troubling."

Based in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, CRST Expedited is a subsidiary of
CRTS International.

The plaintiffs say male drivers constantly make offensive sexual
remarks to female drivers, comment on their bodies, proposition
them for sex and sexually assault them -- and CRST does nothing to
stop it.

As a result, women "have to fend off or worry about rape by their
trainer, while enduring express threats of being failed, while
being objectified and told to perform sex acts," according to the
74-page complaint.

Training costs thousands of dollars, but CRST will forgive the
debt if a trainee signs an eight-month contract to drive for the
company.  If she is sexually assaulted during training or before
her contract ends, she must endure the abuse for the sake of her
job, report it to deaf ears, or quit and have to repay her
training costs, according to the complaint.

"When female drivers refuse to have sex with them, male drivers
retaliate, including but not limited to by kidnapping them,
kicking them off shared trucks, making false reports of
misconduct, threatening them with weapons, beating them or
threatening beatings, spreading rumors they are prostitutes,
preventing them from contacting CRST for assistance, and refusing
to assist them with work-related tasks," the complaint states.

The women say CRST gives lip service to their complaints and
deliberately conducts inadequate, biased investigations that find
nothing happened -- so the women have been forced to carry
weapons.

CRST does not discipline men accused of harassment or sexual
assault, according to the complaint.  It merely classifies them as
"no females," an appealable designation forbidding them from
driving with a woman for six months.

But women who make complaints are forced to leave the truck even
if they were driving it first, and have to wait without pay until
someone from the company comes to pick them up, which can take as
long as a week, the complaint states.

Friedman called CRST's no-females policy "astounding."

"It's a matter of logic. If you don't make factual findings on
sexual assault allegations, what is the basis for a trainer's
ability to appeal?" he asked.

Attorney Schuetz said their clients were never told which men were
on the no-females list, or if the men were ever disciplined for
harassing them.

But CRST gives the names of women who complain about harassment to
the entire pool of drivers, including the men they complained
about, the complaint states.

The EEOC filed a similar class action in 2007 alleging that CRST's
chronic pattern of ignoring female drivers' complaints stretches
back to at least 1999, but the court dismissed the case after the
8th Circuit found the EEOC had not fulfilled its conciliation
duties before filing suit.

Schuetz and Friedman said that case will not affect the new one
because they are based on different legal theories.

"We don't see any legitimate basis to bring that court's legal
conclusions to bat here," Friedman said.  "The defense counsel
will very likely try, but based on our analysis it should become a
red herring and fail."

The attorneys said that reading the women's depositions from the
EEOC's case partly inspired their own.

"Once we started reading the depositions, we thought, 'Why is
there any reason to believe this is not happening?' Our clients
had similar stories.  We concluded that we had a moral, ethical
obligation to stop it," Friedman said.

Though the other women's experiences may be time-barred, what
happened to them can be brought in as evidence, the attorneys
said.

Defendant's attorney Paul Mata said CRST takes the plaintiffs'
allegations seriously.

"To ensure a safe work environment, the company has a strict
policy against discrimination, retaliation and sexual harassment.
Within the last year, Ms. Sellars filed a complaint with the
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing contesting
these identical policies and practices.  After a thorough
investigation, the DFEH found no evidence to support these claims
and dismissed her case," Mata wrote in an e-mail.

"CRST is confident the result will be the same in the underlying
claims alleged by plaintiffs in this matter."

Mata is with Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, of Los Angeles.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, an injunction, back pay,
front pay, and general, special, and punitive damages for sexual
discrimination, retaliation and constructive discharge, plus costs
and fees.

Schuetz and Friedman, of Mamaroneck, N.Y., and have applied to be
admitted pro hac vice.  Their co-counsel is Chris M. Heikaus
Weaver with Aitken, Campbell, Heaikus Weaver of Riverside.

Paul Mata is with Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith of Los Angeles.

Plaintiff Cathy Sellers claims one of her trainers made comments
about her butt, masturbated on the bed where they were watching a
movie pulled her shirt off while she was sleeping.  She says she
called Human Resources, which took her off the truck while her co-
driver got to keep driving and earning money.  She claims that
another trainer shoved her into the passenger seat when she called
dispatch to complain about him and drove off while holding her at
knifepoint.

Plaintiff Claudia Lopez claims that a trainer told her he would
"rape her and marry her and taker her with [him]" when he got back
from his road training.

On another occasion, Lopez says, she awoke to find her co-driver
naked and on top of her.  Grabbing the screwdriver she kept under
her pillow, she freed herself from the truck and called a CRST
shuttle driver, but was reluctant to call Human Resources because
she needed the money from driving, Lopez says in the complaint.

Plaintiff Leslie Fortune claims several of her trainers
propositioned her for sex.  When she refused the advances of one
of them, she says, he kicked her off his truck and spread rumors
that she was a "lot lizard," trucker slang for prostitute, and
later yelled at her when he found out she filed a complaint
against him.

After she reported one trainer named threatening to rape her, she
learned he had been promoted to classroom trainer, and another
trainer did not stop badgering her for sex until she told him she
kept knives under her pillow, Fortune says.


CYAN INC: Being Sold for Too Little to Ciena Corp., Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling Cyan
too cheaply through an unfair process to Ciena Corp., in a 0.224-
for-1 stock swap valued at $400 million, shareholders claim in
Delaware Chancery Court.


DART CHEROKEE: Evidentiary Proof Not Needed, High Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence S. Elbaum and Tracy L. Silver, writing for The National
Law Review, reported that in the Supreme Court decision in Owens
v. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., the Court held that class
action defendants need not provide evidentiary submissions in
support of their notice of removal of a case from state to federal
court. Rather, they need only include in their notices a
"plausible allegation" that the amount in controversy exceeds the
$5 million jurisdictional threshold set forth in the Class Action
Fairness Act ("CAFA").

In so holding, the majority relied on the wording of the removal
statute itself, which merely requires a "short and plain
statement" setting forth a good-faith basis supporting removal.
The Court's decision thus set forth for corporate class action
defendants the minimum requirements their notices of removal must
contain. The Court, however, neither held nor addressed whether a
"plausible allegation" will sustain the removing defendants'
evidentiary burden of proof where the class action plaintiffs
contest whether the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

Since Owens, class action plaintiffs have challenged, with some
success, defendants' "plausible allegations" concerning CAFA's
amount in controversy requirement.   These challenges require
class action defendants to submit evidence demonstrating, under a
preponderance of the evidence standard, that the amount in
controversy threshold has been satisfied. For example:

   * McDannel v. Precision Pipeline, LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
46535, No. 5:15CV4 (N.D. W. Va., Apr. 9, 2015) Granting motion to
remand where defendant "speculated" that amount in controversy
would likely be satisfied if plaintiff obtained the damages sought
in the complaint;

   * McPhail v. Lyft, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31467, No. A-14-
CA-829-LY (W.D. Tex., Mar. 13, 2015) In recommending to grant
motion to remand, Magistrate Judge stated that "to suggest that
the Supreme Court's decision in Dart clarified the procedure to
follow when there is a dispute about the amount in controversy in
a removed case completely misunderstands the decision.";

   * Dudley v. Eli Lilly & Co., 778 F.3d 909 (11th Cir. 2014)
District court did not clearly err in finding that employer failed
to show CAFA's amount in controversy requirement had been met,
because employer failed to establish by a preponderance of the
evidence amount of compensation allegedly denied to class members;
and

   * Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193 (9th Cir. 2015)
Vacating district court's remand order because neither party
submitted proof regarding amount in controversy and complaint did
not include facially apparent amount.

The Court's holding in Owens has thus far had little, if any,
impact on class action removal jurisprudence under CAFA. As a
practical matter, class action defendants should be prepared to
provide evidentiary proof that they can satisfy CAFA's $5 million
removal threshold. Class action defendants should also take this
evidentiary burden into consideration when preparing notices of
removal.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Sued By Traditional Taxicab Drivers
---------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Bash, writing for WTOP.com, reported that drivers of
traditional taxicabs are suing the District of Columbia, claiming
services like Uber and Lyft have an unfair advantage in the city.

The class action lawsuit says a bill approved monto regulate newer
taxi services in D.C. created an "irrational, two-tired regulatory
system that unconstitutionally harms the economic and property
interests" of the plaintiffs and other taxi drivers like them.  It
says traditional cabbies are heavily regulated and have to pay
thousands of dollars to comply with those regulations, but
smartphone app-based companies like Uber are allowed to offer the
same services with fewer restrictions and costs.

When DC's rules were first approved, Uber praised the city,
calling it a trailblazer in the transportation industry.
The class action lawsuit was filed by six taxi drivers and a group
they belong to -- the Washington D.C. Metro Area Taxi Operators
Association.


DOLLAR TREE: To Pay $300,000 to Settle Workers' Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Daugherty, writing for The Virginian-Pilot, reported that
Dollar Tree wants to pay $300,000 to more than 4,200 current and
former employees to settle a class action lawsuit claiming the
Chesapeake-based retailer failed to compensate them for routine
"off the clock" work.

The employees' attorneys? They would receive $1.9 million.

Attorneys representing Dollar Tree -- which maintains it did
nothing wrong -- and the employees declined to comment on the
proposed settlement.

A hearing is set for in U.S. District Court in Norfolk. Judge
Raymond Jackson is expected to review the proposal to determine
whether it is fair.

Charles Craver, a professor who specializes in employment law at
George Washington University's law school, said attorneys who
handle class action lawsuits often walk away with large paychecks.
"That's not unusual at all," Craver said. "A class action lawsuit
is a very, very big way to make money for an attorney."

Class action lawsuits involve a large number of people with
similar experiences dealing with an organization that they say did
them wrong. They usually help people whose cases, on their own,
garner too little money to make them worth the cost or effort to
push through the legal system.

In the Dollar Tree lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed they were
required to work during their lunch breaks and after their shifts
had ended -- between 30 and 45 minutes each day.

Court documents indicated about 270,000 current and former workers
could have qualified for the lawsuit, which named the nation's
largest operator of stores selling everything for $1 as a
defendant. It initially estimated the damages at more than $5
million in unpaid compensation since 2009.

In 2012, Jackson dismissed part of the lawsuit involving assistant
store managers, but he allowed an "opt-in collective action" on
behalf of hourly sales associates. The workers in this case
technically constitute a "collective," rather than a class, which
means they had to choose to join the suit.

The judge denied an attempt by Dollar Tree to break up the
collective, concluding that the workers all had similar job duties
and supervision.

According to court documents, attorneys hammered out the
settlement agreement on March 2, during a meeting with Magistrate
Judge Lawrence Leonard. It was requested by the employees'
attorneys and was the second such settlement conference to be
supervised by Leonard.

Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs will receive checks
between $10 and $3,142, documents said.

Employee attorneys are in the process of notifying their clients
of the settlement and their rights. If a plaintiff wants, he can
forfeit his portion of the settlement, hire a new attorney and
file a separate lawsuit, according to a copy of the notice.

The employee attorneys justified the settlement in court documents
by noting that the number of plaintiffs had dwindled over time
from more than 6,000 to 4,209. They also noted that Dollar Tree
was poised to have nearly 3,700 more plaintiffs kicked out of the
suit on a motion for summary judgment.

"A settlement of $300,000.00 provides significant relief to the
remaining collective," the employees' attorneys wrote.

The lawyers went on to argue the $1.9 million in attorney fees was
a bargain "due to the size, scope and highly contested nature of
the litigation." The 11 lawyers, along with clerks and paralegals,
said they spent more than 11,000 hours on the case. They estimated
the final cost at more than $3.4 million.

Craver, the professor, said he found it "kind of amazing" how much
the plaintiffs' attorneys will receive under the settlement given
how little their clients will get. He noted that the judge could
reduce the attorney fees and even reallocate some of those funds
to the clients.

"It depends on the judge," Craver said.

Under the agreement, however, the plaintiffs can back out of the
settlement if Jackson tries to reduce the attorney fees.


EBAY INC: Court Dismisses Data Breach Class Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
King & Spalding, in an article for JDSupra, reported that on May
4, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana held that a putative class plaintiff lacked standing to
pursue claims against eBay Inc. ("eBay") arising out of a data
breach that occurred in February and March 2014.

In dismissing the putative class action, the court found that the
increased risk of future identity theft or identity fraud posed by
a data security breach did not confer Article III standing on
individuals whose information was compromised by the data breach
but had not yet been misused.

Following the 2014 data breach, plaintiff Collin Green filed a 10-
count consumer privacy putative class action against eBay on
behalf of himself and all eBay users in the United States whose
personal information was accessed during the data breach.  The
plaintiff alleged that as a result of the data breach,  users'
names, encrypted passwords, dates of birth, email addresses,
physical addresses, and phone numbers were compromised, but there
was no indication that any financial information was accessed or
stolen.

eBay moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Green, the sole
named plaintiff, had failed to allege a cognizable injury in fact
and thus lacked Article III standing to pursue the case against
it.  Green, on the other hand, argued that the class action
complaint sufficiently alleged injury-in-fact because the
plaintiff and the putative class members were "now subject to the
'statistically certain threat' of identity theft or identify
fraud, and they have incurred, or will incur, costs to mitigate
that risk."

To show standing pursuant to Article III of the Constitution, a
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing injury in fact,
causation, and redressability. The injury alleged must be
"concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent."  For a
threatened injury to be sufficient to confer Article III standing,
it must be "certainly impending."  In this case, the court found
that the plaintiff failed to allege facts showing that he has
suffered an actual or imminent injury.

First, according to the court, the mere fact that the plaintiff's
information was accessed during the data breach is insufficient to
establish injury in fact. Second, despite alleging that all
members of the putative class had suffered actual identity theft,
the court found that plaintiff's "true argument" was that class
members suffered an increased risk of future identity theft or
identity fraud.  However, plaintiff failed to allege sufficient
facts showing that the alleged future injury was certainly
impending, especially in light of the fact that there was no
evidence that any financial information or Social Security numbers
were accessed during the data breach.  Third, mitigation expenses
do not qualify as an injury in fact when the alleged harm is not
imminent.


ENTERPRISE LEASING: To Pay $22.7MM to Settle Concession Fees Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that Enterprise and
Vanguard rental cars must pay $22.7 million to settle a class
action over airport recovery concession fees in Nevada.

U.S. District Judge Larry Hicks on May 15 ordered the two
companies to pay $19.3 million to 1,276,448 class members who sued
when the firms did not include airport recovery concession fees in
the advertised cost for rental cars.

Class members can choose vouchers for free car rentals instead of
cash.  If all class members accept vouchers instead of cash, the
value of the settlement would be $70 million, Hicks wrote.  Hicks
said one reason he approved the settlement was because "class
counsel has been involved in this case for nearly nine years" and
Enterprise and Vanguard said they would appeal if the settlement
were not approved.

If appealed, Hicks said, the plaintiffs "predicted that this
litigation would be 'dragged on in the 9th Circuit for several
more years without the class receiving the immediate and
substantial benefit of the settlement' and potentially without
recovering at all."

Nevada airports require rental car companies to pay a percentage
of their gross revenue as concession fees, which the rental
companies pass on to consumers as "airport recovery concession
fees."

The fees were not included in the rental car rate quotes but were
itemized afterward.

Lead plaintiffs Lydia Lee and Carolyn Bissonette sued in June
2010, accusing Enterprise and Vanguard of violating Nevada law.

The court approved the preliminary settlement on Dec. 12, 2014.

Vouchers will be good for two years after issuance and can be used
by anyone in a class member's family.

Class members will receive one to five rental vouchers, based on
how much they paid in airport concession recovery fees.

Anyone who paid less than $20 in fees is eligible for a single
voucher, while those who paid at least $20 but less than $40 will
be eligible for two vouchers.

Class members who paid at least $40 but less than $60 qualify for
three vouchers, and those who paid between $60 and $80 are
eligible for four vouchers.  Anyone who paid $80 or more qualifies
for five vouchers.

The vouchers are good nationwide, with those from Enterprise being
good for Enterprise locations and those from Vanguard being good
at Alamo and National rental car locations.

Enterprise and Vanguard agreed to pay $2.5 million in attorney's
fees and $96,913.43 in legal costs.  When added to $804,229.95 in
costs Enterprise and Vanguard must spend for serving notice to
class members, the total potential cash settlement amount is
$22,745,907.36.

Officials for Enterprise and Vanguard could not be reached for
comment May 18, nor could class attorney G. David Robertson.

The class is represented by:

          G. David Robertson, Esq.
          ROBERTSON, JOHNSON, MILLER & WILLIAMSON
          50 West Liberty Street, Suite 600
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 329-5600
          Facsimile: (775) 348-8300
          E-mail: gdavid@nvlawyers.com


ETSY INC: July 13 Deadline to File Lead Plaintiff Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until July 13, 2015, to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Etsy, Inc. if they purchased the Company's securities
between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Etsy and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by July 13, 2015.

About the Lawsuit

Etsy and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

These false statements and omissions included, in part, that: (i)
more than 5% of all merchandise for sale on Etsy's website were
counterfeit or constituted trademark or copyright infringement;
and (ii) brands are increasingly pursuing sellers on Etsy's
platform for trademark or copyright infringement, jeopardizing the
Company's listing fees and commissions.

After the lawsuit was filed, on May 19, 2015, Etsy reported its
first quarter financial results, revealing that it suffered a net
loss of 84 cents per share, when analysts had expected the Company
to break even. On this news, the price of Etsy's shares plummeted.

The firm may be reached at:

         KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC
         206 Covington Street
         Madisonville, LA 7044
         Tel: (504) 455-1400


ETSY INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Gainey McKenna
-------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Etsy, Inc. ("Etsy" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ETSY)
securities between April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015, inclusive
("Class Period").

The Complaint alleges the Company and its top executives misled
investors by failing to disclose the risks associated with the
Company's widespread sale of counterfeit goods, and/or goods that
infringed on intellectual property rights. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that Defendants misstated and/or failed to
disclose that: (a) over 5% of all merchandise for sale on Etsy's
website were either counterfeit or constituted trademark or
copyright infringement; (b) brands are increasingly pursing
sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or copyright
infringement, jeopardizing Etsy's listing fees and commissions;
and (c) as a result, Etsy's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

When the truth entered the market, Etsy shares fell $1.86 per
share on heavy trading volume to close at $20.85 per share on May
11, 2015.  The Company's shares have declined further on news of
Etsy's poor quarterly results, and that a major intellectual
property rights holder has sued the Company for infringement.  On
May 20, 2015, the Company's shares closed at $17.20, a nearly
$14.00 per share decline from the Company's recent high of $31.00
on April 16, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 13, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more
information about the firm.


ETSY INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announced that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Etsy, Inc. ("Etsy" or the
"Company").

The class action, filed in United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased Etsy securities between
April 16, 2015 and May 10, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Wolf Haldenstein encourages all shareholders who suffered losses
on common stock purchased within the Class Period to contact us
immediately atclassmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735.

Etsy operates online and offline marketplaces to buy and sell
handmade items, vintage goods, and craft supplies. The Complaint
alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically,
defendant failed to disclose that more than 5% of all merchandise
for sale on Etsy's website were either counterfeit or constituted
trademark or copyright infringement and that Brands are
increasingly pursuing sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or
copyright infringement.

On May 11, 2015, before the market opened for trading, Gil Luria,
an equity analyst at Wedbush Securities, issued a note downgrading
Etsy to "Underperform."  In the note, Luria alleged that more than
5% of merchandise sold on Etsy's platform were either counterfeit
or violated trademark protections.

Following this news, shares of Etsy fell $1.86, or over 8%, on
unusually heavy volume, to close at $20.85 on May 11, 2015.
Subsequent to the end of the class period, after the close on May
19, 2015, Etsy reported earnings for the first time as a publicly
traded company. Reported earnings for the first quarter were below
expectations as growth in "Growth Merchandise Sales (GMS)"
declined substantially. In the after-hours market after the
release of earnings, shares of Etsy were materially lower at
$17.00 per share, down $4.00 from the day's close.

If you purchased Etsy securities during the Class Period, you may,
no later than July 13, 2015, request that the Court appoint you
lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has over 70 attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in
New York, Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of
this firm in shareholder and other class litigation has been
repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to
major positions in complex securities multi-district and
consolidated litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail atclassmember@whafh.com, or visit our website
at www.whafh.com.  All e-mail correspondence should make reference
to the "Etsy Investigation."

The firm may be reached at:

          Patrick Donovan, Esq.
          Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 100161
          Tel: (800) 575-0735
          Fax: (213) 330-7152
          Email: donovan@whafh.com


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: To Pay $2.1MM to Settle Software Glitch Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bar exam software provider Examsoft Worldwide Inc. will pay $2.1
million to settle class-action claims a glitch in its technology
caused scores of prospective lawyers to fail the multiday test
last year, reports Dan McCue at Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Ursula Ungaro gave her preliminary approval to
the proposed settlement on May 12.  A hearing on the agreement's
final approval has been scheduled for Oct. 9, 2015.

A problem with the exam was evident almost immediately last summer
as scores of law graduates complained they were unable to file
their completed first-day tests on the July 2014 bar exam.
electronically.  Examsoft said at the time that the problem was a
processing issues, and that the integrity of the exam had not been
effected.  But the glitch appeared to lead to a marked declined
both in the number of people who passed the test and the grades of
those that did -- leading initially to a debate over the quality
of legal education and even the students themselves.

Several lawsuits followed and were ultimately combined into the
class action.  As previously reported by Courthouse News, the
first day of the exam, July 29, consisted of a series of essay
questions that take approximately six hours.  To type the essays
with a computer, rather than writing them longhand, test takers
paid a fee ranging from $100 to $150 fee for ExamSoft's test-
taking software.  The software allowed test-takers to use their
own laptops by turning off all other features of the computer,
such as the ability to access notes or use the Internet.  At the
end of the testing period, it required test takers to upload their
essays to a server without any further changes.

But "ExamSoft was inexplicably unprepared for the volume of bar
exams being uploaded to its servers following the first day of the
July 2014 test," according to a typical complaint, filed in Cook
County, Illinois in August 2014.

"As a result, it could not confirm that test-takers' typed exams
had been properly and timely submitted.  This on the eve of the
second day of the bar exam (the multistate exam).  Instead of
relaxing, doing a last minute review, or going to bed early, many
bar applicants were stuck dealing with ExamSoft's technical glitch
on the night before the second day of the most important exam of
their lives," the lawsuit stated.

Many people who tried to upload their exam were met with the error
message, "Attention! Your answer file(s) did not upload," and
spent the whole night frantically trying to contact ExamSoft's
customer service, only to be met with a busy signal, the court
documents said.

Many of those who sued the company sought refunds of the fees they
paid for the software. Under the proposed settlement, members of
the class should receive a refund of about $90.

The Class is represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: Jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jay P. Letkowitz, Esq.
          Joseph Serino Jr., Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 446-4970
          Facsimile: (212) 446-4900
          E-mail: lefkowitz@kirkland.com
                  joseph.serino@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Kristin Sheffeld-Whitehead, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1420
          Facsimile: (415) 439-1500
          E-mail: kristin.sheffield-whitehead@kirkland.com

The case is Amanda West, et al. v. Examsoft Worldwide Inc., Case
No. 1:14-cv-22950-UU, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.


EXELON CORPORATION: ComEd in Process of Obtaining Settlement Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Commonwealth Edison
Company and the plaintiff are in process of obtaining the approval
of the court and the class of customers represented in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action lawsuit.

On November 19, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a single individual and
a presumptive class that would include all customers that ComEd
enrolled in its Outage Alert text message program. The complaint
alleges that ComEd violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) by sending approximately 1.2 million text messages to
customers without first obtaining their consent to receive such
messages. The complaint seeks certification of a class along with
statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and an order prohibiting ComEd
from sending additional text messages. Such statutory damages
could range from $500 to $1,500 per text. In February 2014, ComEd
filed a motion to dismiss this class action complaint, which was
denied in June 2014.

On February 19, 2015, ComEd and the plaintiff agreed in principle
to settle the suit for $5 million, which ComEd has recorded as a
liability as of March 31, 2015. The parties are in process of
obtaining the approval of the court and the class of customers
represented in the suit. As ComEd is unable to predict the
ultimate outcome of this proceeding, actual damages may differ
from the estimated amount recorded, which may be material to
ComEd's results of operations, cash flows, and financial position.


