CAR_Public/150624.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 125


                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Sued in D.S.C. Over Misleading Financial Reports
ABLE SERVICES: Faces "Gama" Suit Over Reimbursement Policies
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces "Heiloo" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Certifies Nurses Class in "Minns" Suit
AETNA INC: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Administrative Fees

ALCON LABS: App. Court Halts Utah Contact Lens Price-Fixing Law
ASHFORD UNIVERSITY: Sued for Failing to Provide WARN Act Notices
ATHENE ANNUITY: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
BANK OF AMERICA: Accused in California of Triggering Foreclosures
BLUE APRON: Sued in California Over Automatic Renewal Policies

BLUE CROSS: Accused of Fixing Prices for Chiropractic Services
BOSTON MEDICAL: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
BROADCOM CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Avago, Suit Claims
CANYON OAKS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
CAROL L. KARP: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects

CASABLANCA SEAFOOD: Removed "Monroy" Suit to S. Dist. Florida
CHEVRON CORP: Hillary Clinton "Proud to Go to Bat" for Chevron
CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Court Refuses to Dismiss Payroll Fraud Suit
CONSOLIDATED FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Fax Advertisements
CROCS INC: Faces Class Suit in California for Not Paying Overtime
CVS HEALTH: Faces IBEW Local Union Suit Over Omnicare Merger
CVS PHARMACY: Accused of Racially Profiling Blacks and Latinos
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sued Over Electronic Fund Transfer Policies

DISH NETWORK: Faces "Ray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DRAFTKINGS INC: Sued in Mass. Over Failure to Pay Sig-Up Bonus
DSK RESOURCING: "Pollock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EBAY INC: Sued for Letting Dishonest Buyers to Defraud Customers
FIRST STUDENT: Faces "Hensley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FLEET SERVICES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims
GAMESTOP CORP: Faces "Aich" Suit Over Geeknet Merger
GCP EAST: Faces "Sanegarapu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GERAWAN FARMING: Accused of Firing Lead Plaintiff in Labor Suit
GOODFELLAS GRILL: "Jara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Del. Over Company Merger Plans
HEARTLAND RESTAURANT: Faces "Wachter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HERBALIFE LTD: Settles Pyramid Scheme Class Action for $15MM
HERBALIFE LTD: Bostick Class Action Gets Final Court Approval
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Faces Class Action Over Warranties

HOLLISTER CO: Order Certifying Class in Gift Card Suit Affirmed
IDAHO: 9th Circuit Lifts Ban on Second-Trimester Abortion
IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
INTEL CORPORATION: Sued in Del. Over Altera Merger
JEWELRY CHANNEL: Accused in Cal. of Falsely Advertising Discounts

JIM SCHNEIDER: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JOTAS ASSOCIATES: Tenants Sue Over Failure to Repair Units
KNIGHT'S INSPECTION: "Aceves" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Falsely Marketed Merchandise Prices, Suit Says
KRAFT FOODS: Falsely Marketed Juice Products, "Osborne" Suit Says

KRAFT FOODS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Action in Illinois
LAS VEGAS VALLEY: Faces Class Suit for Overcharging Customers
LEGACY PRESSURE: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
LORD TENNYSON: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
MACDERMID AMERICAS: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Company Merger

MAJOR LEAGUE: Class Action Over Sports TV Packages Can Proceed
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers PPE
MERU NETWORKS: Sued in Del. Chancery Court Over Fortinet Deal
MERU NETWORKS: Sued in Santa Clara Court Over Fortinet Deal
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Court Scolds Firms Over Treatment of Witnesses

NAILSWAY INC: Workers File Class Action Over Wage Violations
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Slaps UNC With 5 Serious Academic Violations
NATIONAL SECURITY: Class Appeals Order in Internet Snooping Suit
NESTLE USA: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NEWPORT UNIVERSAL: Faces "Tremolada" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Housing Authority Workers OT, Suit Says
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Sued Over Discrimination Against Black Workers
OPENGATE CAPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
PATHWAYS CENTER: Faces "Caswell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PEDDLER'S HOME: Faces "Nickel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

PILOT FLYING J: Remaining Plaintiffs Uncover Rebate Fraud
PLAINS ALL: Faces Savvy Suit Over Santa Barbara Oil Spill
PLAINS ALL: Faces "Cheverez" Suit Over Santa Barbara Oil Spill
PLAIN GREEN: Faces Class Action Over Predatory Lending
PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC: "Cavazos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Plunge in Stock
RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating FDA Rules
RANDSTAD GENERAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in OT Class Action
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Galaxy Smartwatch Battery
SANDISK CORP: Court Certifies Class in Flash Memory Monopoly Suit

SEARS HOMETOWN: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Johnson" Suit Says
SEGA OF AMERICA: Consumers Withdrew Claims Over Aliens Promo
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Kunces" Suit Over Company Merger Plans
SOCIAL SECURITY: Accused of Blindsiding Hundreds of Kentuckians
SOCIETE AIR FRANCE: Wins Final OK of $39-Mil. Antitrust Suit Deal

SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Judge Tosses Investor Class Action
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Traffic Court Officials Face Motorists Suit
THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: 121851 Canada Can Discontinue Class Action
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
TWEEN BRANDS: Faces "Loor" Suit Over Fictional Merchandise Prices

UNION PACIFIC: Sued Over Illegal Use of the Railroad Right-of-Way
WEATHERFORD INT'L: July 6 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Prather" Suit Claims
WIPRO: Faces Overtime Class Action in California


                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Sued in D.S.C. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
City of Bristol Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 3D Systems Corporation, Abraham N.
Reichental, and Damon J. Gregoire, Case No. 0:15-cv-02393-MGL
(D.S.C., June 12, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

South Carolina-based 3D Systems Corporation is an international 3D
printing company that provides 3D printers, print materials,
custom-parts, and software.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terry E. Richardson, Jr., Esq.
      Daniel Scott Haltiwanger, Esq.
      Chris Moore, Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
      1730 Jackson Street
      Barnwell, South Carolina 29812
      Telephone: (803) 541-7850
      Facsimile: (803) 541-9625
      E-mail: trichardson@rpwb.com
              dhaltiwanger@rpwb.com
              cmoore@rpwb.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      Donald A. Broggi, Esq.
      Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: (212) 223-6444
      Facsimile: (212) 223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com
              dbroggi@scott-scott.com
              tlaughlin@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      David R. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street, P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: (860) 537-5537
      Facsimile: (860) 537-4432
      E-mail: david.scott@scott-scott.com


ABLE SERVICES: Faces "Gama" Suit Over Reimbursement Policies
------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Gama v. Able Services, Crown Building Maintenance Co.,
Crown Building Maintenance d/b/a Able Building Maintenance
Company, and Does i-10, inclusive, Case No. RG15773582 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to reimburse or indemnify janitorial employees for their
work-related cell phone use.

The Defendants are providers of building maintenance and facility
services throughout California and in various states nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hunter Pyle, Esq.
      Rachel Evans, Esq.
      SUNDEEN SALINAS & PYLE
      428 Thirteenth Street, Eighth Floor
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 663-9240
      Facsimile: (510) 663-9241
      E-mail: hpyle@ssrplaw.com
              revans@ssrplaw.com

         - and -

      Todd Jackson, Esq.
      Jacob Richards, Esq.
      Linda Lam, Esq.
      LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE & JACKSON, P.C.
      476 Ninth Street
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (510) 839-6824
      Facsimile: (510) 839-7839
      E-mail: tjackson@lewisfeinberg.com
              jrichards@lewisfeinberg.com
              llam@lewisfeinberg.com


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces "Heiloo" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mamie Heiloo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Accounts Receivable Technologies Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03395 (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gus Michael Farinella, Esq.
      460 West 42nd Street, Suite 58G
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 675-6161
      Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
      E-mail: gmf@lawgmf.com


ADVANCED CLINICAL: Court Certifies Nurses Class in "Minns" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge June 2
certified a class of health care workers whom Advanced Clinical
Employment Staffing replaced with "strike replacement nurses," on
three causes of action.