EXPERIAN SERVICES: Accused of Scheming With Info Bounty Hunter
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Experian schemed with a "consumer bounty hunter" to sell financial
records to a banned debt relief servicer, devastating people's
credit scores, a class claims in Federal Court.

Sue Rodriguez and 12 other named plaintiffs sued Experian Services
Corp. and two affiliates, CPL Holdings dba Core Digital Media,
LowerMyBills.com and three people, including a former Experian
attorney, on May 13.

LowerMyBills.com, a marketing lead generator, "lured, wrangled and
captured" consumers' personal and financial information and sold
and traded it to third parties, Rodriguez claims.

In exchange for "bounty" payments, the parties agreed to share
additional customer information with LowerMyBills, according to
the 41-page lawsuit.

From 2007 to 2012, LowerMyBills and the defendants used Experian's
position in the consumer credit industry, coupled with promises to
help consumers erase their debts, to induce consumers to provide
Experian with their personal financial information and to trust
the companies to unite them with an "approved debt relief
partner," the class claims.

Credit Alliance Group, of Dallas, acted as a partner from 2007 to
2013 though the company was legally prohibited from engaging in
debt relief services, the class claims.

The class claims the defendants sold thousands of consumers'
personal and financial information to Credit Alliance Group (CAG)
in exchange for information about CAG's customers.

CAG promised to hold customers' funds in trust and use it to
negotiate debt settlements, the class claims, "at pennies on the
dollar."

Thousands of consumers allegedly drew money from their retirement
accounts despite early withdrawal penalties to resolve their debts
and improve credit scores with Experian.

But CAG's president and CEO failed to place the money in trust
accounts and commingled and used the money for personal expenses,
the class claims.

After CAG filed for bankruptcy in 2013, it was revealed that the
entire business and partnership was a "sham" and that thousands of
consumers lost millions of dollars of personal savings and
retirement funds, the lawsuit states.

"At present, the Experian defendants continued to fail to disclose
to CAG's customer victims the exact nature of the role Experian
played in the CAG scheme and have made no effort to disclose or
repair the harms to hundreds and thousands of honest, hard-working
Americans whose life savings and credit scores ('with Experian')
have been devastated as a result," class claims.

"In some circumstances these defendants appear to continue to
attempt to shield and hide their deceptive trade practice schemes
by spuriously claiming that such fraudulent acts are protected
industry trade secrets."

In response to consumers' complaints, the class claims, the
defendants said they have "no control" over third-party partners'
use of the personal information.

CAG is not listed as a party to the complaint.

An Experian subsidiary in 2013 separately sold "hundreds of
thousands" of consumers' names, Social Security numbers and other
"sensitive" personal information to third parties in Vietnam tied
to identity theft, the class claims.

The proposed class, estimated at more than 100 members, seeks
punitive damages and restitution for violation of the California
Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, false advertising and intentional
misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Schwaba, Esq.
          Edward Nicholas, Esq.
          SCHWABA LAW FIRM
          212 South Tryon Street, Suite 1725
          Charlotte, NC 28281
          Telephone: (704) 370-0220

               - and -

          R. Kevin Fisher, Esq.
          Los Angeles, CA


EXXON: Public Comment Period on $225MM Settlement Ends
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Catalini, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
New Jersey residents are one step closer to finding out whether a
court will accept a $225 million settlement proposed by Republican
Gov. Chris Christie and his administration in a lawsuit to hold
ExxonMobil responsible for environmental damage in the state.

June 5 marked the end of a 60-day public comment period on the
proposed settlement with Exxon over pollution at two petroleum
treatment centers in northern New Jersey, 16 other Exxon
facilities and the company's retail gas stations across the state.

The proposal has touched off a public feud between the Christie
administration and Democrats, who control the Legislature and say
the governor should have bargained for more money in damages.
Democrats are urging the court to reject the settlement and set
damages at roughly $2.5 billion.

The state Department of Environmental Protection said about 8,800
comments have been filed. Department spokesman Larry Hajna said
the high number includes many form letters and emails.

In litigation going back to 2004, the state argued that ExxonMobil
contaminated land at two sites in Bayonne and Linden.  The court
agreed the company was liable, and the question before Superior
Court Judge Michael Hogan earlier this year was how much Exxon
owed the state.  The state filed paperwork with the court claiming
nearly $9 billion in damages.

But before the judge ruled, the Christie administration and the
Irving, Texas-based corporation announced the proposed settlement,
angering Democrats who said the state was accepting pennies on the
dollar.

The Christie administration pushed back, saying that the
settlement figure would make it among the largest in the state's
history and that the nearly $9 billion figure would have led to an
appeal and delayed any payout to the state.  In addition, the
administration argues, Exxon is still required to pay for cleaning
up the sites.

Just how much cleanup will cost Exxon is not clear. Current law
requires the first $50 million of the settlement amount to go
toward cleanup.

Democratic state Sen. Ray Lesniak says the proposed $2.5 billion
in damages is a "very solid" figure but the $5.4 billion in
compensatory damages mentioned in court documents -- and
constituting the remainder of the nearly $9 billion -- is "less
precise."

In his public comment filed with the department, Senate President
Steve Sweeney rebukes the administration and takes issue with the
inclusion of gas stations and the 16 other sites.

"The Senate vehemently opposes ratification of the consent
judgment as there is no verifiable rationale offered for the
inclusion of the 16 additional Exxon sites and the approximately
1,700 retail service stations," he said.

The department will review the public comments and prepare a
response.  The agency will then determine if any information from
the comments would require reconsideration of the settlement
proposal.  If not, it will be sent to the judge for final
approval.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Limits Namenda IR Availability, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington Drug Company, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Forest Laboratories, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-04152-UA (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy to limit and restrain the availability of generic
versions of Memantine Hydrochloride (Namenda IR) and fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize the price at which direct purchasers would
pay for Namenda or its AB-rated generic equivalents at supra-
competitive levels.

Forest Laboratories, LLC is a Delaware corporation that is engaged
in the development, marketing, and distribution of branded
pharmaceutical products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Gerstein, Esq.
      Joseph Opper, Esq.
      Noah Silverman, Esq.
      GARWIN GERSTEIN & FISHER LLP
      88 Pine Street, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 398-0055
      Facsimile: (212) 764-6620
      E-mail: bgerstein@garwingerstein.com
              jopper@garwingerstein.com
              nsilverman@garwingerstein.com

         - and -

      David C. Raphael Jr., Esq.
      Erin R. Leger, Esq.
      SMITH SEGURA & RAPHAEL, LLP
      3600 Jackson Street, Suite 111
      Alexandria, LA 71303
      Telephone: (318) 445-4480
      Facsimile: (318)487-1741
      E-mail: draphael@ssrllp.com


FORMFACTOR INC: No Motion to Certify Class in Ex-Employee's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that no motion to certify a
class has been brought in the lawsuit by a former employee.

In August 2013, a former employee ("Plaintiff") filed a class
action lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of
California, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws
and unfair business practices on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees at the Company's
Livermore facilities from August 21, 2009 to the present. In
February 2014, the Court granted the Company's motion to strike
portions of Plaintiff's first amended complaint, clarifying the
scope of the putative class. A second amended complaint was filed.
The parties participated in a mediation during the third quarter
of fiscal 2014, which did not result in a settlement.

Procedurally, the case is still in the early stages of litigation.
No motion to certify a class has been brought and no defined class
has been certified. The Company currently believes that any
settlement reached would be in an amount that is not material to
the Company's financial statements.

The Company denies the allegations contained in the lawsuit and,
based on available information, believes it has significant
defenses to the allegations of the lawsuit. If the matter is not
settled, the Company could incur material attorneys' fees in
defending the lawsuit.


FOUR BLR: "Blanco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Blanco v. Four BLR Doors, Corp., Israel La Red, M & A
Windows, Inc. and Jonathan R. Pipping, Case No. 1:15-cv-22050-UU
(S.D. Fla., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of selling windows, doors, and
storefronts in Broward 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


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: Sued for Not Paying Mgmt. Trainees' Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fry's Electronics stiffs
sales associates and management trainees for overtime, a class
action claims in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Contra Costa.


GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Andrea Katz Case
--------------------------------------------------
Garmin Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 28, 2015, that no class has been certified at
this time in the case, Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, v. Garmin Ltd. and Garmin
International, Inc.

On December 18, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Garmin International, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  The lead
plaintiff was Andrea Katz, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated.  The class of plaintiffs that Andrea Katz
purported to represent includes all individuals who purchased any
model of Forerunner watch in the State of Illinois and the United
States. Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranties, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Illinois statutory
law. Plaintiff alleged that Forerunner watch bands have an
unacceptable rate of failure in that they detach from the watch.
Plaintiff sought compensatory and punitive damages, prejudgment
interest, costs, and attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief. On
January 29, 2014 the court dismissed the lawsuit without
prejudice. On January 30, 2014, the plaintiff re-filed the lawsuit
with the same claims for relief as the earlier action and adding
an additional claim for unjust enrichment.  On February 4, 2014,
the court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Utah.  The plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the case filed in Illinois and, on March 6,
2014, she refiled the lawsuit in the District Court for the
District of Utah with the same claims, but with additional claims
for violations of the Utah Consumers Sales Practice Act, Lanham
Act, and Utah Truth in Advertising Act.  The relief she requested
is the same.  On March 31, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to transfer
the venue of the Utah action back to the Northern District of
Illinois.  On October 21, 2014, the United States District Court
for the District of Utah denied Garmin's motion to transfer venue.

On December 26, 2014, Garmin filed a motion to dismiss certain
counts of the complaint. On April 16, 2015, the court granted
Garmin's motion in part and dismissed with prejudice (1) Mr.
Katz's (but not Mrs. Katz's) claim for breach of the implied
warranty of merchantability, (2) the plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim,
(3) the plaintiffs' negligence claim and (4) the plaintiffs'
negligent misrepresentation claim. No class has been certified at
this time.

Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of
this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our
operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this action.


GARMIN LTD: No Class Certified in Brian Meyers Case
---------------------------------------------------
Garmin Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 28, 2015, that no class has been certified at
this time in the case, Brian Meyers, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, v. Garmin International, Inc. Garmin
USA, Inc. and Garmin Ltd.

On August 13, 2013, Brian Meyers filed a putative class action
complaint against Garmin International, Inc., Garmin USA, Inc. and
Garmin Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District
of Kansas. Meyers alleges that lithium-ion batteries in certain
Garmin products are defective and alleges violations of the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act, breach of an implied warranty of
merchantability, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, breach of
express warranty and also requests declaratory relief that the
batteries are defective and must be covered by Garmin's
warranties. The complaint seeks an order for class certification,
a declaration that the batteries are defective, an order of
injunctive relief, payment of damages in an unspecified amount on
behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of certain Garmin
products, and an award of attorneys' fees. On September 18, 2013
the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Garmin Ltd. as a defendant
without prejudice. On October 18, 2013 the plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint. On November 1, 2013 the remaining
Garmin defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the
complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief can be
granted. On January 24, 2014, the Court granted the motion to
dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing the count for
declaratory relief and the prayer for a declaration that the
batteries are defective, but allowing the case to proceed on other
substantive counts.

On March 17, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
a second amended complaint. On April 7, 2015, Garmin filed an
opposition to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint.  No class has been certified at this time.

Although there can be no assurance that an unfavorable outcome of
this litigation would not have a material adverse effect on our
operating results, liquidity, or financial position, Garmin
believes that the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend this action.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Heard Argument on Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has heard
argument on the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint filed by
the City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System.

In August 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its current chief
executive officer and its current chief financial officer were
named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned Manuel Esguerra
v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff alleged
securities law violations involving certain disclosures in 2013
and 2014 concerning Genworth's long-term care insurance reserves.
The lawsuit sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees. In October 2014,
a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Pontiac General
Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia. This lawsuit names the same defendants,
alleges the same securities law violations, seeks the same damages
and covers the same class as the Esguerra lawsuit. Following the
filing of the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the Esguerra lawsuit was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice allowing the City of
Pontiac lawsuit to proceed.

In the City of Pontiac lawsuit, the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia appointed Her Majesty the
Queen in Right of Alberta and Fresno County Employees' Retirement
Association as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of the
action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities Litigation. On
December 22, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

"On February 5, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
amended complaint. On March 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a memorandum
of law in opposition to our motion to dismiss. On March 24, 2015,
we filed our reply memorandum of law in further support of our
motion to dismiss. The Court heard argument on our motion to
dismiss the complaint on April 28, 2015. We intend to vigorously
defend this lawsuit," the Company said.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Hialeah Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint in the case filed by City of Hialeah
Employees' Retirement System.

In April 2014, Genworth Financial, Inc., its former chief
executive officer and its current chief financial officer were
named in a putative class action lawsuit captioned City of Hialeah
Employees' Retirement System v. Genworth Financial, Inc., et al,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. Plaintiff alleges securities law violations involving
certain disclosures in 2012 concerning Genworth's Australian
mortgage insurance business, including our plans for an initial
public offering of the business. The lawsuit seeks unspecified
damages, costs and attorneys' fees and such equitable/injunctive
relief as the court may deem proper. The United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York appointed City of
Hialeah Employees' Retirement System and New Bedford Contributory
Retirement System as lead plaintiffs and designated the caption of
the action as In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities
Litigation.

"On October 3, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint. On December 2, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint, which motion was fully briefed as
of March 4, 2015," the Company said.

On March 25, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York denied the motion but entered an
order dismissing the amended complaint with leave to replead. On
April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action," the Company said.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Entered Into Settlement
------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's U.S.
mortgage insurance subsidiary and all named plantiffs in the cases
still pending as of such date entered into a settlement agreement
that has resulted in the dismissal of all actions as to the
Company's subsidiary.

"Beginning in December 2011 and continuing through January 2013,
one of our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiaries was named along
with several other mortgage insurance participants and mortgage
lenders as a defendant in twelve putative class action lawsuits
alleging that certain "captive reinsurance arrangements" were in
violation of RESPA," the Company said. Those cases are captioned
as follows: Samp, et al. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., et al.,
United States District Court for the Central District of
California; White, et al., v. The PNC Financial Services Group,
Inc., et al., United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; Menichino, et al. v. Citibank NA, et
al., United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania; McCarn, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc., et al., United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California;
Manners, et al., v. Fifth Third Bank, et al., United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania; Riddle,
et al. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; Rulison
et al. v. ABN AMRO Mortgage Group, Inc. et al., United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York; Barlee, et
al. v. First Horizon National Corporation, et al., United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
Cunningham, et al. v. M&T Bank Corp., et al., United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Orange, et
al. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., et al., United States District Court
for the Central District of California; Hill et al. v. Flagstar
Bank, FSB, et al., United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania; and Moriba Ba, et al. v. HSBC USA, Inc.,
et al., United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs allege that "captive reinsurance
arrangements" with providers of private mortgage insurance whereby
a mortgage lender through captive reinsurance arrangements
received a portion of the borrowers' private mortgage insurance
premiums were in violation of RESPA and unjustly enriched the
defendants for which plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and
unspecified monetary damages, including restitution.

The Company said, "The McCarn case was dismissed by the court with
prejudice as to our subsidiary and certain other defendants on
November 9, 2012. On July 3, 2012, the Rulison case was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs. The Barlee case was
dismissed by the court with prejudice as to our subsidiary and
certain other defendants on February 27, 2013. The Manners case
was dismissed by voluntary stipulation in March 2013. In early May
2013, the Samp and Orange cases were dismissed with prejudice as
to our subsidiary. Plaintiffs appealed both of those dismissals,
but have since withdrawn those appeals. The White case was
dismissed by the court without prejudice on June 20, 2013, and on
July 5, 2013 plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again
naming our U.S. mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant. The
Menichino case was dismissed by the court without prejudice as to
our subsidiary and certain other defendants on July 19, 2013.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint again naming our U.S.
mortgage insurance subsidiary as a defendant and we moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. In the Riddle, Hill, Ba and
Cunningham cases, the defendants' motions to dismiss were denied,
but the court in the Riddle, Hill and Cunningham cases limited
discovery to issues surrounding whether the case should be
dismissed on statute of limitations grounds. In the Hill case, on
December 17, 2013, we moved for summary judgment dismissing the
complaint. The court granted our motion, and in July 2014, the
Hill plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Third Circuit
Court of Appeals. In the Riddle case, in late November 2013, the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted our motion for summary judgment dismissing
the case. Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal. In October 2014, the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of the Riddle
action. On January 30, 2015, our U.S. mortgage insurance
subsidiary and all named plantiffs in the cases still pending as
of such date entered into a settlement agreement that has resulted
in the dismissal of all actions as to our subsidiary. This
settlement had no impact on our financial position or results of
operations."


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: All Claims in Goodman & Brown Case Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genworth Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York has entered a
final order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the
defendants in the case filed by Michael J. Goodman and Linda
Brown.

"In December 2009, one of our former non-insurance subsidiaries,
one of the former subsidiary's officers and Genworth Financial,
Inc. (now known as Genworth Holdings, Inc.) were named in a
putative class action lawsuit captioned Michael J. Goodman and
Linda Brown v. Genworth Financial Wealth Management, Inc. et al.,
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York," the Company said. "Plaintiffs allege securities law and
other violations involving the selection of mutual funds by our
former subsidiary on behalf of certain of its Private Client Group
clients. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief. In response to our motion to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety, the court granted the motion to dismiss the state law
fiduciary duty claim and denied the motion to dismiss the
remaining federal claims. The District Court denied plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class on April 15, 2014. On April 29, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals
for permission to appeal the District Court's denial of their
motion to certify a class, which we opposed. On July 9, 2014, the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' motion.
Pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties, on March 20, 2015,
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York entered a final order dismissing with prejudice all claims
against the defendants."


GLOBAL POWER: Faces Securities Suit Filed By Wolf Haldenstein
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP  announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas on behalf of those who purchased
shares of Global Power Equipment Group Inc. ("Global Power" or the
"Company") (NYSE:GLPW) during the period between March 9, 2015 and
May 6, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Wolf Haldenstein
encourages all shareholders who suffered losses on shares
purchased within the class period to contact us immediately at
(800) 575-0735 or email classmember@whafh.com prior as the lead
plaintiff deadline is July 13, 2015.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and failed to disclose the
following (i) the Company's cost of sales in its financial
statements for the annual period ended December 31, 2014 were
understated; (ii) the Company lacked adequate internal controls
over its financial reporting; and (iii) as a result of the
foregoing, the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 6, 2015, the Company announced in a Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") filing that "[i]t will delay the filing of its
Form 10-Q for the first quarter of 2015 and restate its financial
results for the annual period ended December 31, 2014. As a
result, the Company is also withdrawing its previously issued
earnings guidance for 2015 at this time. On May 5, 2015, the Audit
Committee of the Board of Directors of Global Power, in
consultation with its outside advisors and management, concluded
that the financial statements for the annual period ended December
31, 2014 should not be relied upon because of accounting errors
affecting the fourth quarter of 2014 that were discovered during
the first quarter 2015 financial review process. Those errors
resulted in an understatement of the Company's cost of sales in
the quarterly and annual periods ended December 31, 2014."
Following this news, shares of Global Power fell $4.05 per share,
over 33%, to close at $8.19 on May 7, 2015.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to the "CHC investigation."


GOLD AND SILVER: Dancers to Be Asked to Join Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Chris Hurst, writing for WDBJ7 reported that a group of exotic
dancers suing the Gold and Silver nightclub could get much larger.
Currently three women sued the club and its owner because they
don't get paid minimum wage. In Federal Court, lawyers exchanged a
list of more than 70 past and present dancers who might be
interested in joining a class action suit.  The lawsuit says most
nights, the dancers ended up losing money from fees, including one
to use the jukebox. The club says the women are independent
contractors and not employees.

A jury trial is still scheduled for later this year, but another
suit against the club was settled out of court.


GOOGLE INC: Accused of Not Redeeming Value of Play Gift Cards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Google refuses to redeem the
value of Google Play gift cards if they are less than $10, a class
action claims in Santa Clara County Court.


GREENPOINT AG: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Daniels, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Greenpoint AG, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-02365-JPM-dkv
(W.D. Tenn., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and other relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Greenpoint AG, LLC sells agricultural products and maintains
retail locations in Missouri, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana,
and Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL McWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBITT PLC
      101 North Highland
      Jackson, TN 38301
      Telephone: (731) 664-1340
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com

         - and -

      Shaun D. Hanschen, Esq.
      BLATON, RICE, NICKELL, COZEAN & COLLINS, LLC
      219S. Kingshighway, P.O. Box 805
      Sikeston, MO 63801
      Telephone: (573) 471-1000
      Facsimile: (573) 471-1012
      E-mail: shanschen@blantonlaw.com


HAWAII: Part-time Teachers, Subs Awarded Another $46-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------
Rick Daysog, writing for Hawaii News Now, reported that on the
heels of $14 million settlement over back pay, two state judges
have awarded substitute and part-time teachers another $46
million.

Earlier, Circuit Judges Karl Sakamoto and Edwin Nacino ruled that
the state Department of Education underpaid the teachers over a
seven-year period starting in 2005.

"What the DOE did to these teachers is really shameless," said
attorney Paul Alston, who filed the class-action lawsuits.

"It makes no sense to cheat them  . . .  over a few pennies or a
few dollars a day. They're the backbone of the system."

By law, the pay for the nonunion subs and part-timers are supposed
to linked to the wages full-time teachers earn under their union
contracts. But the DOE wound up using a much lower pay scale for
years.

Under rulings, 20,000 teachers will receive an average of about
$2,300. But since the awards are based on the hours worked, some
teachers will receive as little as $5 while others will get up to
$10,000.

Alston said many of the class-action members have struggled
financially and some have left the teaching profession. Maui
resident David Gardner, one of the original plaintiffs, said he
was forced out.

"They more than cut my workload in half in retaliation. They put
me on a blacklist. I'm still blacklisted," he said.

"I felt that they didn't really care  . . .  they were arrogant
and that they were above the law."

The rulings are also significant because the teachers were awarded
interest going back seven years.

"The interest that is calculated by the court is calculated by
Judge Sakamoto is nearly $14 million. In addition, there's another
$9 or $10 million in interest that we think is owed," Alston said.

The DOE says it paid the teachers the correct amounts and sources
said it will likely appeal. But any appeal could add millions of
dollars more in interest payments.


HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Selling Subscribers' Private Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Hearst Communications sells
its magazine subscribers' private information without permission
to data miners and others, a class action claims in New York
Federal Court.


HERBALIFE LTD: Issues Statement on Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Kapusta, writing for The Celebrity Cafe, reported that
Herbalife Ltd., the global nutrition company, accused of operating
a pyramid scheme issued a statement regarding the court's final
approval of its class action settlement with former distributors.

"As we have consistently stated, we believe that the settlement
was fair, reasonable and adequate to class members," said
Herbalife.

The controversial nutrition company also noted the findings of the
court that the low number of claimants was not surprising.
According to Herbalife, substantial survey results showed that
most people join the company as discount consumers of its
products.

Herbalife class action settlement details

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
granted final approval to the $15 million settlement related to
the class action lawsuit filed by Dana Bostick and other
distributors against Herbalife.

In a legal filing, Eric Robin of Kurtzman Carson Consultants
indicated that 7,547 class-action claims were filed against
Herbalife by its former distributors. They claimed that the
company operates a pyramid scheme and misleads distributors
regarding their potential profits.

Robin said 114 claimants would receive more than $10,000 in the
business opportunity category, 329 claimants would receive over
$5,000 and $1,655 claimants would receive more than $1,000. The
total potential payout for the claimants is around $7.39 million.
Approximately 30% of the settlement funds ($5.25 million) would go
to attorney fees.

Herbalife also allocated as much as $2.5 million to pay class-
action members who filed valid return claims for unused and
unopened products. According to Robin, the total value of the
return claims was $938,280.

In October, Herbalife agreed to settle the class-action lawsuit
filed by Bostick. The company emphasized that the settlement "does
not contain an admission of liability or wrongdoing." Herbalife
also asserted that the case against it had no merit.

At the time, Herbalife explained that it decided to settle the
class-action lawsuit because of the potential cost and
distraction, disruption and burden of prolonged litigation on the
company and its management team.