The case is Marie Minns, et al. v. Advanced Clinical Employment
Staffing LLC, et al., Case No. 3:13-cv-03249-SI, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


AETNA INC: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Administrative Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra M. Peters, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Aetna Inc., Aetna Life Insurance Company, and
OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00109-MR
(W.D.N.C, June 12, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's cost-
shifting scheme that collects administrative fees from Aetna
insureds and employers who sponsor Aetna-administered self-insured
health insurance plans, specifically by sending false Explanation
of Benefits forms to insureds that misrepresent the administrative
fees Aetna owes to the Subcontractors as ordinary medical expenses
billed by a medical provider.

Aetna Inc. is a worldwide health care benefits company with its
principal business address at 151 Farmington Avenue, Hartford, CT
06156.

Aetna Life Insurance Company is a Connecticut corporation that is
the lead operating entity for Aetna's branded life and health
insurance organization.

OptumHealth Care Solutions, Inc. is a Minnesota corporation that
provides claims administration and network management services to
Aetna in connection with Aetna's administration of employee
welfare benefit plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry McDevitt, Esq.
      David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
      Heather Whitaker Goldstein, Esq.
      THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
      11 North Market Street
      Asheville, NC 28801
      Telephone: (828) 258-2991
      Facsimile: (828)257-2767
      E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
              dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com
              hgoldstein@vwlawfirm.com


ALCON LABS: App. Court Halts Utah Contact Lens Price-Fixing Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Whitehurst, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a federal appeals court has halted a new Utah law banning price-
fixing for contact lenses that could have wide-ranging
implications for the industry amid a fight between manufacturers
and discount retailers.

Lens maker Alcon Laboratories cheered the order on May 14.  Along
with Johnson & Johnson and Bausch & Lomb, the company says the law
is an unconstitutional overreach written to benefit Utah-based
online discount retailer 1-800 Contacts.

The measure halted by the appeals court would allow 1-800
Contacts, one of the nation's biggest lens suppliers, to disregard
minimum prices set by the manufacturers and sell discount lenses
across state lines, according to Steve DelBianco, executive
director of the trade group NetChoice.  That would be good for
customers because they'd be paying less for their contacts, he
says. But the manufacturers argue setting minimum prices protects
eye doctors from being undercut.

At stake is control of a roughly $4 billion market with some 38
million American customers.  Many contact lens sales come from eye
doctors.  But discount retailers have been growing in recent
years, and 1-800 Contacts has captured about 10 percent of the
national market, according to court papers.

The order issued on May 13 from the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Denver puts the Utah law on hold as a legal challenge
plays out.  It reverses a lower court ruling from U.S. District
Judge Dee Benson, who found the law is a legal antitrust measure
and allowed it to take effect.

Utah's state attorneys declined to comment.

The law targets a pricing program that the manufacturers started
using about two years ago.  If retailers sell lenses cheaper than
the minimum prices, the manufacturers that dominate the market
pull their products.

Republican state Sen. Deidre Henderson, who sponsored the measure,
has called the pricing minimums predatory and anticompetitive.

Discount giant Costco says the rules forced it to raise prices by
more than 20 percent on some brands.  The popular Acuvue Oasys
brand increased from about $52 for a 12-pack to about $68 last
year, according to court papers.

The minimum price rules also have drawn ire elsewhere, sparking 40
class-action lawsuits across the country and scrutiny from
Congress since the manufacturers started setting them about two
years ago, according to Judge Benson's ruling.  Nine states have
considered legislation similar to that passed in Utah.

Ms. Henderson said the measure was written to bolster competition
rather than help 1-800 Contacts, but he has been vague on whether
it will allow Utah-based companies like 1-800 Contacts to sell at
discounted rates to customers outside the state.  The
manufacturers say that would violate interstate commerce
regulations.

A constitutional law expert said the law doesn't appear to violate
those rules because it doesn't give perks to a local company or
clash with laws in other states.

But University of Michigan law professor Richard Primus says a
provision that allows Utah's attorney general to sue manufacturers
who withhold their product from discount sellers could be on
shakier legal ground.


ASHFORD UNIVERSITY: Sued for Failing to Provide WARN Act Notices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ashford University, a profit-
seeking chain college, laid off 80 to 150 workers without notice
on May 7, a WARN Act class action claims in Superior Court.


ATHENE ANNUITY: Faces "Silva" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Silva and Don Hudson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Athene Annuity and Life Company f/k/a
Aviva Life and Annuity Company, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-02665-PSG
(N.D. Cal., June 12, 2015), asserts that the Defendants' were
engaged in a scheme to defraud annuity holders since at least
2007, specifically by misstating Aviva's financial condition and
misleading consumers as to its strength and stability.

Athene Annuity and Life Company is an insurance company with its
current domicile and principal place of business in the State of
Iowa.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Sean R. Matt, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              sean@hbsslaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Accused in California of Triggering Foreclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Bank of America deceptively offers 30 days to appeal denial of a
mortgage modification, but denies appeals filed on the 30th day,
to "trigger foreclosure" and "manufacture late fees."


BLUE APRON: Sued in California Over Automatic Renewal Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Riccobono, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Blue Apron, Inc., Case No. BC584017 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 9, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendant's unlawful and deceptive business practices of making
automatic renewal and continuous service offer to California
consumers without their knowledge.

Blue Apron, Inc. owns and operates a New York-based meal-delivery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Mona Amini, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (818) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mona@kazlg.com

         - and -

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


BLUE CROSS: Accused of Fixing Prices for Chiropractic Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Blue Cross Blue Shield of
North Carolina and other insurers conspired with a third network
service to fix prices for chiropractic services throughout the
state, a class claims in the Forsyth County Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Susan Sykes and three chiropractors claim in the
May 26 action that the defendant insurers, which also include
Cigna Healthcare of North Carolina, Medcost LLC, and Healthgram
Inc., have operated a cartel in the state since at least 2005, to
the detriment of health care providers and patients alike.

According to the complaint, the vehicle for this conspiracy is
third party Health Network Solutions Inc., which is the subject of
a separate lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs.

The network was established to provide chiropractic services to
the insurers under contracts with de facto exclusivity covering
all 100 counties of North Carolina. About half of the state's
2,000 contractors are enrolled in the network, the complaint says.

"HNS is like a union which negotiates employment terms for its
members," the plaintiffs explain.  "But unlike a union which
represents the interests of the members, HNS puts the Insurers'
interests ahead of those of the Plaintiffs and the Class at the
behest of and acting in concert with the insurers to the detriment
of Plaintiffs and the class."

The class claims that instead of looking out for their interests,
Health Network Solutions has become a "gatekeeper" to the patients
covered by the insurers.

"For chiropractors to be in-network providers for the insurers and
obtain in-network access to the patients, they must go through
HNS.  This exclusivity enables HNS to collect fees from all
chiropractors who seek access to patients covered by the Insurers.
The exorbitant fees collected by HNS are among the spoils of HNS's
and the Insurers unfair trade practices," the complaint says.

The plaintiffs say all by themselves, the fees represent a
restraint of trade because they are a prerequisite to
participating in the North Carolina market.

But the concerns are deeper than that, they say.

The complaint says that Health Network Solutions failed to avoid
obvious conflicts of interest, becoming merely a tool of the
conspiring defendant insurers, and that to obscure those
relationships, it failed to obtain a state business license and
operates under a structure that is at variance to its
representations to federal regulators.

The plaintiffs says that to stay in control the defendants bullied
chiropractors through Health Network Solutions' "Utilization
Review Process."  Operated under the guise of a quality assurance
program, the process was used to terminate or threaten to
terminate providers from the network without regard to the actual
quality of patient care they provided, the complaint says.

"The Utilization Review Process had the effect of restraining
covered services to patients, damaging Plaintiffs by denying the
agreed compensation for covered services, by restricting service
Plaintiffs may provide, and by denying access to covered patients
unless Plaintiffs comply with the average cost per patient levels
arbitrarily established by HNS in consultation with the Insurers,"
the complaint says.

"This conduct unjustly enriches HNS and the Insurers by shielding
them from paying for medically necessary covered care," the
plaintiffs claim.

Further, they say, by establishing an "average cost per patient"
through Health Network Solutions, the insurers forced
chiropractors to cut their fees and reduce the amount of
medically-necessary treatment, while keeping for themselves money
that would otherwise have gone to the practitioners.