Herbalife remains under investigation

Herbalife disclosed in its recent regulatory filing that it is
still under investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The
filing indicated that the DOJ asked the company to provide
information about certain members and others in connection with
the allegations of its business practices.

The company also previously received inquiries from the Federal
Trade Commission (FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
and other government agencies.

Herbalife anticipated that these government agencies may
"determine to seek information from the company and other persons
relating to these same or other allegations" in the future.


HMSHOST CORPORATION: Fails to Pay OT, "D'Addario" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard D'Addario v. HMSHost Corporation and Host International,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-11931 (D. Mass., May 29, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are in the business of managing and overseeing the
operations of food and beverage concessions at numerous United
States airports and other travel facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley Ian Berger, Esq.
      BERGER & ASSOCIATES ATTORNEYS
      321 Broadway
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (800) 529-4444
      Facsimile: (888) 529-4449

         - and -

      Fran L. Rudich, Esq.
      Jeffrey A. Klafter, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (212) 838-3333
      Facsimile: (212) 838-3735
      E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com
              jak@klafterolsen.com


HOLLISTER CO: Decision Makes State Courts Favorable, Attys. Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reported that a recent New
Jersey appellate decision snubbing controversial class
identification requirements when certifying low-value consumer
class actions will further drive plaintiffs to keep such suits in
state court and poses due process problems for defendant
companies, some attorneys say.

The state Appellate Division in a precedential opinion on May 13
backed certification in a consumer class action against clothing
retailer Hollister Co. over expired gift cards, rejecting the
company's arguments that the court should follow the lead of the
Third Circuit and weave the ascertainability doctrine -- which
concerns whether class members can be readily identified using
objective criteria -- into certification decisions.

Drawing a plaintiff-friendly line in the sand, the court not only
said ascertainability can't play a role in the certification of
consumer class actions that involve lower dollar amounts, but it
also openly doubted that the doctrine should play any role in
state court and contended that it was being "exploited by
defendants in unsuitable cases to evade liability."

The decision reinforces a perception that defendants have the deck
stacked against them in state court, according to Christopher J.
Dalton, a shareholder with Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.

"It's going to certainly encourage plaintiffs in so far as
possible to keep all class actions that they can in New Jersey
state court," he said.

The suit targets Hollister for voiding $25 gift cards that didn't
have an expiration date, according to the May 13 opinion. The
company had distributed the cards in December 2009 as a promotion
to customers who spent $75 or more, and about $3 million worth of
the cards were eventually voided.

Siding with named plaintiff Vincent Daniels, the panel noted that
New Jersey Court Rule 4:32-1, which covers the requirements for
maintaining a class action, is supposed to be liberally construed
in favor of certification.

Hollister had argued that ascertainability was an implicit
requirement in the rule and that Daniels couldn't meet it. The
company said that, without ascertainability, it couldn't test
class membership, absent class members couldn't opt out, and "the
preclusive effect of any judgment will be unknowable and
unenforceable," according to the opinion.

However, Rule 4:32-1 has never been interpreted to require that a
class be ascertainable to win certification, the panel found.

"We find that this federal doctrine as urged here imposes far too
heavy a burden on class certification where the purported injuries
to class members are so minimal as to preclude the likelihood they
would be individually asserted," the court said.

The opinion creates a kind of "due process lite" that doesn't
really allow defendants to challenge claims of class membership,
according to Dalton. He added that court gave short shrift to
legitimate concerns such as the class definition's inclusion of
consumers who tossed the gift cards because they were told they
had expired.

"Saying we don't have to worry about how class members will be
identified is just kicking the can down the road," Dalton said.

After the Third Circuit's 2013 decision in Carrera v. Bayer Corp.
toughened the standard for ascertainability, there was already a
sense that class action plaintiffs were trying to avoid federal
court, but decision tips the scales to an extreme degree,
suggested Alida Kass, chief counsel of the New Jersey Civil
Justice Institute.

"This went from the federal court being somewhat hostile territory
for class actions that maybe don't meet the requirements for class
certification to just opposite ends of the spectrum, from very
rigorous scrutiny on whether the class is ascertainable to no
scrutiny," she said, referring to the difference between state and
federal courts.

Bringing a class action in the state just became even easier,
added Marcus Rayner, president of the NJCJI.

"If this is allowed to stand, I think it's 'Katy, bar the door'
for class actions in New Jersey," he said.

However, the appellate court said in the opinion that class
actions have historically been a vehicle to look out for "the
smaller guy." Rebuffing the ascertainability doctrine holds true
to that mission, according to John Keefe of Keefe Bartels.

"This decision is indeed a good result for [New Jersey] consumers
who serve as the little guy to level the playing field and keeps
the courthouse doors open for adjudication of these claims without
fictitious barriers of judicial creation not contemplated by our
rules," Keefe said.

Ascertainability has been taken too far at the federal level, and
recent Third Circuit decisions even suggest a possible rollback of
the judge-made doctrine, according to Bruce D. Greenberg, a member
of Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC.

"[The decision] is certainly important at the moment where the
Third Circuit has really allowed ascertainability to become the
altar on which we sacrifice consumer class actions," he said.

And while the decision may be helpful to plaintiffs, its impact
will be narrower than defense-side advocates contend, according to
Henry Wolfe of the The Wolf Law Firm LLC.

There have long been incentives to filing in state court, and most
class actions involving such over-the-counter transactions will
still find their way to federal court under the federal Class
Action Fairness Act, which allows for removal when aggregate class
damages are $5 million or more and where at least one defendant
and one plaintiff are based in different states, Wolfe said.

Still, home state and local controversy exceptions in CAFA can
allow class actions with specific characteristics to remain in
state court no matter the damages, and the decision otherwise
means worsened stakes for businesses that might not be able to
survive a multimillion-dollar judgment, even if it happens to be
less than $5 million, according to Jeffrey J. Greenbaum, who
chairs Sills Cummis & Gross PC's class action practice group.

"I don't think it's the last word," Greenbaum said. "I think
something this important will have to come from the highest court,
and I suspect it will be appealed."

One potential benefit to both defendants and plaintiffs is a
footnote in the decision stating that the appellate court going
forward will "liberally indulge" bids to appeal certification
decisions, which aren't appealable as of right, when denial of
class status essentially ends the case, when certification places
heavy pressure on the defendant to settle or when allowing an
appeal will help clarify a fundamental area of the law.

Those standards will probably result in the court granting
interlocutory appeals on most certification decisions, which makes
sense given the impact of such rulings, according to Greenbaum.

"A decision to grant or deny class certification is outcome-
determinative from a practical perspective and should get
interlocutory review before the costs go out of control and people
are forced to make settlement decisions without a full explanation
of their legal rights," he said.

The case is Vincent Daniels v. Hollister Co., case number
A-3629-13, in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate
Division.


HOWARD SCHNEIDER: Embattled Dentist Gives Up License
----------------------------------------------------
Dan Scanlan, writing for Jacksonville.com, reported that embattled
dentist from Jacksonville, Florida, Howard Schneider, who closed
his Southside office after weeks of protests by parents of
patients and former patients, a patient parents' lawsuit and a
state investigation, has voluntarily relinquished his licence to
practice.

Schneider told Times-Union news partner First Coast News he had to
close because he had no patients and no staff after the protests.

The Florida Department of Health's License Verification website
confirmed that the dentist's license status has been voluntarily
relinquished pending board action.

The action follows his voluntarily resignation on May 7 from the
Wolfson Children's Hospital, where he had staff privileges,
according to hospital spokeswoman Vikki Mioduszewski.

Schneider requested a "Voluntary Relinquishment" of his license
from the Department of Health. The action means a licensed
practitioner has offered to relinquish his license to practice in
Florida and "agrees not to practice" pending approval of this
request, according to the state website.

The request will be heard during the disciplinary proceedings
segment of the next state Board of Dentistry meeting, at the
Hilton University of Florida, 1714 SW 34th St. in Gainesville.

The dentist, originally licensed to practice on Aug. 10, 1962, is
facing several challenges.  He had large groups of protesters
outside his office at 1871 University Blvd. S. who claimed that he
pulled more teeth than necessary and did substandard work on their
children. Many also claimed he injured and threatened their
children during treatment.

The Florida Attorney General's medicaid fraud control unit is
investigating Schneider and had investigators interviewing
protester parents. Some parents filed a class-action lawsuit on
May 6, saying their children were mistreated and hurt by the
dentist. And his wife filed a divorce lawsuit, demanding alimony.


HSBC: 7th Cir. Grants New Trial in $2.4-Bil. Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reported that a federal appeals court has
awarded HSBC a new trial in a securities class action suit that
ended with a $2.46 billion judgment against the company.  The
ruling was made by the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit. Europe's largest bank said it argued the verdict in the
case, which dates to 2009, was defective and should be reversed.
The company said it looks forward to the new proceedings.

In 2013 a division of HSBC was ordered to pay $2.46 billion in a
class action lawsuit that said its Household International
mortgage lending business violated federal securities laws by
misleading investors about its lending practices, the quality of
its home loans and its financial accounting in 2001 and 2002.

HSBC bought Household International in 2003. The acquisition made
HSBC the largest subprime mortgage lender in the US at the time,
but it resulted in billions of dollars in losses leading up to the
2008 financial crisis.  The lawsuit also included former
executives William Aldinger, David Schoenholz and Gary Gilmer. The
judgment included $1.48 billion in damages and almost $1 billion
in pre-judgment interest.  HSBC also said on it is exploring
options for its business in Brazil, and may sell the division.


IG INVESTMENT: Costs Principles in Class Suits Not Asymmetrical
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margot Finley and David Di Paolo, in an article for Lexology.com,
reported that in the recent case of Fischer v. IG, 2015 ONSC 2491,
the Divisional Court has settled any debate as to whether s. 31(1)
of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6 ("CPA") is
intended to apply asymmetrically in favour of plaintiffs; it is
not.

Section 31(1) of the CPA reads:

   "31.(1) In exercising its discretion with respect to costs
under subsection 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, the court
may consider whether the class proceeding was a test case, raised
a novel point of law or involved a matter of public interest."

Over the years, class action plaintiffs' counsel has attempted to
argue that this section of the CPA is intended to provide
protection only to plaintiffs and not defendants. They have argued
that it is not open to the court to reduce or deny a costs award
to a successful plaintiff. Plaintiffs have relied upon the Ontario
Law Reform Commission Report on Class Actions (1982), in which the
Commission noted a concern that the risks inherent in the costs
regime at the time operated to discourage potential representative
plaintiffs from commencing meritorious class actions. Though the
Commission recommended a "no costs" regime, the legislature
instead adopted the ordinary costs rules that govern individual
actions. These rules were, however, adjusted in two ways: (1)
consideration of the three factors identified in s. 31(1) of the
CPA and (2) the availability of the Class Proceedings Fund to
cover adverse costs awards against representative plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' counsel also relied upon Garland v. Consumers' Gas Co.
(1995), 22 O.R. (3d) 451 (OCJ) in which Winkler J. (as he then
was) declined to award costs to the successful defendant in light
of the s. 31(1) factors. He stated, "The case law reflects the
Court's inclination to refrain from awarding costs against
unsuccessful plaintiffs in class proceedings where some or all of
the criteria in s. 31(1) are present."

The argument that s. 31(1) of the CPA should operate
asymmetrically has been rejected before. In Holley v.Northern
Trust Co., 2014 ONSC 3047, Perell J. said in respect of s. 31(1):

   "An adverse costs system is what the Legislature intended; it
did not intend a costs regime that removes the risk. And it did
not impose a public interest burden on defendants, who are also
entitled to access to justice, by imposing an asymmetrical system
of costs."

In Fischer v. IG, the plaintiffs had originally been unsuccessful
on the certification motion. The defendant mutual fund companies
had argued that the proposed class action did not meet the
"preferable procedure" criterion in s. 5(1)(d) of the CPA --
required for a class action to be certified -- because a probe by
the Ontario Securities Commission that resulted in settlements
totaling over $150 million with five mutual fund companies had
accomplished what the proposed class action intended to do --
compensate investors. On the certification motion, Perell J.
agreed with the defendants' position and declined to certify the
action.

Given the novel nature of the argument and the fact that the
action would have been certified but for the novel argument, the
motion judge ordered that each side should bear its own costs. The
certification decision was appealed all the way up to the Supreme
Court and the action was ultimately certified. Perell J. was asked
to revisit his costs decision given the plaintiffs' ultimate
success on certification. The plaintiffs claimed $500,000 for the
certification motion. The motion judge considered the issue de
novoand again decided that there should be no order as to costs
given the novelty of the arguments. The plaintiffs sought leave to
appeal.

Harvison Young J., sitting as the Divisional Court, dismissed the
motion for leave to appeal. She held, "I see no support, either in
the wording or legislative history of s. 31(1), or in the case
law, for the proposition that the discretion may only be applied
asymmetrically in favour of plaintiffs."

The plaintiffs also argued that the principle of access to justice
demands that costs arising from novelty must be asymmetrically
applied. Harvison Young J. acknowledged that access to justice is
important and is a factor to be considered in costs decisions, but
it is not a principle that operates only to the benefit of
plaintiffs. She found no support for the proposition that access
to justice concerns must always entitle plaintiffs to their costs
of successful certification motions.

David Di Paolo and Margot Finley acted as counsel for the
defendant AIC Ltd. in this matter.

The lawyers may be reached at:

         Margot Finley, Esq.
         David Di Paolo, Esq.
         BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP
         Scotia Plaza
         40 King Street West, 44th Floor
         Toronto, ON
         Canada M5H 3Y4
         Email: mfinley@blg.com
                DDiPaolo@blg.com


IHEARTMEDIA INC: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Sheridan and Barbara Sheridan, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. iHeartMedia, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-04067 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the owners of sound recordings of musical performances that
were fixed and recorded before February 15, 1972, whose rights in
pre-1972 recordings have been infringed and violated by
iHeartMedia Inc.

iHeartMedia, Inc. operates an internet radio service that streams
music and other programming to its paid subscribers via the
internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Howard W. Foster, Esq.
      Matthew Galin, Esq.
      FOSTER P.C.
      150 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2150
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 726-1600
      Facsimile: (866) 470-5738
      E-mail: hfoster@fosterpc.com
              mgalin@fosterpc.com

         - and -

      Anthony L. Abner, Esq.
      ABNER & FULLERTON LLP
      32565 Golden Lantern Blvd., Suite 216
      Dana Point, CA 92945
      Telephone: (323) 839-3291
      Facsimile: (323) 656-7155
      E-mail: tonyabner@gmail.com

         - and -

      Justin Sobodash, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN SOBODASH
      8335 West Sunset Blvd., Suite 302
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (323) 337-9010
      Facsimile: (323) 656-7155
      E-mail: Justin@Sobodashlaw.com


INSULET CORP: July 6 Deadline to Lodge Lead Plaintiff Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds
purchasers of Insulet Corporation securities from February 27,
2013 through April 30, 2015 (the "Class Period") of the important
July 6, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Insulet investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Insulet class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-608.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Insulet was experiencing slower demand for its products; (2)
Insulet was facing issues with its sales and marketing efforts;
(3) consequently, Insulet experienced unevenness in its financial
performance; and (4) as a result, defendants' positive statements
about the Insulet's business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 6, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website athttp://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-608.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Suit in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of IntraLinks
software dumped their own shares for $78 million while concealing
information that caused the stock to sink by 45 percent,
shareholders claim in New York County Supreme Court.


ISORAY INC: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Rosen Law Firm
---------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announced
that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers
of IsoRay, Inc. (NYSE: ISR) securities between May 20, 2015 and
May 21, 2015, both dates inclusive.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for IsoRay investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the IsoRay class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-623.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements regarding IsoRay's Celsium-131 isotope seeds and mesh
for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancers. When the true
details entered the market, shares of IsoRay fell $1.10 per share
or over 35% to close at $2.02 per share on May 21, 2015, damaging
investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 21, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-623.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


J ROMAN: Faces "Segovia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Segovia, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. J. Roman Incorporated d/b/a Suds Car Wash,
and Jesse Roman, Case No. 1:15-cv-04764 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a car wash shop in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 307-0766
      E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com


JC CHRISTENSEN: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of FDCPA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that affirming dismissal of a
class action against J.C. Christensen & Associates, the 2nd
Circuit ruled May 14 that a debt collector need not warn of
possible tax consequences when making a settlement offer for less
than the full amount owed.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Michael Korsinsky, Esq.
          Joseph P. Garland, Esq.
          KORSINSKY & KLEIN, LLP
          2926 Ave. L
          Brooklyn, NY 11210
          Telephone: (212) 495-8133

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Jonathan B. Bruno, Esq.
          KAUFMAN, BORGEEST & RYAN LLP
          120 Broadway, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10271
          Telephone: (212) 980-9600
          Facsimile: (212) 980-9291
          E-mail: jbruno@kbrlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Klutho, Esq.
          BASSFORD REMELE, PA
          33 South Sixth Street, Suite 3800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3707
          Telephone: (612) 333-3000
          Facsimile: (612) 333-8829
          E-mail: mklutho@bassford.com

The appellate case is Altman v. J.C. Christensen & Associates,
Inc., Case No. 14-cv-2240, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.


JP MORGAN: Sends Cash Refunds in McDonald's Debt Card Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Kalinowski, writing for the CitizensVoice.com, reported that
mega banking chain J.P. Morgan Chase has suddenly started cutting
checks to plaintiffs in a local class-action lawsuit against
McDonald's that claims the workers were burdened by being paid
exclusively by fee-laden debit-cards.

"We have decided to refund you for all fees we charged on your
Chase Prepaid Card  . . .  We are sending you the attached check
to refund you for these fees," said the letter from Chase Prepaid
Card Services.

West Pittston attorney Michael Cefalo, who filed suit in June 2013
against a couple who owns 16 local McDonald's restaurants,
questioned the timing of Chase's surprise move. The case was
certified as a class-action suit.

"It's like someone who robbed you and then gave the you the money
back when they got caught," Cefalo said at his office. "Chase
doesn't want to be embarrassed. Chase wants this to go away."

Cefalo represents 2,380 plaintiffs in the case against franchise
owners Albert and Carol Mueller, of Clarks Summit, alleging they
violated state wage laws. The case was certified as a class-action
suit on May 14, a day before the checks were dated, Cefalo pointed
out.

Cefalo has a separate action against J.P. Morgan Chase on behalf
of the plaintiffs who were minors at the time they agreed to work
at McDonald's and get paid with a Chase debit card -- the only pay
method available.  Cefalo said Chase gave no advance warning of
the refunds. A spokeswoman for the Muellers said they were unaware
Chase planned to issue any refunds. Emails sent to national and
regional press offices of Chase were not returned.

One plaintiff who was a minor while employed at McDonald's is
Samantha Earley, who admitted she was a naive 17-year-old when she
worked at the Sans Souci Parkway location in Hanover Township in
2011. Her mom even was upset with her, thinking she chose to get
paid by a Chase debit card.

"I already had my own bank account, but they didn't allow me to
use my own bank account," Earley, 21, said.  "They said, 'Get a
card or you're not getting paid.'"

Earley received a check for $10.50 from Chase. She said that is a
mere pittance of the fees such actually incurred, as she had to
routinely pay fees for ATM withdrawals and balance inquiries.
It was a struggle, as she was only paid $7.25 an hour, she said.
The payroll cards issued to local McDonald's employees carried
fees for nearly every type of transaction, according to Cefalo's
lawsuit, including a $1.50 charge for ATM withdrawals, $5 for
over-the-counter cash withdrawals, $1 to check the balance, 75
cents per online bill payment and $10 per month if the card is
left inactive for more than three months.

Cefalo noted there isn't a Chase bank within 55 miles of Wilkes-
Barre, and fees were inescapable. He thinks the decision by Chase
to issue checks "bolsters our case." Cefalo said at least 50 of
the plaintiffs called him since, saying they received refunds from
Chase, which ranged from one penny to $140. He told them not to
cash the checks as the lawsuit plays out.

After Cefalo filed the lawsuit, it quickly gained national
attention, including a front-page story in The New York Times and
an investigation by federal officials. Soon after, the Muellers
announced they were abandoning the pay practice and would give
employees the choice of being paid by check, direct deposit or by
payroll card. In September 2013, the director of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau warned employers that paying workers
exclusively with a debit card was not legal.


KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Court Dismisses MLB Teams From "Senne" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service reports that a labor
dispute between minor-league baseball players and Major League
Baseball may be adjudicated in California, but only for claims
against the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Detroit Tigers and the New
York Yankees, a federal judge ruled on May 20.

In a putative class action, lead plaintiff Aaron Senne -- who
played for the Miami Marlins organization from 2010 to 2013 --
claims Major League Baseball underpays its amateur players.  He
originally sued three Major League clubs, Major League Baseball
and its commissioner Bud Selig in 2014, eventually adding all 30
Major League teams as defendants.

Ten of those teams moved to dismiss the action, claiming they were
not subject to jurisdiction in California. The teams that sought
dismissal included the Atlanta Braves, the Boston Red Sox, the
Chicago White Sox, the Detroit Tigers, the New York Yankees, the
Philadelphia Phillies, the Pittsburgh Pirates, the Tampa Bay Rays,
the Washington Nationals and the Baltimore Orioles.

The teams argued that intermittent travel, communications and
various other activities in California were not sufficient to
establish personal jurisdiction there.

But the minor-league players argued that the Major League has
"deep roots in California" and derives "substantial income" from
the state.

The players also argued that the "highly interdependent nature" of
the Major League supports general jurisdiction, especially because
the case involves "a universal scheme enacted by all defendants to
depress salaries."

In the court's 105-page ruling issued May 20, U.S District Judge
Joseph Spero said that the Supreme Court's recent guidance on the
theory of general jurisdiction "has made clear that the concept of
'home' in the context of general jurisdiction should be understood
narrowly."

He said that despite the MLB's lucrative licensing deals,
"California cannot be considered home to any of these clubs,"
because their travel, business and scouting activities in the
state "do not represent such a significant portion of their
activities that their presence in California would be analogous to
being domiciled in California or having their principal place of
business in California."

For that reason, Spero said, there is no general jurisdiction of
the teams in California.  He did find, however, that specific
jurisdiction in California applies to the Pirates, the Tigers and
the Yankees, since the named plaintiffs asserting claims against
those teams all reside in the Golden State and have performed
offseason work there over the past several years.

Spero dismissed the claims brought against the other seven teams
for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Neither side could be reached for comment on May 20.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          PEARSON, SIMON & WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Blvd., Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (818) 205-2805
          Facsimile: (818) 788-8104
          E-mail: dwarshaw@pswlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elise Bloom, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          Eighth Avenue & 41st Street
          New York, NY 10036-8299
          Telephone: (212) 969-3410
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: ebloom@proskauer.com

The case is Aaron Senne, et al. v. Kansas City Royals Baseball
Corp., et al., Case No. 14-cv-00608-JCS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


KIND LLC: Removed "Molina" Class Suit to Middle District Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Dawn Molina, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kind, LLC, Case No.
15-CA-3493, was removed from the Circuit Court of Hillsborough
County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Middle District of
Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-
cv-01098-CEH-TBM to the proceeding.

The Defendants asserts product liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alfred Villoch III, Esq.
      SAVAGE, COMBS & VILLOCH, PLLC
      412 E. Madison St, Ste 1120
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 251-4890
      E-mail: alfred@savagelaw.us

          - and -

      Brenda M. Combs, Esq.
      BURR & FORMAN, LLP
      Suite 3200, 201 N Franklin St.
      Tampa, FL 33601-0380
      Telephone: (813) 221-2626
      Facsimile: (813) 221-7335
      E-mail: bcombs@wsmslaw.com

         - and -

      Robert Kevin Savage, Esq.
      The Savage Law Firm, PA
      Suite 1235, 100 S Ashley Dr
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 251-4890
      E-mail: bert@savagelaw.us

The Defendant is represented by:

      Dale J. Giali, Esq.
      Keri E. Borders, Esq.
      MAYER BROWN LLP
      350 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 229-9500
      Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
      E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
              kborders@mayerbrown.com

         - and -

      David J. Walz, Esq.
      Robert W. Pass, Esq.
      CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
      4221 W Boy Scout Blvd Ste 1000, PO Box 3239
      Tampa, FL 33601-3239
      Telephone: (813) 223-7000
      Facsimile: (813) 229-4133
      E-mail: dwalz@cfjblaw.com
              rpass@cfjblaw.com


KING OF CLUBS: Sued for Charging Exotic Dancers $60 per Shift Fee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
King of Clubs Productions and Dancer the Club, in the Bronx, stiff
exotic dancers for overtime and charge them $60 a shift for a
"facilities use fee," dancers claim in a class action in Bronx
County Supreme Court.


L'OREAL USA: Falsely Advertised "Lush Lash System," Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
The makers of an eyelash makeup product are being sued over
allegations its product doesn't grow eyelashes at the rate
advertised.  Sonia Severino filed the lawsuit on May 1 in U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
L'Oreal USA and Urban Decay Cosmetics claiming the companies
falsely advertised the "Lush Lash System" product.

According to the lawsuit, the companies claim the product will
grow eyelashes by 25 percent in two weeks, 40 percent in four
weeks and 63 percent in six weeks. The companies claimed the
product contains a "growth accelerating serum," the complaint
says.

"However, nothing in the Lush Lash System is demonstrated to
actually make eye lashes grow, particularly at the rates claim by
(the companies)," the lawsuit said. "(Severino) and other
similarly situated consumers have been harmed in the amount they
paid for the Lush Lash System."

Serverino is seeking class status for those who purchased the Lush
Lash System, and is also seeking more than $5 million in damages
plus court costs.

Severino is represented by Timothy G. Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- at Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP, in San Diego
and C.K. Lee of Lee Litigation Group, PLLC in New York City.


LA CHEMICAL: "Medina" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Medina, Hector Medina, Agustin Martinez, Patricio Jimenez
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. La Chemical,
LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00235 (S.D. Tex., May 29, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

La Chemical, LLC provides services to the oil and gas production
facilities in South Texas.

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


LEGALZOOM.COM: North Carolina Court Junks Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Mack Sperling, writing for The National Law Review, reported that
there are probably some of you who lie awake at night wondering
whether Leagalzoom's offering of do it yourself lawyering products
will be found to be the unauthorized practice of law (UPL) in
North Carolina.

For those few of you, that uncertainty will continue.  At the end
of, Judge Gale issued an opinion in Bergenstock v. Legalzoom.com,
Inc., 2015 NCBC 49, dismissing a putative class action by
Plaintiffs seeking to represent all North Carolina residents who
purchased Legalzoom products or services.  The claims were for
UPL, unjust enrichment, and violations of the North Carolina
Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The Judge dismissed the complaint, but he did not make a ruling as
to Legalzoom's business model, nor did he address the question
whether its services constitute UPL.  The resolution of that issue
will have to come in the still pending case brought by LegalZoom
against the NC State Bar: LegalZoom.com, Inc. v. North Carolina
State Bar.

The reason for the dismissal in the Bergenstock case was the full
faith and credit given to the settlement of a similar class action
in 2012 in California (known as the Webster case).  Webster had
sued Legalzoom on behalf of a nationwide class.

The Webster Settlement

The Webster settlement covered all claims asserted or that could
have been asserted [in that case] arising out of the LegalZoom
website, any materials available on or through the LegalZoom
website . . . the unauthorized practice of law, or the purchase or
use of documents prepared through LegalZoom.

In consideration for the settlement, LegalZoom agreed to provide
sixty days of free enrollment in its prepaid legal services
Programs.  As Judge Gale described those Programs (known as the
LegalZoom Legal Advantage Plus Program [for individuals] and the
Business Advantage Pro Program [for businesses]), they involve:
services provided by licensed attorneys, including telephone
consultations; review and written summary of legal documents; an
annual legal checkup (which would be provided to Webster class
members in the free sixty-day period), including a written summary
and recommendations for legal documents and strategies; a ten
percent discount on all LegalZoom products; access to the
LegalZoom form library; electronic document storage; and a twenty-
five percent discount on legal services not included under the
Programs, but provided by a participating firm.

The challenge presented by the Bergenstock putative class was that
those Programs were not available in North Carolina.  That is
true, as the NC State Bar has refused to approve the Programs.
That refusal is the subject of litigation between the State Bar
and LegalZoom.  The Settlement dealt with members who did not live
in states where those Programs were available by providing them
with the lesser of (i) $75.00, or (ii) half of the current base
price of the document that the class member had purchased from
LegalZoom.

The Bergenstock Plaintiffs said that they had not received due
process in the Webster settlement because there was no counsel
representing their interests and there was no named class
representative who had interests in common with them.  They
further argued that the California Court approving the settlement
had not considered the adequacy of the alternative payment to the
class members who did not have the LegalZoom payments available to
them.  They asserted that the settlement was not entitled to full
faith and credit as to them.

Full Faith And Credit To Class Action Settlements

The main road block faced by the Plaintiffs challenging the effect
of the Webster settlement lies in a U.S. Supreme Court decision
holding that "a judgment entered in a class action, like any other
judgment entered in a state judicial proceeding, is presumptively
entitled to full faith and credit." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v.
Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 374 (1996), under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738
(2014).

The North Carolina appellate courts have accordingly held that
courts should apply only a "very limited" scope of review when
determining whether a foreign judgment is entitled to full faith
and credit, with the inquiry limited to whether jurisdictional and
due process considerations were "fully and fairly litigated and
finally decided" by the court rendering judgment. Op. Par. 32
(citing Boyles v. Boyles, 308 N.C. 488, 491, 302 S.E.2d 790, 793
(1983); Moody v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 191 N.C. App. 256, 275-76,
664 S.E.2d 569, 581-82 (2008).

If the out-of-state court found jurisdiction and due process to
have been "fully and fairly litigated" and they were finally
decided, a "North Carolina court extends full faith and credit
without further inquiry."

The Bergenstock Plaintiffs argued that the California court had
not specifically considered the adequacy of the settlement amount
paid to persons living in states where LegalZoom's programs were
not offered and that they therefore had not been afforded due
process.

Judge Gale refused to accept that argument, holding that:
the record does not allow for this parsing of the settlement
consideration. The full settlement consideration, including the
consideration provided to the Alternative Payment Plaintiffs, was
before Judge Highberger [the California Judge approving the
settlement] for his review. The Court cannot infer that Judge
Highberger failed to consider the adequacy of representation of or
the adequacy of consideration for the Alternative Payment
Plaintiffs merely because he did not make express findings in that
regard. He made findings that the overall settlement was fair and
reasonable and that the Settlement Class had been adequately
represented. The Court then must conclude that the issues
Plaintiffs now seek to litigate in this Court were fully and
fairly litigated and finally decided by Judge Highberger.


LEGEND ENERGY: "Dudymott" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Dudymott, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
employees v. Legend Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00035
(S.D. Tex., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Legend Energy Services, LLC is a coiled tubing service specialists
with service centers in Victoria, Bowie and Andrews, Texas, Elk
City, Oklahoma, Ft. Lupton, Colorado and Dickinson, North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: charles@rosslawpc.com


LINKEDIN CORP: California Court Dismisses "Sweet" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on May 21
dismissed a class action against LinkedIn -- over allegations the
networking site furnishes paid subscribers with job candidates'
consumer reports -- for failure to prosecute.

The case is Tracee Sweet, et al. v. LinkedIn Corporation, Case No.
5:14-cv-04531-PSG, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


LOS ANGELES CTY, CA: Faces Suit Over Unearned Probation Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Los Angeles County charges
probation fees for probationers it does not actually supervise,
but merely requires to "obey all laws," a class action claims in
California Superior Court.


LOUISIANA: Accused by Angola Prisoners of Medical Neglect
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service reports that the
Angola, Louisiana state prison does not provide ample and timely
medical treatment to its inmates, a class action filed on May 20
claims.

A group of Angola prisoners sued the Louisiana Department of
Public Safety and Corrections, department secretary James LeBlanc,
Angola Warden Burl Cain and Assistant Warden for Health Services
Stephanie Lamartiniere in Federal Court.  They claim their serious
medical needs have gone untreated or mistreated.

"The medical care provided at the Louisiana State Penitentiary at
Angola falls far beneath constitutional and statutory standards.
Countless prisoners have already suffered serious harm due to
defendants' grossly deficient policies and practices, including
unnecessary pain and suffering, exacerbation of existing
conditions, permanent disability, disfigurement, and even death,"
the complaint states.  "Thousands more are placed at daily risk of
suffering the same fate should they need medical care."

The lawsuit claims that Angola officials routinely delay medical
access and treatment, fail to provide medication and follow-up
care, and do not have enough qualified medical personnel,
resulting in some medical tasks being performed by unqualified
people like other prisoners.

One plaintiff, quadriplegic Kentrell Parker, developed a blood
infection from regularly having to sit in his own feces for hours
while waiting for an orderly to change his bedding, according to
the lawsuit.  Another, 62-year-old Edward Giovanni, claims he has
been denied needed hernia surgeries for years due to a hospital
shutdown and long waiting list.

"Defendants' practices have had devastating consequences for
countless prisoners," the complaint states.  "Prisoners report
horror story after horror story: a man denied medical attention
four times during a stroke, leaving him blind and paralyzed; a man
denied access to a specialist for four years while his throat
cancer advanced; a blind man denied even a cane for 16 years."

In 1989, the U.S. Justice Department sued Angola after an
investigation into prison conditions, which resulted in a consent
decree regulating medical care at Angola, according to the
complaint.  The prisoners say many of the same problems noted in
the investigation still exist.

"Defendant Cain was warden of Angola during the latter period that
the consent decree was in effect," the complaint states.  "Given
defendants' longstanding knowledge that its practices are
constitutionally deficient, together with the litany of complaints
and the devastating, often tragic consequences of their medical
neglect, there can be no question that defendants have been
deliberately indifferent to the shortcomings of their system of
treatment."

In a statement provided to Courthouse News May 21 afternoon, the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections denied the
allegations in the prisoner lawsuit.

"Appropriate health care delivery is a critical component for a
successful prison operation.  The 6,244 offenders assigned to LSP
have 24/7 access to emergency healthcare, with a physician on duty
who also lives on site and is available around the clock," the
department's statement reads.  "It should be noted that the groups
that have filed the suit have only met with a small fraction of
the offender population, yet very broadly claim that all offenders
lack appropriate care.  That assertion could not be more
incorrect."  Angola has six full time physicians, a nurse
practitioner, 20 registered nurses, 31 licensed practical nurses,
32 EMTs, four pharmacists, and a number of other specialists and
technicians, according to the press release.  The corrections
department also says it has added clinical services to the prison
in recent years.  The press release states that the department
usually does not comment on pending litigation but made an
exception because the allegations warrant a response.

"The offender population at Angola does present its challenges
because of the number of elderly offenders as well as those with
chronic diseases, but LSP staff in collaboration with LSU and
other private healthcare providers has provided appropriate,
quality care despite the challenges and will continue to do so,"
the corrections department statement reads.

Angola is a maximum security prison with over 6,000 prisoners
including death row inmates, according to the complaint.  The
prisoners claim most men housed there serve hard labor sentences,
usually tending to crops in agricultural fields.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Eighth Amendment, which
pertains to cruel and unusual punishment, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.  The proposed class consists of current Angola
prisoners.

The prisoners seek class certification and the development of a
plan to address inadequate medical care.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mercedes Montagnes, Esq.
          THE PROMISE OF JUSTICE INITIATIVE
          636 Baronne Street
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 529-5955
          Facsimile: (504) 558-0378


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Hagens Berman Files New Suit Over Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Vaughan, writing for The Virginia Gazette, reported that
embattled floor covering retailer Lumber Liquidators continues to
take hits. With the abrupt resignation of the company's CEO Robert
Lynch on and the 100 class-action lawsuits over its Chinese-made
composite flooring, the Toano-based company's stock price
continued to fall. And a national consumer rights law firm, Hagens
Berman, which had already filed a class-action suit relating to
the composite flooring, filed another saying that Lumber
Liquidators' engineered hardwood floors also contain hazardous
levels of cancer-causing formaldehyde, according to the lawsuit.

Lumber Liquidators suspended sales of the controversial composite
flooring, which had failed California Air Resources Board testing
at several labs.

Hagens Berman, which has offices in Washington, D.C., Boston,
Seattle, Chicago and five other cities across the country, says
that's not enough.

"Consumers across the nation have been unknowingly filling their
homes with a product laced with high levels of cancer-causing
chemicals," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.

"Lumber Liquidators continues to distribute and sell its
engineered flooring products to customers who believe they are
CARB compliant, when in reality its products are emitting toxic
fumes," he said.

"We'll stay short for the time being, but may trim our exposure
depending on the upcoming price action," Yas Nahili of Orlando,
Fla.-based Regal Point Capital Management LLC, said via email. The
management firm has very publicly shorted Lumber Liquidators'
stock.

"We're still confident in our March quote from MarketWatch,"
Nahili wrote to the Virginia Gazette. "We won't consider trimming
the position until we get closer to $20."

Lumber Liquidators said Lynch resigned "unexpectedly" and declined
to provide more details on the resignation when asked by The
Associated Press.

The company earlier said that it had suspended the sale of all
laminate flooring made in China after disclosing that the Justice
Department is seeking criminal charges. At the time, Lumber
Liquidators said that it decided to suspend the sales while a
board committee completes a review of its sourcing compliance
program.

Lumber Liquidators has been under investigation since 2013, when a
multi-agency raid on its Toano headquarters, raised questions
about sourcing of its lumber. Some is alleged to come from
protected Siberian woodlands.

Since early March, Lumber Liquidators has sent out thousands of
free test kits to worried customers. The company claims that more
than 97 percent of the kits from customers with laminate flooring
from China showed formaldehyde air concentrations that fell within
World Health Organization guidelines.

The company told The Associated Press it has stopped buying
Chinese laminate flooring for now, opting instead for products
from parts of Europe and North America.

Lynch, who also served as president and a director, had been in
the CEO position since January 2012. Lumber Liquidators Holdings
Inc. said that its founder, Thomas Sullivan, will take over as
acting CEO while the company searches for a replacement.
The company also announced that lead independent director John
Presley was named nonexecutive chairman.


MANNY PACQUIAO: Faces 32 Class Suits Over Fight with Mayweather
---------------------------------------------------------------
WWMT.com reported that boxing fans are still fuming over the less-
than-entertaining fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd
Mayweather Jr. that took place earlier and are taking their
displeasure with the match to court.

Since the bout between the two, which was dubbed as the "Fight of
the century," did not live up to expectations, 32 class action
lawsuits have been filed in court. WWMT reported that fans have
said not only was the heavily-hyped fight a fraud, but had they
known about Pacquiao's injury, they would have never paid to see
it.

The Associated Press noted that one lawsuit filed by Flights Beer
Bar near LAX airport, claims that Pacquiao and his promoters did
"nothing but a cash-grab." The establishment paid $2,600 to
broadcast the fight.

Another suit filed in Texas alleged racketeering and said that the
match was "not great, not entertaining, not electrifying. It was
boring, slow and lackluster."

After the bout that Mayweather won by a unanimous decision,
Pacquiao revealed that he had a serious should injury he suffered
prior to the fight.

The Filipino boxer has since underwent arthroscopic surgery for a
torn rotator cuff.

Many legal experts do not believe that anything will come from
these suits though because Pacquiao did not have a contractual
obligation to the fans who purchased the pay-per-view fight.


MARYLAND: Sued Over Violation of Sex Offenders' Rights
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that a class action lawsuit has been
filed claiming the rights of at least 800 people listed on the
Maryland Sex Offender Registry have been violated.

The Daily Record of Baltimore reports that the lawsuit claims the
state retroactively increased the length of time certain sex
offenders had to remain on the registry.  The lawsuit was file in
Baltimore City Circuit Court and seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, rather than damages.

The Maryland Declaration of Rights prohibits laws that
retroactively criminalize an act or impose a more severe penalty
than was set when the act was committed.

In 2010, Maryland's sex offender database was amended, changing
registration requirements for sex offenders based on what crimes
they had committed. The suit claims those changes were applied
retroactively to hundreds of people.


MASTEC INC: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against MasTec, Inc. ("MasTec" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:MTZ) and
certain of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of Florida, and docketed under
15-cv-21740, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased MasTec securities between August 12, 2014
and March 17, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class
action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Section 17(b) of the
Securities Act of 1933.

If you are a shareholder who purchased MasTec securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 6, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

MasTec, Inc., an infrastructure construction company, provides
engineering, building, installation, maintenance, and upgrade
services for energy, utility, and communications infrastructure
primarily in the United States. It operates in five segments:
Communications, Oil and Gas, Electrical Transmission, Power
Generation and Industrial, and Other. The Company builds pipelines
for natural gas, crude oil, and refined product transportation;
underground and overhead distribution systems comprising trenches,
conduits, and cable and power lines that provide wireless and
wireline communications; electrical power generation,
transmission, and distribution systems; power generation
infrastructure, including renewable energy; heavy industrial
plants; and compressor and pump stations, and treatment plants. It
also installs electrical and other energy distribution and
transmission systems, power generation facilities, buried and
aerial fiber optic cables, coaxial cables, copper lines, and
satellite dishes in various environments.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial performance. Specifically, defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) certain cost to complete estimates, currently believed to be
in the range of zero to $13 million, which were recognized during
the company's third quarter of 2014, should have been recognized
during the second quarter of 2014; (2) MasTec's internal control
over financial reporting was ineffective; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, MasTec's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 2, 2015, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 with the SEC,
notifying the SEC that it would delay the filing of its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014. In the
filing, the Company stated, in part: "The subject annual report
. . . will be filed on or before the fifteenth calendar day
following the prescribed due date."

On March 17, 2015, after the close of trading, the Company issued
a press release, announcing a further delay in filing its 2014
Form 10-K.  As a result of this news, shares of MasTec fell $1.88
or over 9.5% on unusually heavy volume, to close at $17.82 on
March 18, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com


MASTERCARD INC: Accrued $731MM Liability in Merchant Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2015, MasterCard Incorporated had accrued a
liability of $731 million as a reserve for both the merchant class
litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015.

As of March 31, 2015, MasterCard Incorporated had accrued a
liability of $731 million as a reserve for both the merchant class
litigation and the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015.

In June 2005, the first of a series of complaints were filed on
behalf of merchants (the majority of the complaints were styled as
class actions, although a few complaints were filed on behalf of
individual merchant plaintiffs) against MasterCard International,
Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Service Association and a
number of financial institutions. Taken together, the claims in
the complaints were generally brought under both Sections 1 and 2
of the Sherman Act, which prohibit monopolization and attempts or
conspiracies to monopolize a particular industry, and some of
these complaints contain unfair competition law claims under state
law. The complaints allege, among other things, that MasterCard,
Visa, and certain financial institutions conspired to set the
price of interchange fees, enacted point of sale acceptance rules
(including the no surcharge rule) in violation of antitrust laws
and engaged in unlawful tying and bundling of certain products and
services. The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in
MDL No. 1720. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint that seeks treble damages.

In July 2006, the group of purported merchant class plaintiffs
filed a supplemental complaint alleging that MasterCard's initial
public offering of its Class A Common Stock in May 2006 (the
"IPO") and certain purported agreements entered into between
MasterCard and financial institutions in connection with the IPO:
(1) violate U.S. antitrust laws and (2) constituted a fraudulent
conveyance because the financial institutions allegedly attempted
to release, without adequate consideration, MasterCard's right to
assess them for MasterCard's litigation liabilities. The class
plaintiffs sought treble damages and injunctive relief including,
but not limited to, an order reversing and unwinding the IPO.
In February 2011, MasterCard and MasterCard International entered
into each of: (1) an omnibus judgment sharing and settlement
sharing agreement with Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc. and Visa
International Service Association and a number of financial
institutions; and (2) a MasterCard settlement and judgment sharing
agreement with a number of financial institutions.  The agreements
provide for the apportionment of certain costs and liabilities
which MasterCard, the Visa parties and the financial institutions
may incur, jointly and/or severally, in the event of an adverse
judgment or settlement of one or all of the cases in the merchant
litigations.  Among a number of scenarios addressed by the
agreements, in the event of a global settlement involving the Visa
parties, the financial institutions and MasterCard, MasterCard
would pay 12% of the monetary portion of the settlement. In the
event of a settlement involving only MasterCard and the financial
institutions with respect to their issuance of MasterCard cards,
MasterCard would pay 36% of the monetary portion of such
settlement.

In October 2012, the parties entered into a definitive settlement
agreement with respect to the merchant class litigation (including
with respect to the claims related to the IPO) and the defendants
separately entered into a settlement agreement with the individual
merchant plaintiffs. The settlements included cash payments that
were apportioned among the defendants pursuant to the omnibus
judgment sharing and settlement sharing agreement described above.
MasterCard also agreed to provide class members with a short-term
reduction in default credit interchange rates and to modify
certain of its business practices, including its No Surcharge
Rule. Objections to the settlement were filed by both merchants
and certain competitors, including Discover. Discover's objections
include a challenge to the settlement on the grounds that certain
of the rule changes agreed to in the settlement constitute a
restraint of trade in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The court granted final approval of the settlement in December
2013, which has been appealed by objectors to the settlement.
Merchants representing slightly more than 25% of the MasterCard
and Visa purchase volume over the relevant period chose to opt out
of the class settlement. MasterCard anticipates that most of the
larger merchants who opted out of the settlement will initiate
separate actions seeking to recover damages, and over 30 opt-out
complaints have been filed on behalf of numerous merchants in
various jurisdictions. The defendants have consolidated all of
these matters (except for one state court action in Texas) in
front of the same federal district court that is overseeing the
approval of the settlement. In July 2014, the district court
denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the opt-out merchant
complaints for failure to state a claim.

MasterCard recorded a pre-tax charge of $770 million in the fourth
quarter of 2011 and an additional $20 million pre-tax charge in
the second quarter of 2012 relating to the settlement agreements
described above. In 2012, MasterCard paid $790 million with
respect to the settlements, of which $726 million was paid into a
qualified cash settlement fund related to the merchant class
litigation. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, MasterCard
had $540 million, in the qualified cash settlement fund classified
as restricted cash on its balance sheet. The class settlement
agreement provided for a return to the defendants of a portion of
the class cash settlement fund, based upon the percentage of
purchase volume represented by the opt-out merchants. This
resulted in $164 million from the cash settlement fund being
returned to MasterCard in January 2014 and reclassified at that
time from restricted cash to cash and cash equivalents.

In the fourth quarter of 2013, MasterCard recorded an incremental
net pre-tax charge of $95 million related to the opt-out
merchants, representing a change in its estimate of probable
losses relating to these matters.  MasterCard has executed
settlement agreements with a number of opt-out merchants and no
adjustment to the amount previously recorded was deemed necessary.
As of March 31, 2015, MasterCard had accrued a liability of $731
million as a reserve for both the merchant class litigation and
the filed and anticipated opt-out merchant cases.

The portion of the accrued liability relating to the opt-out
merchants does not represent an estimate of a loss, if any, if the
opt-out merchant matters were litigated to a final outcome, in
which case MasterCard cannot estimate the potential liability.
MasterCard's estimate involves significant judgment and may change
depending on progress in settlement negotiations or depending upon
decisions in any opt-out merchant cases. In addition, in the event
that the merchant class litigation settlement approval is
overturned on appeal, a negative outcome in the litigation could
have a material adverse effect on MasterCard's results of
operations, financial position and cash flows.


MASTERCARD INC: Parties Appealed Certification Decision
-------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action complaint against MasterCard
Incorporated have appealed the certification decision, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015.

In December 2010, a proposed class action complaint was commenced
against MasterCard in Quebec on behalf of Canadian merchants. That
suit essentially repeated the allegations and arguments of a
previously filed application by the Canadian Competition Bureau to
the Canadian Competition Tribunal (dismissed in MasterCard's
favor) related to certain MasterCard rules related to point-of-
sale acceptance, including the "honor all cards" and "no
surcharge" rules. The suit sought compensatory and punitive
damages in unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief. In
the first half of 2011, additional purported class action lawsuits
containing similar allegations to the Quebec class action were
commenced in British Columbia and Ontario against MasterCard, Visa
and a number of large Canadian financial institutions. The British
Columbia suit seeks compensatory damages in unspecified amounts,
and the Ontario suit seeks compensatory damages of $5 billion. The
British Columbia and Ontario suits also seek punitive damages in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief, interest and
legal costs.