The class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, the creation of
a constructive trust and the disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains
to the plaintiffs, and compensatory and punitive damages.

The class is represented by:

          Robert Fields III, Esq.
          OAK CITY LAW LLP
          702 N Blount St.
          Raleigh, NC 27604
          Telephone: (919) 899-9655
          Mobile: (919) 274-3100
          E-mail: rob.fields@oakcitylaw.com

               - and -

          William Blancato, Esq.
          DOUGHTON RICH BLANCATO PLLC
          633 West Fourth Street, Suite 150
          Winston Salem, NC 27101
          Telephone: (336) 725-9416
          Facsimile: (336) 725-5129
          E-mail: bill@DRBattorneys.com


BOSTON MEDICAL: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Kamyra Walker and Anne O'Rourke, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Boston Medical Center Corp., MDF
Transcription, LLC, and Richard J. Fagan, Case No. SUCV2015-01733
(Mass. Super. Ct., June 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to safeguard and their unlawful publication
of confidential medical information of thousands of BMC's
patients.

Boston Medical Center Corp. is a Massachusetts corporation that
owns and operates a not-for-profit academic medical center.

MDF Transcription, LLC is a Massachusetts corporation that
provides of transcription services, focusing on accurate records,
delivered consistently on-time.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Petrucelly, Esq.
      Daniel F. McCabe, Jr., Esq.
      PETRUCELLY, NADLER & NORRIS, P.C.
      One State Street, Suite 400
      Boston, Ma 02109
      Telephone: (617) 720-1765
      Facsimile: (617) 720-1717
      E-mail: Jeff@pnnlaw.com
              Daniel@pnnlaw.com


BROADCOM CORP: Being Sold for Too Little to Avago, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Broadcom too cheaply through an unfair process to Avago
Technologies, in a cash or stock deal valued at $37 billion,
shareholders say in a class action in Orange County Court.

Shareholders will get $54.50 per Broadcom share, or 0.4378 shares
of the newly formed Singapore holding company, according to the
June 1 lawsuit.  The companies announced the merger on May 28.

Their statement claimed the new company will have "$77 billion in
enterprise value" and annual revenue of about $15 billion.

Lead plaintiff Zhemin Xu describes Irvine-based Broadcom as a
"fabless" semiconductor company: a company that designs and sells
electronic devices, but outsources its manufacturing.

Xu says Broadcom is worth $60 to $65 a share.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 300-8425
          Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


CANYON OAKS: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shucorey Sparks and Sarah Sparks v. Victor K. Tse, Rachael Tse,
Williams Management, Michael Williams, Canyon Oaks Condominium
Association, and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15773334 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered
emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and
out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and
refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject
premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


CAROL L. KARP: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kellie De Valle and Dru De Valle v. Carol L. Karp, Lawrence B.
Karp and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15773353 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 9,
2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional
distress, physical injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket
expenses as a result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to
make repairs of the habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


CASABLANCA SEAFOOD: Removed "Monroy" Suit to S. Dist. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Iraida Monroy, and other
similarly situated individuals v. Casablanca Seafood Bar & Grill,
Inc. and Lazaro Sanchez, Case No. 15-009945-CA 01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County to the
U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22214-KMM to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
              jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jonathan Alan Beckerman, Esq.
      Theresa Maureen Vreeland, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
      333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 400-7500
      Facsimile: 603-2552
      E-mail: jabeckerman@littler.com
               tvreeland@littler.com


CHEVRON CORP: Hillary Clinton "Proud to Go to Bat" for Chevron
--------------------------------------------------------------
In her final few months at the State Department, Hillary Clinton
blended into a wall of flag drapery in Singapore and gave a shout-
out to the big corporations of America, reports Adam Klasfeld at
Courthouse News Service.

"We're proud to go to bat for the Boeings and Chevrons and General
Motors and so many others," Clinton told her audience in the fall
of 2012.

At the time, Chevron had great need of a strong batting arm on the
international field.  The oil giant has been found responsible for
an environmental disaster in the tropical northeast of Ecuador.