In April 2012, the Quebec suit was amended to include the same
defendants and similar claims as in the British Columbia and
Ontario suits. With respect to the status of the proceedings: (1)
the Quebec suit has been stayed, (2) the Ontario suit is being
temporarily suspended while the British Columbia suit proceeds,
and (3) the British Columbia court issued an order in March 2014
certifying a number of the merchants' causes of action. The
parties have appealed the certification decision.

Additional proposed class action complaints have been filed in
Saskatchewan and Alberta with claims that largely mirror those in
the British Columbia and Ontario suits. If the class action
lawsuits are ultimately successful, negative decisions could have
a significant adverse impact on the revenue of MasterCard's
Canadian customers and on MasterCard's overall business in Canada
and could result in substantial damage awards.


MASTERCARD INC: UK Court Scheduled Trial for January 2016
---------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in April 2013, the
European Commission announced that it has opened proceedings to
investigate: (1) MasterCard's interregional interchange fees that
apply when a card issued outside the EEA is used at a merchant
location in the EEA, (2) central acquiring rules, which apply when
a merchant uses the services of an acquirer established in another
country and (3) other business rules and practices (including the
"honor all cards" rule).

In the United Kingdom, beginning in May 2012, a number of
retailers filed claims against MasterCard seeking damages for
alleged anti-competitive conduct with respect to MasterCard's
cross-border interchange fees and its U.K. and Ireland domestic
interchange fees. More than 20 different retailers have filed
claims or notice of claims.  An additional 13 potential claimant
retailers have agreed to delay filing their claims in exchange for
MasterCard agreeing to suspend the running of the time limitations
on their damages claims.  Although the claimants have not
quantified the full extent of their compensatory and punitive
damages, their purported damages exceed $2 billion.  MasterCard
has submitted statements of defense to the retailers' claims
disputing liability and damages.  A court in one of the actions
has scheduled a trial for January 2016.

Similarly, in Belgium, a retailer filed claims in December 2012
for unspecified damages with respect to MasterCard's cross-border
and domestic interchange fees paid in Belgium, Greece and
Luxembourg.


MASTERCARD INC: Appeal Filed in ATM Surcharge Complaints
--------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the ATM
Non-Discrimination Rule Surcharge Complaints have appealed these
actions.

In October 2011, a trade association of independent Automated
Teller Machine ("ATM") operators and 13 independent ATM operators
filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia against both
MasterCard and Visa (the "ATM Operators Complaint").  Plaintiffs
seek to represent a class of non-bank operators of ATM terminals
that operate ATM terminals in the United States with the
discretion to determine the price of the ATM access fee for the
terminals they operate. Plaintiffs allege that MasterCard and Visa
have violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by imposing rules that
require ATM operators to charge non-discriminatory ATM surcharges
for transactions processed over MasterCard's and Visa's respective
networks that are not greater than the surcharge for transactions
over other networks accepted at the same ATM.  Plaintiffs seek
both injunctive and monetary relief equal to treble the damages
they claim to have sustained as a result of the alleged violations
and their costs of suit, including attorneys' fees.  Plaintiffs
have not quantified their damages although they allege that they
expect damages to be in the tens of millions of dollars.
Subsequently, multiple related complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia alleging both federal
antitrust and multiple state unfair competition, consumer
protection and common law claims against MasterCard and Visa on
behalf of putative classes of users of ATM services (the "ATM
Consumer Complaints").  The claims in these actions largely mirror
the allegations made in the ATM Operators Complaint, although
these complaints seek damages on behalf of consumers of ATM
services who pay allegedly inflated ATM fees at both bank and non-
bank ATM operators as a result of the defendants' ATM rules.
Plaintiffs seek both injunctive and monetary relief equal to
treble the damages they claim to have sustained as a result of the
alleged violations and their costs of suit, including attorneys'
fees.  Plaintiffs have not quantified their damages although they
allege that they expect damages to be in the tens of millions of
dollars.

In January 2012, the plaintiffs in the ATM Operators Complaint and
the ATM Consumer Complaints filed amended class action complaints
that largely mirror their prior complaints. In February 2013, the
district court granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the
complaints for failure to state a claim, and in December 2013
denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaints. The
plaintiffs have appealed these actions.


MCKEE FOODS: Removed "Martin" Suit to Central Dist. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Brian Martin, individually, and on
behalf of other members of the genreal public similarly situated
v. McKee Foods Corporation, Case No. 30-02015-00780296, was
removed from the Superior Court of Orange County, California to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:15-cv-00732 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Martin
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Brigham M. Cheney, Esq.
      PAUL HASTINGS LLP
      695 Town Center Drive, 17th Floor
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (714) 668-6200
      E-mail: brighamcheney@paulhastings.com


MELROSE CAFE: Faces "Leon" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Miqueas Leon, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Melrose Cafe, Inc., d/b/a
Melrose Restaurant, and Vasilios Koutsougeras, Case No. 1:15-cv-
04770 (N.D. Ill., May 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours
per week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq.
      Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
      NOLAN LAW OFFICE
      53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 322-1100
      Facsimile: (312) 322-1106
      E-mail: n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
              tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net


METLIFE INC: Faces Racial Discrimination Class Suit in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action
accuses MetLife of racial discrimination.


MICHIGAN: Nonunion Staff Can't Sue as Class, 6th Cir. Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nonunionized child care providers in Michigan cannot form a class
with union members to sue the state for deducting union dues from
state-funded subsidies, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News
Service, citing a 6th Circuit ruling entered May 12.

Michigan child care providers who do not want to join a union
object to having a portion of their state subsidies deducted for
union fees.

Child Care Providers Together Michigan (CCPTM) was elected to
serve as the union for the state's child care providers.  Of 6,396
ballots cast, 5,921 were in favor of the union.

Under a 2008 collective bargaining agreement, all home child care
providers receiving subsidies from the state were required to
either become a union member or have a portion of their subsidy
deducted to cover union costs.

Carrie Schlaud and five others objected on First Amendment
grounds.  They are represented by the National Right to Work Legal
Defense Foundation.

A federal judge denied class certification, and the 6th Circuit
affirmed that ruling in 2013.

But the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the judgment, and ordered the
Cincinnati-based appeals court to revisit the issue in light of
the high court's decision in Harris v. Quinn.

In Harris, the Supreme Court ruled that Illinois cannot force
providers of Medicaid-subsidized rehabilitation services to pay
costs for a union they chose not to join, because they were not
full-fledged state employees.

"The court did not, however, touch upon the issue of class
certification," in Harris, the 6th Circuit noted on remand.

In an unsigned opinion May 12, the 6th Circuit ruled that Harris
did not affect its initial decision, and again denied the child
care providers class certification.

"Were the merits of the plaintiffs' claims before us, we think
that Harris would have much to say.  But the merits of their
claims are not in front of us," the 12-page opinion states.

The plaintiffs' claims against the state became moot once Gov.
Rick Snyder ended the program of collective bargaining at issue.
And the union wrote checks to the named plaintiffs of
approximately $100 each rather than pay to continue the
litigation.

The proposed class of 40,000 childcare workers would allow each
class member to recover money from the union.  But the class
definition is problematic, the 6th Circuit said, because it
includes any home child care provider who had union dues or fees
deducted from a state subsidy payment -- whether or not they voted
to join the union voluntarily.

The last time the court heard this case, "We observed that the
named plaintiffs, who objected to the payment of fees under the
collective bargaining agreement, had 'divergent interests' from
class members who voted in favor of the collective bargaining
agreement.  We concluded, therefore, that '[t]he district court
did not abuse its discretion in denying certification of
plaintiffs' proposed class because plaintiffs fail to meet the
prerequisite of adequacy of representation,'" the three-judge
panel said.

Nothing in the Supreme Court's Harris decision alters this
reasoning, the court concluded.

The court was absolutely correct," defense attorney John West,
with Bredhoff & Haiser in Washington, D.C., told Courthouse News.

"The only thing at issue in this case was not the merits, but
whether a class should be certified. Harris had nothing whatever
to do with that.  It was a mystery to us all along why the Supreme
Court remanded this case."

The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Appellants are represented by:

          William L. Messenger, Esq.
          NATIONAL RIGHT TO WORK LEGAL DEFENSE FOUNDATION
          8001 Braddock Road
          Springfield, VA 22160
          Telephone: (703) 321-8510
          Facsimile: (703) 321-9319

The Appellees are represented by:

          John M. West, Esq.
          BREDHOFF & KAISER, PLLC
          805 Fifteenth Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005-2207
          Telephone: (202) 842-2600
          Facsimile: (202) 842-1888

The appellate case is Carrie Schlaud; Edward J. Gross; Nora I.
Gross; Peggy Mashke; Diana Orr, and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Rick Snyder, et al., Defendants; and
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace, And
Agricultural Implement Workers of America; Michigan Council 25 of
the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees,
AFL-CIO; Child Care Providers Together Michigan, Defendants-
Appellees, Case No. 12-1105, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit.  The District Court case is Carrie Schlaud,
et al. v. Rick Snyder, et al., Case No. 1:10-cv-147, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Michigan at Grand
Rapids.


MORGAN STANLEY: Court Refuses to Certify Class in Mortgage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that though she conceded that the
decision sounds a "death knell" for the case, a federal judge
refused to certify a class action alleging that black people bore
the brunt Morgan Stanley's mortgage fraud in Detroit.

The case is Beverly Adkins, et al. v. Morgan Stanley, et al., Case
No. 1:12-cv-07667-VEC-GWG, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


MRI INT'L: Accused Ponzi Schemers Appeal Freeze of All Assets
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that two
alleged key players in an $800 million Ponzi scheme made headway
in trying to show the 9th Circuit that a federal judge went too
far in freezing virtually all of their assets.

Investors defrauded by MRI International investors brought the
challenge at hand in Las Vegas after the Securities and Exchange
Commission brought charges in 2013.

MRI executives Junzo Suzuki and Paul Musashi Suzuki went to the
9th Circuit after the court presiding over the investors' claims
froze all of their assets except for those needed to pay their
legal fees and living costs.

The Suzukis and others have meanwhile been hit with summary
judgment in the SEC case.  U.S. District Judge James Mahan ordered
the defendants to disgorge $442 million, and he hit them with
another $102 million in interest and $20 million each in civil
penalties.  The defendants' six commercial properties were placed
in receivership as well.

Nick Morgan, an attorney for the Suzukis with Zaccaro and Morgan
in Los Angeles, told a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit on May
11 that the "asset freeze is overbroad."

"There are limits to a district court's ability to freeze assets,"
Morgan argued.

With an asset freeze limited to targeting only a defendant's
"equitable interests," Morgan said that means the Suzuki's frozen
assets must be "traceable to the commissions that they received
from MRI."

The case currently has 25 plaintiffs who lost a combined $3
million in the Ponzi scheme, Morgan said, adding that a pending
class certification has not been approved.

What these investors have failed so far to show, however, is "how
much of the $3 million was in the form of commissions to the
Suzukis" and "whether any of the $3 million went to the Suzukis,"
Morgan claimed.

On about $3 million lost by 25 current plaintiffs, the commissions
amounted only to between $430,000 and $450,000, the attorney
added.

Morgan also argued the asset freeze incorrectly applies to
properties and other assets the Suzukis owned long before the MRI
scheme occurred, including a property bought in 1987.

He said the asset freeze can apply only to assets acquired after
the Suzukis had "actual or constructive notice of the underlying
fraud at MRI."

With the trial court having found that the Suzukis had "actual
notice" of the fraudulent scheme as of April 2012, only assets
acquired after that time can be subjected to an asset freeze, the
attorney added.

The investors' attorney Robert Cohen told the court that the
evidence of fraud and the dissipation of funds support the asset
freeze.

"Within two weeks of the Japanese government's finding of the
underlying fraud of the existence of this Ponzi scheme, the
Suzukis were undertaking rapid efforts to dissipate their assets
and protect them from the judgment that is likely to be in this
case," Cohen argued.  He said the Suzukis are "the main guys" at
MRI and made false representations "constantly over a period of
many, many years."

"They are MRI "and "made literally all of the representations to
the Japanese victims," Cohen argued.  "These Suzukis are the ones
who spoke to them [and] who took them to Las Vegas countless times
touting the virtues of the MRI investment."

Cohen said the SEC has sound recordings of the Suzukis at meetings
and discussed ways to lie to the Japanese government while trying
to hide the fact that MRI was buying affiliate companies after
lying about only investing in medical account receivables.

When asked if the size of the asset freeze is appropriate to
create a constructive trust, Cohen said there are potentially more
than 8,000 members of a yet-to-be-certified class action who lost
"hundreds of millions of dollars."

Cohen scoffed at the notion that the asset freeze went too far
into the past, thus targeting assets obtained before the scheme
was perpetrated.

"It's hardly a stretch to assume that they have been paying
mortgages and maintaining those houses with money that was taken
from these commissions," he said.  "Everything they have is
traceable, in that sense, to this money."

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said he and the rest of the panel,
Judges Fortunado Benevides and John Owens, might leave the current
injunction and asset freeze in place until the U.S. District Court
in Las Vegas can hold a discovery hearing.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Approval of Likeness Suit Settlement Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court was correct in approving a class action settlement
between the NFL and former players over use of players'
likenesses, reports Joe Harris at Courthouse News Service, citing
an 8th Circuit panel ruling.

In 2009, former players filed a class action objecting to the
NFL's use of their likenesses without compensation.  The complaint
claimed NFL Films videos are promotional film productions that are
completely independent of the play and the production of games
themselves.

Instead, the class claimed the NFL used their likenesses and
identity in the videos to improve profits and its brand.

The settlement, involving 25,000 former players and the NFL,
establishes a licensing agency to assist former NFL players in
marketing their publicity rights with the support of the NFL.  It
also includes a $42 million payout by the NFL to its Common Good
Entity, which provides charitable contributions for the benefit of
former players for health-related, housing and career-transition
issues.

Six former players challenged the approval of the settlement,
claiming a federal judge abused his discretion because the
settlement does not provide a direct financial payment to each
class member and is not fair, reasonable and adequate.

The players claimed the settlement is simply a way of the NFL
giving away their proceeds to a third-party charity.

But a three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit was not swayed.

"Here, the financial payment to the third-party organization is
not the only, or perhaps even the primary, benefit of the
settlement agreement," Circuit Judge Kermit Bye wrote for the
panel.  "All class members receive a direct benefit from the
settlement: the opportunity to license their publicity rights
through the established licensing agency, as well as the payments
by the NFL to the licensing agency.  If the players' publicity
rights are as valuable as appellants claim, the players should be
able to realize the value of their publicity rights through the
licensing agency."

The appeals court used the traditional four-point analysis in
rejecting the players' arguments that the settlement was not fair,
reasonable or adequate.

According to that analysis the panel found that the NFL was in
good enough financial condition to pay its obligation of the
settlement; the complexity and cost of further litigation would be
too much of a burden; less than 10 percent of the class opted out
of the settlement minimizing the amount of opposition; and the
value of the settlement outweighed the merits of the plaintiffs'
claims.

Circuit Judges Lavenski Smith and Jane Kelly concurred.

The cases are:

   (1) James Lawrence Marshall, Joseph Michael Senser, Dante
       Anthony Pastorini, Plaintiffs-Appellants; Fred Barnett,
       Tracy Simien, Darrell Alexander Thompson, James Nathaniel
       Brown, Mark Gregory Clayton, Irvin Acie Cross, Brian
       Duncan, Billy Joe Dupree, Michael James Haynes, Paul James
       Krause, Reginald McKenzie, Reginald Joseph Rucker, Jackie
       Larue Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others
       similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees; John Frederick
       Dryer, Elvin Lamont Bethea, Edward Alvin White, Lemuel
       Joseph Barney, Bruce Allan Laird, Preston Pearson, Jim Ray
       Smith, Plaintiffs v. National Football League, Defendant-
       Appellee, Case No. 13-3581, in the United States Court of
       Appeals for the Eighth Circuit;

   (2) Marcus Dell Gastineau, Abdul Salaam, Plaintiffs-
       Appellants; Fred Barnett, Tracy Simien, Darrell Alexander
       Thompson, James Nathaniel Brown, Mark Gregory Clayton,
       Irvin Acie Cross, Brian Duncan, Billy Joe Dupree, Michael
       James Haynes, Paul James Krause, Reginald McKenzie,
       Reginald Joseph Rucker, Jackie Larue Smith, on behalf of
       themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
       Appellees; John Frederick Dryer, James Lawrence Marshall,
       Joseph Michael Senser, Elvin Lamont Bethea, Dante Anthony
       Pastorini, Edward Alvin White, Lemuel Joseph Barney, Bruce
       Allan Laird, Preston Pearson, Jim Ray Smith, Plaintiffs v.
       National Football League, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
       13-3582, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
       Eighth Circuit; and

   (3) Jed Weaver, Plaintiff-Appellant; Fred Barnett, Tracy
       Simien, Darrell Alexander Thompson, James Nathaniel Brown,
       Mark Gregory Clayton, Irvin Acie Cross, Brian Duncan,
       Billy Joe Dupree, Michael James Haynes, Paul James Krause,
       Reginald McKenzie, Reginald Joseph Rucker, Jackie Larue
       Smith, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
       situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees; John Frederick Dryer,
       James Lawrence Marshall, Joseph Michael Senser, Elvin
       Lamont Bethea, Dante Anthony Pastorini, Edward Alvin
       White, Lemuel Joseph Barney, Bruce Allan Laird, Preston
       Pearson, Jim Ray Smith, Plaintiffs v. National Football
       League, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 13-3666, in the
       United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Classes Certified in Sports Cable Package Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whether they watched online or on their big screen, sports fans
claiming that the packages they bought violate antitrust law
should proceed as class actions, reports Nick Rummell at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling entered on
May 14.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin issued decision for two class
actions involving different sports, but the same idea.

Thomas Laumann is the lead plaintiff in the class action against
the National Hockey League, while Marc Lerner is the lead
plaintiff taking on Major League Baseball.

Both cases allege that the leagues and various regional sports
networks conspired with distributors like DirecTV and Comcast to
limit options and increase prices for fans who must buy a special
cable or Internet package to see games outside of their home
television territories.

Under the current system, a Yankees fan in Brooklyn would have to
purchase the YES Network to watch local games, whereas a Yankees
fan in Iowa would have to purchase an out-of-market package that
would include all baseball games.

Most out-of-market games are available only via national
broadcasts, or through the out-of-market packages sold through
Comcast and DirectTV.

The leagues meanwhile contend that it is the profits from these
agreements that allow them and networks to broadcast their games
in the first place.

Contending that some of the plaintiffs could be worse off without
the exclusivity agreements, the leagues said that a hypothetical
Yankees fan in Iowa would no longer have any option to purchase an
out-of-market package to watch the Yankees, or the package would
cost more.

The leagues wanted Scheindlin to deny class certification on the
basis of this predicament, contending that it proves that the
class members are not similarly situated.

Scheindlin found May 14, however, that this "winners and losers"
argument is too broadly worded.

"There is no question that here, a common injury exists in the
form of diminished consumer choice," the 66-page opinion states.
"It is possible . . . that many fans would have preferred that the
instant lawsuit not be brought. But the fundamental point remains.
The restraints are either illegal or they are not."

Scheindlin likewise concluded that the winners and losers argument
"threatens the integrity of the antitrust laws."

"If the fact that illegal restraints operate to the economic
advantage of certain class members were enough to defeat
certification, the efficacy of class-wide antitrust suits -- and
the deterrence function they serve -- would wither," she wrote.

The leagues also failed to sway Scheindlin with claims that many
sports fans no longer subscribed to out-of-market packages, and
therefore shouldn't be considered "consumers in the relevant
market" for the purpose of a class-action lawsuit.

"Short of death, cognitive illness, or a complete loss of interest
in baseball and hockey, previous subscribers" should be added to
the class, the ruling states.

In a separate opinion May 14 that dealt some bad news to the
plaintiffs, Scheindlin threw out their proposed damages model.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Edward A. Diver, Esq.
          Howard I. Langer, Esq.
          Peter E. Leckman, Esq.
          LANGER GROGAN & DIVER, P.C.
          Three Logan Square, Suite 4130
          1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 320-5663
          E-mail: ndiver@langergrogan.com
                  hlanger@langergrogan.com
                  pleckman@langergrogan.com

               - and -

          Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
          Gary E. Klein, Esq.
          KLEIN KAVANAGH COSTELLO, LLP
          85 Merrimac St., 4th Floor
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: (617) 357-5034
          E-mail: costello@kkcllp.com
                  klein@kkcllp.com

               - and -

          Michael Morris Buchman, Esq.
          John A. Ioannou, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE, LLC
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 577-0040
          E-mail: mbuchman@motleyrice.com
                  jioannou@motleyrice.com

               - and -

          Marc I. Gross, Esq.
          Adam G. Kurtz, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          E-mail: migross@pomlaw.com
                  agkurtz@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert LaRocca, Esq.
          KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238-1700
          E-mail: rlarocca@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
          Jeffrey Dubner, Esq.
          COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          88 Pine Street
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 838-7797
          Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
          E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com
                  jdubner@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK, LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          E-mail: MBoni@bonizack.com
                  JSnyder@bonizack.com

Defendants Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, Major League
Baseball Enterprises Inc., MLB Advanced Media L.P., MLB
AdvancedMedia, Inc., Athletics Investment Group, LLC, The Baseball
Club of Seattle, L.L.P., Chicago White Sox, Ltd., Colorado Rockies
Baseball Club,Ltd., The Phillies, Pittsburgh Baseball, Inc., and
San Francisco BaseballAssociates, L.P. are represented by:

          Beth A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          Samantha P. Bateman, Esq.
          PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          2001 K St. NW
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 223-7300
          E-mail: bwilkinson@paulweiss.com
                  sbateman@paulweiss.com

               - and -

          Bradley I. Ruskin, Esq.
          Helene Debra Jaffe, Esq.
          Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq.
          Colin Kass, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3465
          E-mail: bruskin@proskauer.com
                  ajaffe@proskauer.com
                  jscullion@proskauer.com
                  ckass@proskauer.com

               - and -
          Thomas J. Ostertag, Esq.
          Senior Vice President and General Counsel
          OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL
          245 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10167
          Telephone: (212) 931-7800
          Facsimile: (212) 949-5653
          E-mail: Tom.Ostertag@mlb.com

Defendants National Hockey League, NHL Enterprises, L.P.,
NHLInteractive Cyberenterprises, LLC, Chicago Blackhawk Hockey
Team, Inc.,Comcast-Spectator, L.P., Hockey Western New York LLC,
Lemieux Group,L.P., Lincoln Hockey LLC, New Jersey Devils LLC, New
York IslandersHockey Club, L.P., and San Jose Sharks, LLC are
represented by:

          Shepard Goldfein, Esq.
          James A. Keyte, Esq.
          Paul M. Eckles, Esq.
          Matthew M. Martino, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          E-mail: shepard.goldfein@skadden.com
                  james.keyte@skadden.com
                  paul.eckles@skadden.com
                  matthew.martino@skadden.com

Defendants Comcast Corporation, Comcast SportsNet Philadelphia,
L.P., Comcast SportsNet Mid-Atlantic L.P., Comcast SportsNet
California, LLC, and Comcast SportsNet Chicago, LLC are
represented by:

          Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
          James W. Haldin, Esq.
          DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL
          450 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 450-4000
          E-mail: arthur.burke@davispolk.com
                  james.haldin@davispolk.com

Defendants DIRECTV, LLC, DIRECTV Sports Networks, LLC, DIRECTV
Sports Net Pittsburgh, LLC a/k/a Root Sports Pittsburgh, DIRECTV
Sports Net Rocky Mountain, LLC a/ka/a Root Sports Rocky Mountain,
and DIRECTV Sports Net Northwest, LLC a/ka/a Root SportsNorthwest
are represented by:

          Louis A. Karasik, Esq.
          Andrew E. Paris, Esq.
          Stephanie A. Jones, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          333 South Hope Street, 16th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 576-1000
          E-mail: lou.karasik@alston.com
                  drew.paris@alston.com
                  alison.jones@alston.com

Defendant New York Yankees Partnership is represented by:

          Jonathan Schiller, Esq.
          Alan Vickery, Esq.
          Christopher Duffy, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          575 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 849-2300
          E-mail: jschiller@bsfllp.com
                  avickery@bsfllp.com
                  cduffy@bsfllp.com

Defendants The Madison Square Garden Company and New York Rangers
Hockey Club are represented by:

          Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq.
          Deborah Brown, Esq.
          Richard I. Werder, Jr., Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
          E-mail: stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
                  deborahbrown@quinnemanuel.com
                  rickwerder@quinnemanuel.com

Defendant Yankees Entertainment Sports Network, LLC is represented
by:

          John E. Schmidtlein, Esq.
          Kenneth Charles Smurzynski, Esq.
          James Harris Weingarten, Esq.
          William Jefferson Vigen, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434-5000
          E-mail: jschmidtlein@wc.com
                  ksmurzynski@wc.com
                  jweingarten@wc.com
                  wvigen@wc.com

The cases are (1) Thomas Laumann, et al. v. National Hockey
League, et al., Case No. 12-cv-1817 (SAS), in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York; and (2) Marc Lerner,
et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball, et al., Case No.
12-cv-3704 (SAS), in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


NEUSTAR INC: Counsel for IPRS Filed Notice of Appeal
----------------------------------------------------
Neustar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that counsel for the
Indiana Public Retirement System, or IPRS, has filed a notice of
appeal in a class action lawsuit.

On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement
System, or OFPRS, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated stockholders, filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, or the Alexandria
Division, against the Company and certain of its senior executive
officers.  The OFPRS complaint asserted claims for purported
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who purchased
the Company's securities between April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014,
inclusive, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive
relief.

On October 7, 2014, the Alexandria Division issued an order
appointing lead counsel and designating The Indiana Public
Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead plaintiff.  On November 6,
2014, the IPRS filed an amended complaint and on December 8, 2014,
the Company moved to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint.  On
December 22, 2014, IPRS filed its opposition to the Company's
motion to dismiss.  On December 29, 2014, the Company filed a
reply brief to the IPRS opposition.  The Alexandria Division heard
oral arguments on the motions on January 22, 2015 and on January
27, 2015, and issued an order granting the Company's motion to
dismiss IPRS's amended complaint with prejudice.  On February 25,
2015, counsel for IPRS filed a notice of appeal. At this stage,
the Company is unable to quantify the impact of these claims on
its future consolidated financial position or results of
operations.


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Faces Suit Over Rape & Abuse at Rikers Island
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York City has allowed the Rikers Island jail to become one of
the nation's worst settings for horrific and "endemic" rape and
abuse behind bars for women awaiting trial, a federal class-action
lawsuit alleges, reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

Months after its juvenile prison faced federal prosecution for its
"Lord of the Flies" setting, Rikers Island's Rose M. Singer Center
(RMSC) might face the same reputation based on the allegations of
an alarming complaint.

Two Jane Doe women incarcerated there allege that corrections
officer Benny Santiago and "at least seven" unnamed guards
inflicted horrific abuse on numerous inmates.

In 39 pages, the lawsuit depicts an environment where the officers
repeatedly punish inmates with anal rape, masturbate in the open
areas of dormitories, and continue to collect a paycheck even
after their sexual assaults lead to pregnancy.

Their Legal Aid Society attorney Seymour James said in a statement
that New York's Department of Corrections has seen "record
proportions" sexual violence that is "endemic" at this women's
jail.

"According to a survey conducted by the U.S. Department of
Justice, RMSC is one of the 12 worst jails in the country
regarding rates of staff sexual misconduct," James wrote.
"Nationwide, 3.2 percent of jail inmates reported sexual
victimization, but at RMSC the rate was 8.6 percent, and sexual
victimization rates were higher at RMSC than at the other Rikers
jails in the survey. According to the DOJ survey, approximately
5.9 percent of RMSC inmates reported sexual abuse by staff."

Sexually assaulting his first accuser "as many as four times a
week," Santiago punished her with anal rape and threats to her
family if she resisted, according to the complaint.

"Santiago knew where Jane Doe 1's mother lived, and would park his
car outside her home, observe Jane Doe 1's family, and later
report his observations to Jane Doe 1 -- reminding her to 'make
the right decision,' and implicitly threatening her family," the
complaint states.  "Santiago also kept Jane Doe 1 from resisting
or reporting his sexual abuse by threatening that after she was
released, she would live with him, keep his house clean and 'never
go anywhere.'"

She claims the abuse persisted during various stints of
incarceration between 2009 and 2011.  Late in 2012, the second
accuser entered the same prison and she says Santiago first
started sexually abusing her in February 2013.  If she reported
him, Santiago allegedly warned: "I can get you set up.  I can get
you fucked up."

Breaking down into tears, the second accuser told a mental health
counselor but the inspector-general investigation that followed
yielded no results other than the guards calling her a "snitch,"
according to the complaint.

She claims that Santiago left her with post-traumatic stress
disorder and trichomoniasis, a sexually transmitted disease.

Both women claim that Santiago refused to wear a condom.

Legal Aid lawyers assert that Santiago was still a corrections
officer there at the time the complaint was filed on May 18.

A Department of Corrections official said in an e-mail on May 20
that the "officer in question is currently on modified duty."

"Officers on modified duty do not interact with jail inmates," the
official said.

The lawsuit disguises the names of "at least seven" other officers
accused of misconduct.

Of this group, one of them impregnated an inmate, and two of them
"may have impregnated" another, according to the complaint.

"Corrections Officer 3" is described as having raped "at least one
woman" with impunity, but received a three-year sentence for
smuggling marijuana into the prison.  The charge and sentence
match the description of a recent high-profile case in New York.

A Department of Corrections representative declined to comment on
the specific allegations.

"Speaking generally, DOC has a zero-tolerance policy with regard
to sexual abuse and assault, and there is no place at DOC for the
mistreatment of any inmate," the representative said.

On a literal level, there a several places in the prison for
inmate mistreatment, the complaint alleges.

Legal Aid lawyers say that much of the abuse alleged occurred in
areas without video surveillance.

In an unrelated case, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara also charged
that the city's negligence and inoperative cameras enabled Rikers
abuse at juvenile facilities, but he had no comment on the Legal
Aid case.

City spokesman Nicholas Paolucci commented that "the lawsuit will
be reviewed once we are served."


NUCOR CORP: 4th Cir. Upheld Class Cert. for Black Steelworkers
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 4th Circuit upheld class certification for black steelworkers
who claim they were subjected to extreme and unrelenting racial
discrimination while working for the Nucor Corporation in South
Carolina, reports Charly Himmel at Courthouse News Service.

The ruling handed down on May 11 is the second time the 4th
Circuit has found the district court erred in refusing to certify
the workers' class, and U.S. Circuit Judge Roger Gregory said the
problem is the court is misapplying the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling in the 2011 case Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes.

In Wal-Mart, a sharply divided high court reversed a lower court's
decision to certify a class off that included 1.6 million woman
who alleged gender discrimination in pay and promotion policies at
the retail giant's stores.

Simply put, a majority of the Justices ruled the plaintiffs did
not have enough in common to constitute a class.  Justice Antonin
Scalia, writing for the majority, said lead plaintiff Betty Dukes
and the women who hoped to join her lawsuit, could not show there
was a "common answer to the crucial question, why was I
disfavored?"

Critics of the ruling said it would limit the ability of other
plaintiffs to band together in large class actions.  Judge Gregory
didn't quite far in his ruling in favor of the black steelworkers,
but he did acknowledge that Wal-Mart had reshaped the "class
action landscape."

Nevertheless, he said, in this case the there is more than enough
in the steelworkers' claims to warrant class certification.

Gregory noted that "statistics indicate that promotions at Nucor
depended in part on whether an individual was black or white . . .
[that] substantial anecdotal evidence suggests discrimination in
specific promotions decisions in multiple plant departments . . .
and [that] there is also significant evidence that those
promotions decisions were made in the context of a racially
hostile work environment."

"Against that backdrop," the judge wrote, "the district court
fundamentally misapprehended the reach of Wal-Mart and its
application to the workers' promotions class"

The 4th Circuit's opinion did not directly address a separate
hostile work environment claim filed by the workers.  The district
court refused to decertify that claim, and the 4th Circuit
previously denied as untimely Nucor's petition for interlocutory
review.

But that element of the workers' dispute with their employer
clearly weighed on Gregory, who called the claims "Disquieting in
their volume, specificity, and consistency."

"Supervisors allegedly routinely referred to black workers as
'nigger' and 'DAN (dumb ass nigger),' with one supervisor
reportedly stating 'niggers aren't smart enough' to break
production records, while others tolerate the routine use of
epithets like 'bologna lips,' 'yard ape,' and 'porch monkey,'"
Gregory wrote.

"these epithets and others were broadcast over the plant-wide
radio system -- comprising a network of walkie-talkies used to
communicate -- along with monkey noises and the songs 'Dixie' and
'High Cotton," he continued.  "the workers' declarations and
depositions further suggest that . . . supervisors and the plant's
general manager consistently ignored racial harassment carried out
by white workers, including the circulation of racist emails, the
prominent display of a hangman's noose, the commonplace showing of
the Confederate flag, and an episode when a white employee draped
a white sheet over his head with eyes cut out in the form of a KKK
hood."

The seven lead plaintiffs also claim that between 1999 and 2003,
black workers were routinely denied promotion and of 611 total
employees, Nucor employed only one black supervisor.  Gregory said
because the steel plant destroyed promotion bids prior to 2001,
expert witnesses for the plaintiffs relied on "change-of-status"
paperwork for calculating statistical evidence.

Gregory was joined in his opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Barbara
Milano. But U.S. Circuit Judge G. Steven Agee dissented, calling
the workers' claims anecdotal and statistical unreliable.

"The Eighth Circuit affirmed the denial of class certification in
a case involving the same claims, the same experts, and the same
defendant," Agee wrote.  "We should hardly take this troubled road
in the name of "simple justice,"" he continued.

The Appellants are represented by:

          Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Esq.
          Ann K. Wiggins, Esq.
          WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC
          The Kress Building
          301 19th Street North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500
          Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
          E-mail: rwiggins@wigginschilds.com
                  awiggins@wigginschilds.com

               - and -

          Armand Derfner, Esq.
          D. Peters Wilborn, Jr., Esq.
          DERFNER, ALTMAN & WILBORN
          575 King Street, Suite B
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (843) 723-9804
          E-mail: aderfner@dawlegal.com
                  pwilborn@dawlegal.com

The Appellees are represented by:

          Lisa Schiavo Blatt, Esq.
          Dirk C. Phillips, Esq.
          Sarah M. Harris, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER LLP
          555 Twelfth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-1206
          Telephone: (202) 942-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 942-5999
          E-mail: Lisa.Blatt@aporter.com
                  Dirk.Phillips@aporter.com
                  Sarah.Harris@aporter.com

               - and -

          Cary A. Farris, Esq.
          John K. Linker, Esq.
          J. Shannon Gatlin, Esq.
          ALANIZ SCHRAEDER LINKER FARRIS MAYES, LLP
          2500 Citywest Blvd., Suite 1000
          Houston, TX 77042
          Telephone: (281) 833-2200
          Facsimile: (281) 833-2240
          E-mail: cfarris@alaniz-schraeder.com
                  jlinker@alaniz-schraeder.com
                  sgatlin@alaniz-schraeder.com

               - and -

          J. Tracy Walker, IV, Esq.
          Robert L. Hodges, Esq.
          Matthew A. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS, LLP
          One James Center
          901 East Cary Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-4030
          Telephone: (804) 775-1131
          Facsimile: (804) 698-2201
          E-mail: twalker@mcguirewoods.com
                  rhodges@mcguirewoods.com
                  mfitzgerald@mcguirewoods.com

The appellate case is Quinton Brown; Jason Guy; Alvin Simmons;
Sheldon Singletary; Gerald White; Ramon Roane; Jacob Ravenell,
individually and on behalf of the class they seek to represent,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Nucor Corporation; Nucor Steel-Berkeley,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-1779, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.  The District Court case is
Quinton Brown, et al. v. Nucor Corporation and Nucor Steel-
Berkeley, Case No. 2:04-cv-22005-CWH, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.


OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Fla. Court Denies "Shamblin" Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jayson Si, writing for The National News Review, reported that the
Middle District of Florida recently denied class certification
because the plaintiff failed to prove that consent (or more to the
point, an alleged lack of consent) could be established on a
classwide basis. In doing so, it confirmed that class action
plaintiffs have the burden of proving that issues are susceptible
to classwide proof even though a defendant may bear the burden of
proving or disproving some of those issues at trial.  Shamblin v.
Obama for Am., No. 13-2428, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54849 (M.D. Fla.
Apr. 27, 2015).

Lori Shamblin alleged that Obama for America, DNC Services
Corporation and New Partners Consulting, Inc. made "auto-dialed
and prerecorded calls urging the recipients to vote for Barack
Obama. . . "

Shamblin alleged that "two unsolicited auto-dialed calls to her
cellular telephone" violated the TCPA because she did not give the
Defendants her cell phone number, let alone "her express consent
to call her cell phone."  She filed suit on behalf of not only
herself but also a putative class consisting of "[a]ll persons in
Florida who received one or more non-emergency telephone calls
from Defendants in September through November 2012 in support of
President Obama's re-election to a cellular telephone through the
use of an automatic-telephone-dialing system of an artificial or
pre-recorded voice, and for whom Defendants' records do not show
prior express consent for those calls."

The Middle District of Florida recently denied certification of
that class. It began by noting that "[t]he burden of proof to
establish the propriety of class certification rests with the
advocate of the class, and failure to establish any one of the
four Rule 23(a) factors and at least one of the alternative
requirements of Rule 23(b) precludes class certification." (citing
Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591, 613-14 (1997)). It
then found that Shamblin had not satisfied her burden for three
reasons.

First, the Court determined that "there can never be common
answers to the questions of whether (1) the telephone number
dialed was assigned to a cellular telephone at the time of the
call and (2) whether the subscriber consented to be called." Id.
at *17. Judge Covington held that simply "list[ing] some common
questions does not satisfy commonality" because there was an
absence of "classwide proof on these outcome-determinative
issues," meaning that "individualized proof will be required for
each and every plaintiff, which defeats the purpose of class
certification." (quoting Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S.
Ct. 2541, 2556 (2011)). Shamblin had tried to put the rabbit in
the hat by defining a class that included called parties "for whom
Defendants' record do not show prior express consent," the
implication being that the burden of proof at the class
certification stage should shift to the Defendant. See Shamblin,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54849, at *11. The Court rejected her
request to infer a lack of consent from a lack of documentary
evidence of consent, reasoning that she was "not entitled to a
presumption that all class members failed to consent" and that
"Defendants have a constitutional right to a jury determination as
to whether any person consented to receiving calls to their
cellular telephone." Shamblin, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54849, at *18
(citing Rink v. Cheminova, Inc., 203 F.R.D. 648, 652 (M.D. Fla.
2001)).

Second, the Court held that even if there were a common answer to
a crucial question, individualized inquiries would still
predominate. Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied when "'the court finds
that the questions of law or fact common to class members
predominate over any questions affecting only individual members
[predominance], and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
whole controversy [superiority].'" Id. at *24. Defendants argued
that prior express consent was obtained in a multitude of ways
(e.g., signups, campaign contribution, petitions) and that "short
of calling each class member to testify on the issue on consent,
there is no way to determine whether the TCPA was in fact violated
with each call." Id.at *26-27. The Court agreed and held that,
because the "TCPA 'allows consent to be given orally, in writing,
electronically, or by any other means, as long as the consent is
expressly given to the particular entity making the call,'. . . .
[i]ndividualized inquiries into consent (including where, how, and
when) will predominate." Id. at *28-29 (quoting Osorio v. State
Farm Bank, F.S.B., 746 F.3d 1242, 1255 (11th Cir. 2014)). In
support of its decision, the Court cited several TCPA decisions
denying certification due to the existence of individualized
inquiries into consent. Id. at *29-31.

After determining that Shamblin had not established predominance,
the Court also found that "class wide resolution of the dispute
[was] not superior to other methods of adjudication." Shamblin,
2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54849, at *31. Defendants asserted that a
class action was not the superior method of adjudication because
individual issues predominated, alternative methods to adjudicate
individual TCPA claims were both available and commonly used, and
the potential for substantial aggregated damages for statutory
damages that are grossly disproportionate to actual damages raised
due process issues. The Court examined the superiority factors
enumerated in 23(b)(3), agreed that a class action was not the
superior method to adjudicate Shamblin's claims, and placed
particular emphasis on the predominance of individualized issues.
Id. at *31-32 ("'the predominance analysis . . . has a tremendous
impact on the superiority analysis . . . for the simple reason
that, the more common issues predominate over individual uses, the
more desirable a class action lawsuit will be . . . '").

Third, the Court concluded that Shamblin's attempt to certify a
"hybrid class for injunctive and declaratory relief under Rule
23(b)(2) and monetary damages under Rule 23(b)(3)" was
unsustainable because Shamblin failed to "set forth sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the monetary relief requested [did]
not predominate over the injunctive and declaratory relief
requested." Id. at *24-25. Defendants argued that injunctive and
declaratory relief under 23(b)(2) were categorically unavailable
and the "predominant relief requested [was] monetary." Id.at *23.
Judge Covington agreed that Shamblin could not seek injunctive
relief against the campaign organization since the President is
constitutionally barred from running for a third consecutive term,
"certification under 23(b)(2) would be improper because Obama for
America cannot be enjoined from an activity that will not take
place in the future." Id. at *23.

Judge Covington's Opinion confirms that plaintiffs have the burden
of proving that critical questions can be proven on a classwide
basis, even if defendants happen to bear the ultimate burden of
proof on some of those issues, and that a class action is not the
appropriate vehicle to navigate through a TCPA dispute when
individual determinations on consent exist.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Being Sold Too Cheaply to Hua, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
OmniVision too cheaply through an unfair process to China-based
Hua Capital Management, for $1.9 billion or $29.75 per share,
shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


ORANGE COUNTY, CA: To Refund Fines Over Red-light Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Hudak, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that Orange
County will refund $41,080 in red-light tickets for infractions at
an intersection where the yellow caution light took less time to
change than allowed by the state.  The light should have taken 0.3
second longer.

For Dennis Gallo, an Apopka musician, it means he'll get back $158
he shelled out two years ago to pay a ticket he didn't think he
deserved.  The guitar player/keyboardist was coming home from a
gig at Jimmy Buffett's Margaritaville at Universal Orlando when
the signal at Hiawassee and Clarcona-Ocoee roads changed quickly
from yellow to red -- too quickly in his opinion.

"I remember thinking, 'Hey! That was fast,'" he said. "That's not
fair."

As it turned out, it wasn't.  The shortened light was first
discovered by David Shaw, a red-light-camera critic who has argued
that lengthening caution lights and extending all-red times would
improve safety at intersections more than cameras. His research
prompted Orange County traffic engineers to double-check signal
times.  From Aug. 1, 2012, until May 6, 2013, when the signal
timing was adjusted, Orange County issued 570 red-light tickets to
motorists who had entered the intersection of northbound Hiawassee
Road and Clarcona-Ocoee Road after the light turned red,
triggering a camera that snapped pictures of the offending
vehicle's license tag.

The traffic-engineering division, which oversees the red-light
safety program, concluded that 260 of those tickets would not have
been issued if the yellow were properly set at 4.3 seconds, the
state standard. Among those wrongly ticketed were two dozen
businesses, including a cab company and a towing company.
Launched in February 2011, Orange County's red-light-camera
program has 50 cameras installed at 35 intersections across the
county. It relies on devices rented from Arizona-based American
Traffic Solutions. The county credits the cameras with improving
safety, citing a decrease in the number of crashes.  A red-light-
camera ticket costs $158.

The state keeps $83, with the remainder returned to the county.
The county pays ATS $3,837.50 per camera per month. The county had
collected $8.8 million from red-light runners through December
2014.

Red-light cameras have been the target of frequent criticism and
efforts to overturn them on the local and state level. Critics say
they're unfair, frequently inaccurate and designed to generate
revenue, not improve highway safety.

Orange County commissioners approved the refunds at their meeting.

The county will mail a "request for refund" form to motorists who
were improperly ticketed at the Hiawassee and Clarcona-Ocoee
intersection, said Krista Barber, project manager for the county's
Red Light Running program. Once the document is returned and
verified, the county will process the ticket refund.


ORLANDO HEALTH: Faces $5-Mil. Suit Over FICA Refunds
----------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that
Orlando Health was targeted in a federal lawsuit alleging the
hospital system failed to pursue more than $5 million in refunds
for medical residents.

According to the lawsuit, the system failed to seek refunds of
Social Security and Medicare contributions that were withheld from
medical residents' pay.  The lawsuit is a proposed class action
filed in the name of former medical resident Bryan Reuss, who
still works in the Orlando area as an orthopedic physician.  The
lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of 40 to 100 former
medical residents. Attorneys filing the suit are Jordan M. Lewis,
of Fort Lauderdale-based Kelley Uustal, and T. Scott Tufts of
Maitland.

Orlando Health declined to respond to the allegations or a
reporter's questions about the refunds. "I'm not sure that our
legal office has seen or been served with this lawsuit yet, so we
cannot respond," said spokesman Geo Morales, in an email.

The lawsuit is one of several filed in the U.S. that stem from a
ten-year battle between hospitals and the IRS over collection of
Social Security and Medicare contributions (FICA) from medical
residents.  The IRS ruled that medical residents must pay the
taxes, even though they are technically students in medical
programs. But several court battles also found that the IRS had to
refund contested revenues that were collected from 1995 to 2005. A
formal process of claiming the refunds was outlined for the
hospitals.

According to the Reuss lawsuit, Orlando Health applied for refunds
for just one year, 2000. The suit accuses the hospital system of
failing to act and failing to advise medical residents of the
refund opportunities.

"Orlando Health should reimburse, cover, or otherwise disgorge
sums sufficient to cover the lost tax refunds of plaintiffs and
the class," the lawsuit states.

According to the suit, Orlando Health retained accounting firm
Ernst & Young to file claims for itself and its medical residents
for the 2000 tax year only, and "took no action to file protective
claims for 1995-99 and 2001-05." Now, the suit claims, it's too
late to pursue the refunds from the IRS because of statute
limitations.

Reuss, who was in residence at Orlando Health from 2000 to 2005,
is seeking the remaining four years of refunds from the health
system.

A similar lawsuit was filed in January against Dignity Health and
St. Joseph's Hospital system in Phoenix, where the demand was also
listed at around $5 million, according to Legal News Online.


PACIFIC WEST: Accused of Charging Monthly Fees Before Activation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims that
Pacific West Bank deceptively charges monthly fees for prepaid
reloadable debit cards before customers activate them, in Superior
Court.


PENNYSAVER USA: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dinah Griffin, Giancarlo Bresani, Kara Mathews, Ester Mendoza Jr.,
and Sharon Ciorlieri, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals v. PennySaver USA, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00854 (C.D. Cal., May 29, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide any written notice
of the impending facility closure and terminations and failure to
pay employees all wages due and owing at the time of discharge.

Pennysaver USA ,LLC operates PennySaver publication, providing
advertising services to advertisers and consumers throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      David C. Leimbach, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
              dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com


PETROCHINA CO: Bid for Submission of Supplemental Pleadings Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PetroChina Company Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Court dismissed the
request of a class action plaintiff for submission of supplemental
pleadings.

On September 3 and 6, 2013, two respective class action complaints
were filed with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Court") against the Company and certain
former and current directors and senior management of the Company
for alleged violations of the securities laws of the United
States. These complaints were filed in light of PRC authorities'
investigation into certain former directors and senior management
of the Company. The Company (through the designated legal
documents delivery agent of the Company in the United States) has
been served with notices of the complaints, with no details on the
amounts claimed. The Company made announcements on September 6,
2013 and November 26, 2013, respectively, in relation to the
actions.

On April 4, 2014, the Court entered an order to consolidate the
related actions and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On June 6, 2014, the lead plaintiff submitted a revised complaint
whereby the Company's current directors and senior management were
removed from the complaint and the individual defendants only
include the former directors and senior management of the Company.
The relevant charges set out in the complaint were basically the
same as those in the previous complaint.

On August 5, 2014, in view of the revised complaint, the Company
filed a motion to dismiss.

On November 24, 2014, upon approval by the court, the U.S.
plaintiff further submitted a revised joinder complaint. In view
of the complaint, the Company filed another motion to dismiss on
February 13, 2015.