Lago Agrio, the city where the $9.8 billion verdict for a group of
Ecuadorean villagers came down, demonstrates ties to the oil
companies just with its name, as a translation of Sour Lake, the
Texas base for Texaco, which Chevron acquired over a decade ago.

The long and winding road of the Lago Agrio litigation before and
since that judgment turns on fundamental notions of law on
international enforcement of foreign judgments, collateral attacks
on those judgments, and the reach and power of U.S. courts.  Along
that path, it has been shadowed by the more obscure intrigues of
politics and money.

As Chevron fought liability in U.S. and foreign arenas, the
historically Republican political donor also began contributing
millions of dollars to State Department projects in a Democratic
administration.  With Clinton at the State Department's helm, from
2009 through early 2013, a number of initiatives her agency
advanced received multimillion-dollar contributions from Chevron.

For years before and after her tenure, the State Department
published human rights reports that criticize the Ecuadorean
justice system as susceptible to corruption.  The distinguishing
feature of the reports during Clinton's tenure is the advocacy in
favor of Chevron through direct references to its legal fight,
within the criticism of Ecuador's legal system.

Those reports then came in handy when Chevron went into federal
court in New York and successfully attacked the Lago Agrio award.

In a ruling last year, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan relied in
part on the reports to find that the Ecuadorean judgment was
obtained by "corrupt means."  He also ordered, through a trust and
an injunction, that any proceeds from the massive award be
returned to Chevron.

This order puts a legal roadblock in front of any effort to
collect on the Lago Agrio judgment.

Kaplan's 485-page decision is currently awaiting a ruling from the
Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals.  The principal issues on
appeal are whether the lower court judge overreached the limits of
his power, and whether international comity requires respect for
the foreign court's ruling.

Going back to Clinton's tenure at the State Department, Chevron
was engaged in an intense round of government lobbying during that
period.  As reported by the Washington Examiner, the oil company's
lobbying expenditures hit a $20.8 million peak in 2009 when
Clinton became secretary.

At that point, the Lago Agrio case was 6 years old, and during the
remaining years of Clinton's time at the State Department, Chevron
was to pour more than $13 million into State Department projects.
That spending was accompanied by large gifts to the Clinton Global
Initiative, a charity run by the Clinton Foundation.

Chevron defends the contributions to State Department projects as
appropriate engagement on business matters, and characterizes
gifts to the foundation as an effort to give back to regions where
the company drills for oil.

"There is no connection between our contributions to the Clinton
Global Initiative and Chevron's engagements with the U.S. State
Department on appropriate business matters," a Chevron spokesman
said by e-mail.

"The Clinton Global Initiative was one of the many partnerships
and programs that the company has had or maintains to advance our
aim to build communities by investing in health, education and
economic development in the areas where we do business," spokesman
Morgan Crinklaw added.

While Crinklaw declined to comment specifically on the donations
to State Department projects, Clinton herself showed no such
reticence.

During a U.S.-China Business Council dinner in the summer of 2009
at Washington's Ritz-Carlton Hotel, she said, "We are delighted
that a number of leading American companies such as GE and
Pepsico, Chevron, Marriott, Corning, and others have signed on to
be part of putting together this visionary pavilion that will
showcase much of what is best about our country."

"There is, actually, a model of the pavilion somewhere around here
that I urge you to take a look at."  She added to laughter from
the audience, "This is shameless, I know, but that's part of the
job."

The U.S.A. Pavilion, which drew nearly 5 million visitors when it
opened the next year, represented something of a bittersweet coup
for Clinton.  Federal law blocks the U.S. government from funding
national pavilions, and the previous administration had barely
scratched the surface of the project when Clinton took the reins,
raising $60 million in private money.

But the resulting prominent display of corporate sponsorship drew
criticism from visitors who were expecting a cultural message in
the national shrine, and were met by a sea of corporate logos.

Shortly after the Ritz-Carlton dinner, Clinton witnessed Chevron's
signing of a memorandum of understanding to continue a $56 million
initiative with the U.S. Agency for International Development,
USAid, that supports education, small business and other
development in Angola.

She concluded her remarks in Angola's capital city of Luanda by
singling out the oil company.  "Let me especially thank Chevron
for recognizing that it is important to give back to the countries
where the natural resources come from," Clinton said.