On April 10, 2015, the Court held a pre-motion conference to
discuss the plaintiff's request for submission of supplemental
pleadings, and the Court dismissed the plaintiff's request.

The normal course of business of the Company has not been affected
by these complaints. The Company will proactively and vigorously
contest the complaint with its best efforts to protect the
legitimate rights and interests of the Company.


PHILADELPHIA: DA Says Forfeiture Protocols Necessary
----------------------------------------------------
Larry Miller, writing for The Philadelphia Times, reported that
District Attorney Seth Williams said that his office continues to
strengthen civil forfeiture protocols to protect the rights of
innocent citizens but considers it a valuable tool against drug
dealers who sell narcotics out of their homes.

Williams' comment was in response to a ruling by a federal judge
to deny a motion by the city and the Philadelphia District
Attorney to dismiss a class action lawsuit by the Institute for
Justice challenging the city's civil forfeiture laws.

"This lawsuit is still in the preliminary stages as a judge is
required to treat the claims of the plaintiffs as true until
factual discovery proves otherwise," Williams said. "We approach
civil forfeiture as a tool to protect innocent residents from drug
dealers who use their homes to sell drugs. The district attorney
continues to work to strengthen the civil forfeiture protocols
while also continuing to keep neighborhoods safe."

The ruling is the first in a class action filed in August 2014 by
property owners and the Institute for Justice. According to
Darpana Sheth, the Institute for Justice's lead attorney on the
case, the city's civil forfeiture laws are far too aggressive. The
Institute for Justice is representing plaintiffs Christos
Sourovelis, Doila Welch, Norys Hernandez and Nassir Geiger. The
defendants are the city of Philadelphia, the Philadelphia Police
Department, Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey, the Philadelphia
District Attorney's Office and District Attorney Seth Williams.

"The city tried to seize my home even though I did not do anything
wrong," said Christos Sourovelis, the lead plaintiff in the case.
"I am very happy the case will go on, because it means the city is
going to have to be accountable for the nightmare it put my family
and others through."

Sheth said law enforcement agencies have been seizing cash, cars
and even homes without charging anyone with any crime. In order to
retrieve seized properties, owners must go through numerous legal
proceedings without being able to see a judge. The city seizes and
forfeits almost $6 million each year from residents.

"This ruling requires Philadelphia and its chief law enforcement
officers to defend how they have systematically trampled on the
rights of our clients and the rights of thousands of other
property owners through its aggressive use of forfeiture," Sheth
said.

According to Sheth, the judge rejected the city's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, because it recently changed the practice of
forcibly evicting people from their homes without providing any
notice or a hearing. The judge noted that any policy change could
be just as easily revoked.

In a small number of cases, the owner of the seized property is
unwilling or unable to control illegal activity so that it ceases,
according to the DA's office. In those cases the district attorney
pursues forfeiture in order to do what the owner will not or
cannot do.

Authorities agreed to dismiss the civil-forfeiture case against
Sourovelis and Welch -- two local families who stood to lose their
homes. In response they filed the federal class-action lawsuit
challenging the civil forfeiture system. Although Christos and
Doila's individual, state-level civil-forfeiture proceedings were
dismissed, they said they will continue their class-action legal
complaint Institute for Justice senior attorney Scott Bullock said
the system must be dismantled.

"Civil forfeiture laws are draconian and outrageous in many places
in the country, but Philadelphia is in a league of its own in how
it treats property owners," said attorney Scott Bullock, who leads
the Institute's forfeiture initiative. "Philadelphia has seized
over $64 million from its residents in an 11-year period. The
city's forfeiture machine must be dismantled."


PHILLIP MORRIS: Ill. High Court Hears Arguments on $10BB Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reported that Illinois Supreme Court has
heard oral arguments about whether to let a $10 billion class-
action verdict against a major cigarette maker stand.

Former Illinois Gov. Jim Thompson and another Phillip Morris
lawyer asked the court to strike that verdict.

The verdict that Phillip Morris fraudulently marketed "light" and
"low-tar" cigarettes as safer than others came in 2003. The
state's high court subsequently threw it out. But an appellate
court reinstated the 12-year-old verdict.

The core dispute is whether regulators allowed cigarette makers to
label cigarettes "light" and "low-tar."

Phillip Morris attorneys argued they were given permission to
label cigarettes that way. But a plaintiff attorney said
regulators didn't OK that labeling practice and so Phillip Morris
engaged in a "massive fraud" by do so.


PRICE CHOPPER: Team Leaders to Get Invite to Join OT Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim O'Brien, writing for TimesUnion.com, reported that some team
leaders at every Price Chopper store will soon get a notice
inviting them to join a class-action lawsuit against the
supermarket chain over paying overtime.

Shelly J. Davine filed suit against the Schenectady-based chain in
federal court in Massachusetts, saying she had been falsely
classified in order to avoid paying her overtime. The company has
denied the accusation.

Davine was a team leader and department manager at three different
Price Chopper stores in North Adams, Lenox and Lee, Mass., from
1983 to June 2014. While the case was filed in Massachusetts,
Davine filed it on behalf of herself and others in the class she
seeks to represent.

Rachel Bien, the attorney representing Davine, said she asked U.S.
District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni for what's called
"conditional certification of the collective."

What that means is that team leaders at all of Price Chopper's 135
supermarkets who are similarly classified can be identified and
then notified of the lawsuit in case they wish to join it.

"The judge granted our motion and has authorized a notice to be
sent to all team leaders at Price Chopper in the last three
years," Bien said.

Price Chopper spokeswoman Mona Golub said the case does not apply
to all team leaders. There are some who are hourly employees and
the legal case does not apply to workers in its pharmacies, she
said.

Otherwise, she declined to say much about the pending case.


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Not Liable for Collapse of MF Global
------------------------------------------------------------
Citing a legal doctrine that forbids one corporate wrongdoer from
suing another for the same misconduct, the 2nd Circuit affirmed
the dismissal May 22 of attempts to hold PricewaterhouseCoopers
liable for the collapse of MF Global, reports Nick Rummell at
Courthouse News Service.

After MF Global declared bankruptcy in 2011, investors besieged
the company and its CEO, former New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, with
allegations that they invested billions in several European
countries' debt using risky financing structures.

The firm faced a $1.6 billion shortfall, and in the rubble of
sorting through the bankruptcy MF Global could not account for
$750 million of its customers' money.

A federal judge in Manhattan ultimately consolidated shareholder
suits as one 14-count action against Corzine and 22 other MF
Global directors, officers and underwriters.

One of the complaints was filed by commodities customers of MF
Global, representing the latter's claims upon assignment by the
trustee appointed to oversee MF Global's liquidation under the
Securities Investor Protection Act.

They sought in part to hold MF Global's accountants at PwC liable,
saying MF Global relied PwC's advice to make investments by using
repurchase-to-maturity financing, in which bonds are sold and
simultaneously agreed to be repurchased at a later date at which
time the price might be higher.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero rejected that maneuver last
year, however, after finding that MF Global and PwC were in pari
delicto, or at equal fault.

A three-judge panel with the 2nd Circuit affirmed in a summary
order May 22.

"A corporation that engages in malfeasance cannot sue outside
accountants who negligently failed to detect or prevent that
malfeasance," the unsigned decision says.

Judges Dennis Jacobs, Rosemary Pooler and Peter Hall sat on the
appellate panel.

Marrero did reject PWC's in pari delicto defense when considering
another of the MF Global cases against it.

The July and August 2014 rulings in which Marrero advanced claims
against the accountants involved claims brought by MF Global's
plan administrator.

In that case, Marreo said the doctrine would "insulate an auditor
from liability whenever a company pursues a failed investment
strategy after receiving wrongful advice from an accountant."

In trying to revive their claims against PwC, the commodities
customers told the federal appeals court that, as public
accountants, PwC performed "a special regulatory function" as a
whistle-blower organization.

They said that allowing the accounting firm to skirt
responsibility would "undermine a federal regulatory scheme," but
the 2nd Circuit ruled that the specific case against PwC involved
New York State law, and plaintiffs had not identified any federal
law that would have pre-empted it and allowed in pari delicto.

The 2nd Circuit found the next argument, the lack of a ruling on
MF Global's wrongdoing, self-defeating.  That is, if MF Global was
found innocent of wrongdoing, then PwC's bad auditing could have
caused the firm no injury, the court said.

Since PwC owed MF Global, not that firm's customers, a duty to
perform accurate auditing, the judges also declined to revive
professional negligence claims.

In April PwC reached a $65 million settlement of a separate class
action, accusing it of falsely certifying MF Global's 2010 and
2011 financials.

Seven bank underwriters -- including Citigroup, Deutsche Bank,
Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch -- settled a related
lawsuit by former MF Global stockholders for $74 million in
December 2014, Entwistle & Cappucci, the firm that represents the
commodities-customer plaintiffs trying to sue PwC, said its
clients "are considering their options."

"This is a very disappointing decision," managing partner Andrew
Entwistle said in an email.

MF Global's attorney, Daniel Fetterman of Kasowitz, Benson, Torres
& Freidman, did not return a comment.

The Appellants are represented by:

          Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
          ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
          280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
          New York, NY  10017
          Telephone: (212) 894-7200
          Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
          E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

               - and -

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3084
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4671
          E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net

               - and -

          Charles R. Eskridge III, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          1000 Louisiana, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77002-5096
          Telephone: (713) 651-9366
          Facsimile: (713) 654-6666

The Appellee is represented by:

          James J. Capra, Jr., Esq.
          James P. Cusick, Esq.
          David M. Fine, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1185 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556-2100
          Facsimile: (212) 556 2222
          E-mail: jcapra@kslaw.com
                  jcusick@kslaw.com
                  dfine@kslaw.com

The appellate case is Bearing Fund LP, Augustus International
Master Fund, LP, Kay P. Tee, LLC, Mark Kennedy, Thomas G. Moran,
Robert Marcin, Paradigm Asia Ltd., Paradigm Equities Ltd.,
Paradigm Global Fund I Ltd., PS Energy Group, Inc., Summit Trust
Company, Henry Rogers Varner, Jr., Thomas S. Wacker, Plaintiffs-
Appellants v. PriceWaterhouseCoopers LLP, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 14-1249-cv, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.  The consolidated case is titled In re MF Global
Holdings Ltd. Investment Litigation (Deangelis v. Corzine).


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Will Continue to Defend McCaffree Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. will continue to aggressively
defend the case filed by McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee
Retirement Program, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On March 18, 2014, McCaffree Financial Corp. Employee Retirement
Program ("McCaffree") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa
against Principal Life. The complaint alleged, among other things,
breach of duty of loyalty, breach of duty of prudence and
prohibited transactions under ERISA. McCaffree seeks a nationwide
class action on behalf of all participants and beneficiaries of
defined contribution retirement plans that invested in any
Principal Separate Account in the last six years. McCaffree seeks
disgorgement of all fees it alleges Principal Life improperly
retained in addition to other general claims for relief. Principal
Life has filed a motion to dismiss the case and on December 11,
2014, the court granted the motion. McCaffree filed a notice of
appeal on December 22, 2014. Principal Life will continue to
aggressively defend the case.


PROGRESO LATINO: "Matute" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francisca Concepcion Matute, Deysi Rosales, Bartolome Gonzalez, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Progreso
Latino Grocery Inc., Progreso Honduras Restaurant Inc., Progreso
Laundromat, and Denis Paz, Case No. 1:15-cv-03131 (E.D.N.Y., May
29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a deli/grocery business at 4503 Fort
Hamilton Parkway, Brooklyn, New York 11219.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jae W. Chun, Esq.
      Amanda Bell, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN & ANSPACH
      1500 Broadway, Suite 2300
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 354-4500
      E-mail: jchun@friedmananspach.com
              abell@friedmananspach.com


PTTEP AUSTRALASIA: Firm Prepares Suit Over Montara Oil Spill
------------------------------------------------------------
Jewel Topsfield, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that an Australian law firm is preparing a class action on behalf
of Indonesian fishermen and seaweed farmers who say their
livelihoods were devastated by one of Australia's worst oil
disasters.

In 2009, a leak in the Montara oil field, off the northern coast
of Western Australia, spewed tens of thousands of barrels of oil
into the Timor Gap.  The company responsible, PTTEP Australasia,
says studies show no oil reached the Australian and Indonesian
mainlands and there was little or no detectable impact on any
marine ecosystem or species.  But coastal communities in Nusa
Tenggara Timur -- one of Indonesia's poorest provinces -- say the
oil spill killed fish and seaweed and caused skin diseases.  And
the Australian Lawyers Alliance has suggested the poverty caused
by the oil spill may have led to an increase in people smuggling
from the region.

West Timor Care Foundation chairman Ferdi Tanoni will fly to
Australia to discuss the class action with law firm Ward Keller.
He says at least 100,000 people from the coastal community have
suffered as a result of the disaster.

"The income for local seaweed farmers has dropped between 75 and
90 per cent," Mr Tanoni says. "People are dying because they have
no income and their kids can't go to school. Every month I get 10
or 20 text messages from people who say they can't pay their
bills."

Greg Phelps is a senior associate at law firm Ward Keller, which
has been working with the Nusa Tenggara Timur community since
2011.

"It's just a blatant injustice -- it's a tragedy beyond belief in
many ways."

Mr Phelps expects the class action to be launched within six
months.  However, he says this will not solve the whole problem
because it would only benefit those who can demonstrate economic
loss.

Ward Keller, the Australian Lawyers' Association, the West Timor
Care Foundation, theAustralian Greens and the Indonesian
government have consistently called on PTTEP to fund a study to
determine the impact of the Montara oil spill in Indonesian
waters.

"But they are not game to do it because they are afraid of what
they will find," Mr Phelps says.

A PTTEP spokesman says the company is aware of the claims and has
been consistently willing to address them with the Indonesian
government.

"To date, we have not received any credible evidence that oil from
Montara caused damage to the environment in West Timor," he says.
"The Montara Environmental Monitoring Program showed there was no
long-term damage to the marine environment, notably at various
reefs and shoals in Australian waters closest to Montara."

The spokesman says independent studies published by the Australian
Environment Department found 98 per cent of Montara oil stayed in
Australian waters.

Indonesian fisherman Mustafa Arsyad found blobs of oil in 2009,
which when analysed by Victorian laboratory Leeder Consulting were
found to match the Montara crude oil.

"We want the waters to be clean again so fish will return to the
sea," says Mr Arysad, who was forced to become a carpenter in 2011
because none of his men could find fish anymore.

"Many fishermen, including people working the crab ponds and
shrimp farmers, gave up their jobs because nothing is there
anymore. But the ones who suffered the most are the seaweed
farmers because they have to soak in the sea everyday."

Mr Arysad says the men have itchy boils all over their bodies
which medicine won't make go away. "We don't know if the disease
was caused by the oil spill or not because there has been no study
conducted."

Australian Lawyers Alliance legal and policy officer Emily
Mitchell says scientific studies that found oil did not reach
Indonesia were based on observed evidence.

"The real issue is that these studies never did any primary
evidence gathering themselves in Indonesia," she says.
"Communities saw oil wash up on the coastline and watched their
seaweed farms die. In one village in Rote Island, oil swept
through the mangroves and destroyed them. The village was
subsequently flooded by the ocean."

In its submission to the 2012 Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, the
Australian Lawyers Alliance said the Montara oil spill may have
led to an increase in people smuggling in the region.

"In 2012, the Australian Human Rights Commission conducted an
inquiry into the treatment of people charged with people smuggling
while suspected of being minors. Under freedom of information
laws, we found that of 157 individuals whose place of origin had
been identified, 57.5 per cent came from Nusa Tenggara Timur. Of
these, half again, came from Rote Island, which was particularly
devastated after the spill," Ms Mitchell says.

Law firm Ward Keller has written to three successive Australian
prime ministers urging the government to help resolve the Montara
tragedy.

"Sadly, the Australian government has been shamefully slow in
taking any action to assist the victims of Montara in the Nusa
Tenggara Timur region. They say they can't do anything -- of
course they could do a lot," he says.

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop wrote to Mr Phelps reiterating the
government had no jurisdiction to compel Australian companies to
settle disputes with other governments or perform research
activities in another country.

However she did say Nusa Tenggara province was a focus area for
the Australian aid program.

"The government of Indonesia has not asked that Australia's
assistance be directed to communities in that region affected by
coastal pollution," she wrote.

Mr Phelps would like to think Ms Bishop was steering them in the
right direction. But he's sceptical; he's been there before.
"When we go back and say: 'Here's a request from the Indonesian
government saying please help these poor people' they have another
excuse."

The law firm may be reached at:

          Greg Phelps, Esq.
          WARD KELLER LLP
          Northern Territory House
          Level 7, 22 Mitchell Street
          Darwin NT 0800 Australia
          Phone: 08 8946 2999
          Int: +61 8 8946 2999
          Email: gregphelps@wardkeller.com.au


QEP RESOURCES: Accord in "Gagne" Contingent Upon Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an agreement in the
case, Yannick Gagne and others similarly situated v. QEP
Resources, Inc., No. 480-06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of
Quebec, Canada, is contingent upon the approval of the courts.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who sustained
damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac-
Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and
property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a
class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous
defendants, including the rail company that transported the crude
oil (which filed for bankruptcy protection in August 2013). The
plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer defendants, sold
Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota, who
resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train.
Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among
other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately
processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, knowingly added
volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors or blended the
crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate well site
testing to determine the proper hazard classification of the oil,
failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for the oil,
failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly
labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the train
derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to adopt,
implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to the safe
shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but specific
monetary damages are not asserted. Class certification hearings
took place in June 2014, and a court order regarding class
certification is pending. Many of the defendants, including QEP,
and their insurers have reached an agreement with Trustees in both
Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy Courts to resolve all of these
claims. The terms of the agreement are confidential and are
contingent upon the approval of the courts.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Lies About Quality of Discs, Class Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Pais at Courthouse News Service reports that Redbox
deceptively advertised and rented downgraded discs as being of
Blu-ray quality, and it charged plaintiffs higher rental prices
than those charged for non-Blu-ray DVD discs, a class action
claims.

Redbox operates thousands of self-service and fully automated
rental kiosks in the United States where customers can rent movies
and video games in two formats, DVD and Blu-ray.

In a lawsuit filed in Miami-Dade County in mid-May, plaintiffs
Stephen Lewis and Philip Burns claim that the downgraded discs are
not Blu-ray because they contain poor quality audio and the
definition is inferior and standard.

DVD's or Digital Video Discs are an older form of optical digital
storage media that came out in the mid-1990's.  In contrast, Blu-
ray discs debuted in the mid-to-late 2000's, and contain a higher
storage capacity.

Plaintiffs claim that until December 2, 2014 Redbox charged $1.20
per day for DVD's, and $1.50 per day for Blu-ray discs.  However,
as of December 2, 2014 Redbox increased its prices to $1.50 per
day for DVD's and $2 for Blu-rays, exclusively of taxes.

On its website Redbox refers to Blu-ray as "the name of a next
generation high definition optical disc format," the complaint
says.

Outerwall Inc., Redbox's parent company, states on a recent form
10-Q filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission that "Blu-ray
offers consumers a better viewing experience due to the superior
picture and sound quality compared to other home video rental
formats."

Due to Blu-ray reviews and advertising from Redbox and other
companies, as well as the higher prices charged for them as
compared to regular DVD's, customers expect the Blu-ray discs that
they rent from Redbox to be of high-definition and higher
audiovisual quality.

However, plaintiffs allege that "many of the discs Redbox rents
out as Blu-ray quality and at the higher Blu-ray prices are not
Blu-ray quality."

According to the complaint at no point during the rental process,
not on the kiosks, not on its website, not on its mobile app or in
any other way, Redbox discloses or informs its customers that the
discs being rented are not of the advertised quality.

"Redbox engages in this practice because the downgraded discs cost
Redbox less to acquire than discs containing original, high-
definition, unmodified Blu-ray-quality audio," plaintiffs say.

On December 15, 2014, plaintiff Lewis claims that he rented a
Blue-ray disc of the movie "The Hunger Games: Catching Fire."
However, once at home he says he discovered that the disc
contained a standard definition and not a high-definition as Blu-
ray discs have.

Burns went through a similar situation on September 12, 2014, when
he also paid for and rented a Blu-ray disc for the movie
"Divergent," and instead claims he got a downgraded disc that it
was not of high definition quality as he expected.

Plaintiffs claim that the unmodified Blu-ray discs of the movies
that they rented have a DTS HD MA 7.1 high definition soundtrack,
have eight discrete channels and are considered "lossless"
quality.

On the other hand, they claim the downgraded discs that they
rented have a regular Dolby Digital 5.1 standard definition
soundtrack, only have six discrete channels and are considered
"lossy" quality.

"Plaintiffs Burns and Lewis and similarly situated persons were
duped by Redbox's conduct in that they were deprived of the
benefits they bargained for and expected to receive by paying the
higher rental price for a Blu-ray disc as compared to non-Blu-ray
DVD discs," the complaint says.

Plaintiffs say that Redbox illegally profited from the rental of
downgraded discs as being of Blu-ray quality to unsuspecting
customers, who paid a higher rental price.

"Unfortunately, at this time, we have no comment to share," said
on an e-mail Becca Grady from the public relations department of
Edelman on behalf of Outerwall Inc., Redbox's parent company.

Plaintiffs are seeking compensatory damages on claims of
violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicole W. Giuliano, Esq.
          GIULIANO LAW
          500 E Broward Blvd., Suite 1710
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394-3012
          Telephone: (954) 848-2940
          Facsimile: (954) 848-2941
          E-mail: nicole@giulianolaw.com


ROBERT BOSCH: Sued in Michigan for Fixing Prices of Spark Plugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcie Shields, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Robert Bosch and two other companies fixed spark plug prices
around the world, auto parts distributors claim in a federal
antitrust class action.

Distributors from Rhode Island and Connecticut claim that Bosch,
the world's largest auto parts supplier; NGK Spark Plug Co., the
world's largest manufacturer of spark plus; and Denso Corp. ran a
"spark plug cartel" that allocated supplied, rigged bids and fixed
prices.

Victims included General Motors, Ford, and DaimlerChrysler, and
led to a criminal probe from the Department of Justice, lead
plaintiff WAL dba Tri-State Automotive Waterhouse says in the May
18 complaint.  It claims that the conspiracy began as early as
2000.

So far, 34 companies and 29 executives have pleaded guilty or
agreed to plead guilty and agreed to pay a total of $2.5 billion
in criminal fines, according to the complaint.

Citing a Department of Justice statement, the plaintiffs call it
largest criminal investigation the Justice Department has ever
pursued, "both in terms of scope and potential volume of commerce
affected by the alleged illegal conduct."

Bosch is based in Germany, the other defendants in Japan.  Bosch
agreed to pay $57.8 million in criminal fines on March 31.

NGK entered its plea in October last year.

Lead attorney David Fink, Esq., of Bloomfield, Mich., assisted by
eight other law firms, seek class certification and treble damages
for Sherman Act violations.


RW INSTALLATION: Faces "Montesano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin E. Montesano, et al. v. RW Installation, Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-22060-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

RW Installation, Inc. is a subcontractor in the construction
industry proving finishing work that includes the installation of
windows in multistory buildings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan Matthew Lewis, Esq.
      KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
      700 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 300
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 522-6601
      Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
      E-mail: jml@kulaw.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Denied Class Cert. for Stonewalled Cops
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge has again rejected class status for a group of San
Francisco police officers who say that age discrimination blocked
their paths to promotion, reports Dave Tartre, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

For the third time, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton ruled
that a group of more than 30 San Francisco police officers have
not demonstrated that a class action is the best way to pursue
their claims.  She said that class litigation will not work
because each officer's claim that a promotion was due would still
need to be evaluated individually, adding that if she were to
grant class status on their state-law allegations, their federal
claims would still have to be litigated individually.

The police officers filed suit in 2008, fighting what they
described as an "unchecked age bias that pervades the culture of
the department."  They claim the department intentionally ditched
a promotions system in which they were poised to advance to
inspector positions, instead putting a new system in place in
which no one nearing advancement under the old system was
promoted.

The new system allegedly promoted officers who had not taken the
inspectors' exam, but had instead taken an exam to become a
sergeant, according to the officers.

The city and county of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police
Department were named as defendants alongside then-Police Chief
Heather Fong.  The suit alleges violations of both state and
federal employment discrimination laws.

"As a result of the city's department-wide policies and practices,
plaintiffs have been denied promotion, despite their
qualifications and experience, to the rank of Q-35 Inspector and
have earned substantially less than younger, less experienced
officers," the officers' complaint states.

They say the change had "a disparate impact on or constitute
disparate treatment of SFPD officers age 40 and over."

In 2010, U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton denied the cops'
first motion for class certification, finding that their expert
had not shown that their claims had enough in common to create a
class.  They amended their complaint to address Hamilton's
concerns, but she again held that their claims lacked commonality.

The officers appealed to the 9th Circuit, which reversed Hamilton
in a ruling that said the claims commonly challenged a single
policy.  But the appeals court said that before a class could be
certified, Hamilton must determine whether questions of law or
fact that are common to all the suing officers predominate over
questions that affect individual officers.

Returning to Hamilton's court with a third motion for class
certification, the officers sought the status only for their
California-law age discrimination claims, not their federal ones.

In their motion, the officers gave the judge a choice between
certifying 55 or 133 class members.  They said that while there
were 133 potential class members, those who had been on track for
a shot at inspector promotions under the old system, only 55
inspector positions had been filled under the new system.

Hamilton's May 8 ruling said the officers satisfied just four of
the six elements needed for certification.

The core group of 55 potential class members met the requirement
that class litigation is a practical alternative to joinder,
according to the ruling.

Hamilton said the claims of the five class representatives were
typical of all 55, and the attorneys for the lead plaintiffs were
adequate for all the potential class members.  And the 9th Circuit
took care of the commonality element in their reversal.

However, on the element of predominance, Hamilton said that the
officers failed to show that the 55 top test-takers would have
automatically been promoted -- prompting the need to look at the
merits of each cop's bid for promotion.

"Simply put, each member of the class would need to present
individualized evidence showing why he or she would have received
a Q-35 promotion in a 'but-for' scenario, and each class member's
claim would need to be evaluated on an individualized basis,"
Hamilton wrote.

"Plaintiffs have attempted to show that promotions were made
strictly in rank order, which would have obviated the need for any
individualized analysis, but the evidence does not support their
claim," she added.  "Thus, the court finds that plaintiffs have
failed to meet their burden to show predominance of common issues
over individual ones."

On the class certification element of superiority, Hamilton ruled
that even if she had given the green light under California's Fair
Employment and Housing Act, the officers would still have to make
their federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims
individually, meaning that class litigation would not be superior
to individually litigated claims.

And while plaintiffs' reasoning in hearings and in briefs
suggested they would dismiss the federal claims if granted class
certification on the state claims, they have not yet asked to
dismiss their federal case, Hamilton said.

"Plaintiffs overlook the fact that, before any FEHA liability is
determined, both the FEHA claim and the ADEA claim would need to
be litigated side-by-side," she wrote.

"The court must evaluate 'superiority' based on the case currently
presented, not on a hypothetical pared-down version of the case,"
she concluded.

The case is Juanita Stockwell, et al. v. City and County of San
Francisco, et al., Case No. C 08-5180 PJH, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


SEGA OF AMERICA: Court Refuses to Certify "Aliens" Gamers Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge refused to certify a class of video gamers who claim
that the promos for Sega's "Aliens: Colonial Marines"
misrepresented the game's quality.

Lead plaintiffs Damion Perrine and John Locke sued Sega of America
and Gearbox Software in Federal Court, claiming that the game's
misleading promo version induced them to buy it -- which they
would not have done had they known what the playing experience was
truly like.

The game is based on James Cameron's 1986 film "Aliens," according
to the complaint.

The complaint alleges a "classic bait-and-switch," in which the
defendants created 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 to the public as "actual
gameplay."

But the retail version of the game, Perrine and Locke said, did
not meet these expectations.

Judge James Donato refused to certify the complaint's proposed
class of "all persons in the United States who paid for a copy of
the 'Aliens: Colonial Marines' video game either on or before Feb.
12, 2013," because "at a minimum, common questions of fact would
not predominate in the class as defined by the complaint: rather,
individualized questions of reliance would," Donato said.

"Plaintiffs' original definition makes no attempt to limit the
class to those who were 'exposed' to the allegedly misleading
advertising here, and consequently it is overbroad and not
certifiable," the judge continued.

At the motion hearing, Locke "rapidly retreated" and proposed
limiting the class to "people who viewed an advertisement," which
underscored that the plaintiffs' class definition was untenable,
Donato said.  He also called the proposed class's ascertainability
"a pipe dream," because Locke could not recall or identify which
promotional videos or trailers he saw that misled him about the
game.

"The reality of this memory problem is beyond meaningful dispute,"
Donato said.

However, Donato refused to grant Gearbox's motion to dismiss the
suit because the action does not fall under the scope of the
binding arbitration and class action waiver provisions of the
Gearbox "end-use license agreement."

The case is Damion Perrine v. Sega of America, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-cv-01962-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


SF FORTY-NINERS: Class Must Be Certified First in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class must be certified
before claims that the NFL and Reebok allegedly conspired to fix
prices of team gear sold to consumers can be summarily
adjudicated, a federal judge ruled May 13.

Michael Villa, On Behalf of Himself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. San Francisco Forty-Niners, Ltd., et al., Case No.
5:12-CV-05481-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division.


SHORTERS UNIVERSITY: Attorneys to Argue Over Jurisdiction
---------------------------------------------------------
Alan Riquelmy, writing for Rome News Tribune, reported that the
federal judge presiding over a civil lawsuit against Shorter
University has asked attorneys involved in the case to argue
whether he has jurisdiction.

U.S. District Court Judge Harold Murphy gave lawyers until May 26
to explain their positions in the class-action suit.  The lawsuit,
filed by former student Erin Bishop, claims a security breach at
the university led to the theft of hundreds of records with
personal information.

"Out of an abundance of caution, the Court seeks to ensure that it
has subject matter jurisdiction over this putative class action,"
Murphy state in his May 12 order. "The Court has a duty to assure
itself that it possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this
case."

Andy Davis, lead attorney for Shorter, said such questions about
jurisdiction aren't uncommon.

"It's a procedural thing," Davis added.

According to Davis, plaintiffs and defendants in federal class-
action suits typically live in different states. Additionally,
federal suits require a certain dollar amount be involved.

"We'll be filing our brief, and our comment will be in our brief,"
Davis said.

Bishop filed her suit in February, claiming she's one of many
victims. Several others have since joined her suit as plaintiffs.
In her original complaint, Bishop says the theft involved the
records of possibly 900 former and current students. Over 30
people whose records disappeared had fraudulent tax returns filed
on their behalf.

Shorter University was negligent in keeping those records in an
unlocked filing cabinet in an unlocked room, the suit states. The
Rome university also made no or inadequate efforts to contact
people affected, Bishop claims.


SLEEP TRAIN: Fails to Pay OT to Drivers & Truckers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class of nonexempt, hourly
drivers and truck workers for specialty-mattress retailers claim
that they were denied overtime, as well as rest and meal breaks.

The case is Eduardo Perez v. The Sleep Train Inc.; Mattress Firm
Inc. in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Alameda.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Brauer Abidoye, David Cheng, Doug Hall, and Alexandria
Witte, of FordHarrison, in an article for JD Supra, said airlines
achieved a major victory on May 19, 2015, with an order from the
Central District of California granting Southwest Airlines Co.'s
motion to dismiss in McKinley v. Southwest Airlines Co., United
States District Court, Central District of California Case No.
2:15-cv-02939-AB-JPR, finding the plaintiff's overtime claims to
be preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA).

Significantly, McKinley makes clear that when an employee's claims
focus on or require extensive analysis of the terms of a
Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA), the appropriate course for
a court is to divest itself of jurisdiction in order to avoid
creating inconsistent interpretations regarding the terms of the
CBA.

McKinley was a former union employee who brought a putative class
action against Southwest, alleging that he was not compensated for
all overtime due to him under California law because the employer
had used the incorrect rate of pay for purposes of calculating
overtime.  Similar to the standards under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, most employers in California are required to calculate and
pay overtime using the "regular rate of pay," which is legally
defined to include not only the employee's base hourly rate, but
all other forms of compensation, with limited exceptions.

RLA Preemption of Overtime Claims

However, given that McKinley was a union employee whose wages,
hours and working conditions were governed by a CBA, Southwest
moved to dismiss the action, in part, on RLA preemption grounds.
Under RLA preemption, a court lacks jurisdiction to hear disputes
related to state law claims when the dispute involves rights
conferred under a CBA, or when resolving the claim requires
interpretation or application of a CBA.  The underlying rationale
for this principle derives from the fact that CBAs under the RLA
are applied nationwide.  Thus, preemption is designed to promote
uniformity and not allow a CBA's validity, interpretation or
enforceability to be undermined by varying state law standards.
This rationale makes perfect sense given that the historical
purpose of the RLA was to promote stability in labor-management
relations in the critical airline and railroad industry and to
keep disruption of the nation's transportation system to a
minimum.

After considering Southwest's arguments, the district court
granted Southwest's motion on preemption.  As part of its
rationale, the district court noted that the very nature of
McKinley's claims, which sought to attack how Southwest calculated
the regular rate of pay, would have required the district court to
interpret the CBA to identify each form of pay provided by the
CBA, determine when that pay was due, and then decide whether the
pay was the type of remuneration that should have been included in
Southwest's overtime calculation.  Accordingly, the district court
concluded that because the merits of McKinley's claims hinged on
an in-depth analysis of the various provisions of the CBA, the RLA
deprived the court of subject matter jurisdiction, and thus
preempted the claims.

Bottom Line for Employers

The McKinley opinion significantly strengthens an employer's
preemption arguments against state law claims under the RLA,
making these types of cases easier and quicker to defeat in
federal court.  So long as there is evidence of an applicable CBA
that governs the railway or airline employee's employment that a
court would need to interpret and analyze in-depth to evaluate the
plaintiff's claims, a plaintiff's state law claims are practically
dead-on-arrival.  Likewise, the decision affirms a long-standing
purpose of the RLA to not only keep labor disputes to a minimum,
but also to promote the independence of the airline industry to
resolve issues regarding compensation -- including overtime pay --
and working conditions through collective bargaining and the
dispute resolution processes specified by the RLA.


SPRINT SPECTRUM: TCPA Class Suit Goes to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
David Krueger, Esq., at Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff
LLP, in an article for JD Supra, said Ronald and Anna Andermann
filed suit against Sprint Spectrum L.P., alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227
("TCPA"), arising out of several service phone calls they received
from Sprint regarding the termination of their cellular service.
The Andermanns sought to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals.

The plaintiffs originally obtained mobile phone service from U.S.
Cellular in 2000, which contained an arbitration provision.  U.S.
Cellular later assigned the contract to Sprint.  Sprint informed
the plaintiffs that, because their phones were not compatible with
Sprint's network, they would have to obtain new cellular phones or
obtain service from another company.  Sprint subsequently
initiated several telephone calls to the plaintiffs, reminding
them that their service was about to expire, and offering them
several new devices to maintain service.  The plaintiffs alleged
that these telephone calls were unsolicited and in violation of
the TCPA.

Sprint moved to compel arbitration under the terms of the customer
service agreement.  The Seventh Circuit, reversing the district
court's denial of the motion, held that arbitration was compelled
under the terms of the agreement.  Andermann, et al. v. Sprint
Spectrum, L.P., No. 143478 (7th Cir. May 11, 2015).  Specifically,
the Court held that although the original arbitration provision
was between the plaintiffs and U.S. Cellular, Sprint had "stepped
into U.S. Cellular's shoes" when it acquired the contract.  The
plaintiffs argued that the actual assignee of the contract was
Sprint Solutions, Inc., rather than the named defendant, Sprint
Spectrum L.P.  The Seventh Circuit likewise rejected this
argument, noting that Sprint Spectrum was designated to be Sprint
Solutions's agent to hold the contracts assigned by U.S. Cellular.

While the Court ordered that arbitration was proper, Judge Posner,
author of the decision, noted that, even though there is long-
standing precedent regarding the judicial preference for
arbitration, "[i]t's not clear that arbitration . . . should be
preferred to litigation" because of the expense and inability to
create precedent, especially when it appeared that Sprint had a
strong defense on the merits.  (Though Judge Posner concluded by
also noting that Sprint likely sought arbitration in this matter
because the arbitration provision disallowed class arbitration.)
Accordingly, the Seventh Circuit reversed the district court's
decision.


STARBUCKS CORP: Faces "Martin" Suit Over Misleading Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that The King of Coffee is facing
a class actionlawsuit alleging a bit of consumer fraud -- in the
guise of misleading advertising.  The lawsuit alleges Starbucks
advertised prices for product that are lower than those charged by
baristas. That's not very nice.

Specifically, the Starbucks lawsuit contends that the coffee
brewers advertising for reduced-fat turkey bacon breakfast
sandwich and sausage and cheddar breakfast sandwich include prices
that are lower than that which the plaintiff, Sarah Martin, paid.
The turkey bacon sandwich was advertised for $3.45 when it
actually costs $3.75, while the sausage and cheddar sandwich was
advertised as $3.25 when the actual price is $3.45, according to
the complaint.

Apparently, there are at least seven Starbucks locations in Los
Angeles county where the in store pricing is different from the
advertised price. The potential class action suit alleges
violations of the California statutes covering consumer
protection, false advertising, unfair competition, unjust
enrichment and fraud. That should about cover it.

Further, the lawsuit contends that Starbuck's policy regarding
receipts helped it conceal the alleged false advertisement.
"Plaintiff and members of the proposed classes relied to their
detriment on Starbucks misrepresentations regarding the price of
goods," the complaint states. "Starbucks also has the policy of
asking consumers whether they would like a copy of their receipt,
which makes it harder to discover the misrepresentation."

The putative class would include any Starbucks customer who
purchased items at California locations where the wrong price was
advertised in the last four years.

The case is Sarah Martin et al. v. Starbucks Corp. et al., case
number BC582335, in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles.


TAKATA CORP: Sutts Strosberg to Expand Air Bags Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Japan Times reported that a Canadian law firm said it planned
to expand its class actions against embattled Japanese auto parts
giant Takata and car manufacturers over defective air bags.

The plaintiffs are seeking more than 3 billion Canadian dollars
(JPY297 billion) from Takata and auto manufacturers Chrysler,
Honda, Nissan and Toyota for the loss of value of their vehicles
caused by the recall, according to Sutts, Strosberg LLP.

The original suit estimated the number of cars recalled in Canada
at 1.8 million. That number is now expected to rise after Takata
agreed to double a U.S. recall to a record nearly 34 million
vehicles earlier.

Once revised Canadian figures are released, Sutts, Strosberg LLP
will amend its lawsuit to reflect the increased number of cars
affected by the recall, a spokesman for the firm said.  The defect
-- thought to be linked to a chemical propellant that helps
inflate the air bags -- can cause them to deploy with explosive
force, sending metal shrapnel hurtling toward drivers and
passengers.

John McIntosh, who is represented by Sutts, Strosberg, told a news
conference that he rarely drives his 2003 Toyota Corolla because
he fears the airbag is faulty.

Another Canadian class action against Takata announced in March by
Merchant Law Group LLP is seeking CA$2.4 billion for personal
injuries, car repairs and an expected loss in value of their
vehicles included in a massive global safety recall.

Two other Canadian law firms have also launched suits.  If they
are certified by a judge, they would likely be lumped into a
single class action lawsuit in the coming months.


TOP RANK: Faces "Bradley" Suit Over Pacquiao Injury Concealment
---------------------------------------------------------------
David F. Bradley, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Top Rank Inc.., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
11936 (E.D. Mich., May 29, 2015), is an action for damages as a
proximate result of the Defendants' failure to disclose the Nevada
Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Pacquiao prior to the
fight between Manny Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather held May 2,
2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rick A. Decker, Esq.
      DECKER & DECKER, PLC
      8113 Wilson Street
      Shelby Township, MI 48136
      Telephone: (586) 255-4083
      Facsimile: (586) 816-0021
      E-mail: rdecker@deckerlaw.net


TRILOGY FLORAL: "Urra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Urra, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Trilogy
Floral, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-22042-JEM (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Trilogy Floral, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company, which
grow, imports and distributes of fresh cut flowers in North
America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Pelier, Esq.
      4649 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 301
      Coral Gables, FL 33146
      Telephone: (305) 529-9199
      Facsimile: (305) 529-9290
      E-mail: replier@pelierlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeanette Hernandez-Suarez, Esq.
      JEANETTE HERNANDEZ-SUAREZ, P.A.
      11410 North Kendall Drive, Suite 205
      Miami, FL 33176
      Telephone: (305) 596-1044
      Facsimile: (305) 596-0981
      E-mail: Hernandez205@yahoo.com


UNITE GRILL: "Pintens" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Erin Pintens, and Rebecca Gerroll on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v.  Unite Grill LLC, d/b/a, Unite Urban
Grill, Joseph D. Krouse, and Jayson Lane, Case No. 1:15-cv-04733
(N.D. Ill., May 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1450 W.
Chicago Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60642.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shneur Z. Nathan, Esq.
      HALE LAW LLC
      53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 330
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 341-9646
      E-mail: snathan@ahalelaw.com


VI GROUP: Faces "Lopez" Suit in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacinto Lopez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VI
Group, LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04122-VSB (S.D.N.Y., May 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

VI Group, LLC owns and operates Bread & Butter restaurants in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Nathan Dictor, Esq.
      Eugene Gerald Eisner, Esq.
      Maria Lauren Chickedantz, Esq.
      EISNER & MIRER, P.C.
      113 University Place
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 473-8700
      Facsimile: (212) 473-8705
      E-mail: ben@eisnerassociates.com
              gene@eisnerassociates.com
              maria@eisnerassociates.com


VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: Faces "Heller" Suit in New York District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shares of Vipshop, a China-based online discount retailer, dropped
amid reports of inaccuracies and manipulated sales, a federal
class action alleges.

The case is Paul Heller v. Vipshop Holdings Ltd.; Ya Shen; Donghao
Yang in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


WAL-MART STORES: Settles "Odle" Suit Alleging Sex Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Wal-
Mart settled a gender discrimination lawsuit from a former named
plaintiff in Betty Dukes' class action that sought to certify 1.5
million female employees.

Stephanie Odle, of Lubbock, was an original plaintiff in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart.

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to certify a class of current
employees in June 2011 due to insufficient commonality between the
plaintiffs.

In March 2010, the 9th Circuit tossed "former employees" like Odle
because they lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief.  Odle
filed a separate class action four months after the Supreme Court
decision, claiming female workers face "gender discrimination as a
result of specific policies and practices in Wal-Mart's regions
located in whole or in part in Texas."

Odle claimed Wal-Mart fired her from her assistant manager
position soon after she was transferred to a Texas store and asked
to be considered for future management positions.  She accused
Wal-Mart of denying women equal opportunities for promotion to
management-track positions, as well as equal pay for hourly retail
positions and salaried management positions.

Odle agreed to voluntarily dismiss her claims on May 15, according
to a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice.

"Plaintiff Stephanie Odle and Wal-Mart have entered into a
settlement agreement to resolve Ms. Odle's claims," the filing
states.

Terms of the settlement are confidential, Wal-Mart spokesman Randy
Hargrove said.

"We're pleased that we could resolve these claims with our former
associates and put this matter behind us," he said in an e-mail
message May 18.

Odle's attorneys could not be reached for comment May 17 evening.

In April 2014, the 5th Circuit reinstated Odle's individual claims
against Wal-Mart.  The 5th Circuit reversed U.S. District Judge
Reed O'Connor's dismissal of claims with prejudice, disagreeing
with his finding that rejection of class certification in Dukes
removed standing for a plaintiff like Odle to pursue injunctive or
declaratory relief.

Ruling Odle's claim untimely would require the former class
members to file "duplicative, needless individual lawsuits before
the court could resolve the class certification issue
definitively," Judge Jacques Wiener Jr. wrote.

O'Connor had tossed Odle's class claims as well, concluding they
were barred by the statute of limitations.

He cited the 5th Circuit's "no piggyback rule," which bans former
class members from filing a subsequent class action if a court has
found the suit inappropriate for class action, assuming the
statute of limitations has run for the class action claims.

"Piggybacking" of one class action onto another would result in
the indefinite tolling of the statute of limitations, the 5th
Circuit has ruled.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hal K. Gillespie, Esq.
          Joseph H. Gillespie, Esq.
          GILLESPIE, ROZEN & WATSKY, PC
          3402 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 200
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 720-2009
          Facsimile: (214) 720-2291
          E-mail: hkg@grwlawfirm.com
                  josephgillespie@grwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Stephen Tinkler, Esq.
          TINKLER LAW FIRM
          309 Johnson Street
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505) 982-8533
          Facsimile: (505) 982-6698
          E-mail: set@tinklerfirth.com

               - and -

          Brad Seligman, Esq.
          THE IMPACT FUND
          125 University Avenue, Suite 102
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 845-3473
          Facsimile: (510) 845-3645

               - and -

          Merit Bennett, Esq.
          BENNETT LAW FIRM
          460 St. Michael's Drive, Suite 703
          Santa Fe, NM 87505
          Telephone: (505) 983-9834
          Facsimile: (505) 983-9836

               - and -

          Joseph Sellers, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500 West
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
          Karl G. Nelson, Esq.
          Olivia A. Adendorff, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          2100 McKinney Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 698-3100
          Facsimile: (214) 571-2900
          E-mail: cconway@gibsondunn.com
                  knelson@gibsondunn.com
                  oadendorff@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., Esq.
          Catherine A. Conway, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 229-7000
          Facsimile: (213) 229-7520
          E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com
                  cconway@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Michele L. Maryott, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 451-3800
          Facsimile: (949) 475-4220
          E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com

The case is Stephanie Odle, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case
No. 3:11-cv-02954-O, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division.


WELLS FARGO: Sued for Charging Customers for Unneeded "Solutions"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arvin Temkar, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal class action accuses Wells Fargo of deceptively charging
customers for "solutions" to problems they never had, and services
they never asked for.

Lead plaintiff Shahriar Jabbari sued the bank May 13, claiming it
encourages employees to use illegal, fraudulent, deceptive and
abusive tactics to open fee-generating accounts by misrepresenting
them or not informing customers at all.

Wells Fargo calls the tricks "solutions," and induces employees to
use them by giving them "unrealistic sales quotas," Jabbari
claims.

Los Angeles City Attorney Michael Feuer filed a similar complaint
against Wells Fargo in early May.

The bank's abusive "solutions" include hidden fees, adding
unwanted secondary accounts to primary accounts without
permission, misrepresentations and no representations at all,
Jabbari says.

"(T)he bank also routinely opens customer accounts and issues
credit cards without the customer's authorization or knowledge,"
the lawsuit states.  "Then, when customers fail to maintain
mandatory account balances, pay fees for accounts they did not
know existed, or comply with some other undisclosed policy, Wells
Fargo charges the customer a fee.  Often Wells Fargo simply 'pays'
this resulting fee by taking money from the clients' existing
accounts. Or Wells Fargo sends the 'debt' the customers 'owe' to a
debt collection agency."

If bank employees fail to meet their quotas, they could lose pay
or lose their jobs, Jabbari claims.

"Because the stakes are so high for the employees, and the quotas
so difficult, Wells Fargo employees inevitably must resort to
using abusive and fraudulent tactics," he says.

Nor does the bank tell customers if their personal information is
compromised in doing all this, according to the complaint.

Wells Fargo spokesman Ancel Martinez said the company will
"vigorously" defend itself against the allegations.

"We do not have a system that matches the description in the
complaint, and all our systems are designed to comply with
applicable laws, including privacy laws," Martinez said in an
email.

"Wells Fargo's culture is focused on the best interests of its
customers and creating a supportive, caring and ethical
environment for our team members."

Jabbari seeks class certification and treble damages for unfair
competition, consumer law violations and violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting and Customer Records Acts.

The Los Angeles city attorney warned customers to pay attention to
online accounts and review bank statements for suspicious
withdrawals ranging from $25 to $100, according to a statement on
Keller Rohrback's Web site.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LAW OFFICES
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com


YONKERS, NY: Sued for Charging Residents Annual Inspection Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Yonkers charges residents an
annual fire and building safety inspection fee but don't give them
annual inspections, a class action claims in Westchester County
Supreme Court.


                            *********

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  * * *