A picture of the secretary at this event appears in Chevron's
corporate responsibility report for 2009.

It was in the State Department human rights report for that same
year that Chevron's legal troubles in Ecuador were first
discussed.  Specifically, the report highlights a contested piece
of evidence in Chevron's campaign to overturn the Lago Agrio
verdict.

"In August, a multinational oil company provided government
authorities with clandestinely recorded videos that it alleged
exposed a bribery scheme related to a multi-billion dollar
environmental lawsuit pending against it in an Ecuadorian court,"
says the State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights
Practices for 2009.

The videos show two men trying to goad an Ecuadorean judge to rule
against Chevron in return for a kickback on an environmental
contract.  The New York Times later identified the videographers
as a Chevron contractor and a man convicted two decades earlier
for trafficking 275,000 pounds of marijuana.

Where the State Department described an "alleged . . . bribery
scheme," the Times reported that "no bribes were shown."

The tapes forced the Ecuadorean judge hearing the case to recuse
himself, and Ecuador's government saw the tapes as a staged effort
to disrupt and discredit the country's justice system.

A cache of cables from U.S. diplomats in Quito later published by
Wikileaks show that one Ecuadorean official had called the footage
a "disgraceful attempt to influence the outcome of the judicial
proceeding."

Illustrating the far-flung and multifront nature of the
litigation, the Ecuadorean government pursued the matter in
federal court in San Francisco, filing a subpoena to question the
cameramen and find out about the role of a U.S. private
investigative agency in procuring the videotapes.  A federal judge
publicly issued a discovery order that included e-mails from one
cameraman suggesting he needed payment.  Chevron then successfully
moved to have the order sealed.

In the second year of Clinton's State Department tenure, Chevron's
donations put its name in lights both in the U.S.A Pavilion at the
Shanghai Expo and in the credits for a USAid-sponsored movie about
AIDS in Africa.

The State Department's human rights report for 2010 reiterates the
contested bribery allegations and also discusses a criminal
prosecution of Chevron's lawyers in Ecuador, who were accused of
falsifying environmental remediation forms in earlier years.

In 2011, Chevron seemed to see the writing on the wall in Lago
Agrio, where a new judge was presiding over the case, and the oil
giant filed its New York federal court challenge to the verdict
before it was even issued.

In the meantime, the money from Chevron kept flowing to State
Department-backed projects. Disastrous floods in southern Thailand
in 2011 had killed hundreds of people and displaced millions of
people.  Clinton called them the worst floods in the nation's
history.

She held a joint press conference in Bangkok with Thailand's prime
minister and reassured the nation that U.S. companies would
continue investing in Thailand.  She added, "I'm very proud that
Coca-Cola is teaming up with Habitat for Humanity on
reconstruction projects, and Chevron has donated $2 million toward
relief and recovery."

The State Department's human rights report for 2011 again
discusses the Lago Agrio litigation.  "While the Constitution
provides for an independent judiciary, in practice, the judiciary
was susceptible to outside pressure and corruption," it says.

Kaplan's subsequent injunction against the Lago Agrio judgment
quotes from that passage.  "Likewise, the Human Rights Report for
Ecuador recognized that the judiciary was 'susceptible to outside
pressure and corruption,' particularly in cases of interest to the
government," the federal judge wrote.

Since John Kerry succeeded Clinton as secretary in early 2013,
Chevron's legal troubles in Ecuador have not made it into any
State Department report.  And despite its multimillion-dollar
donations to Clinton State Department projects and hundreds of
thousands of dollars given to the Clinton Global Initiative,
Chevron lost out on a further government accolade as Clinton was
winding up her time as head of state.

In its overall political donations, Chevron historically skews
heavily toward the GOP, while another huge U.S. corporation,
chipmaker Intel Corp., skews toward the Democrats.  Like Chevron,
Intel also supported the U.S.A. Pavilion, and poured millions of
dollars into other State Department projects, in Vietnam and other
parts of the globe.  In addition, Intel had given some $300
million in previous years to online training programs in 40
countries supported by the Clinton Global Initiative.

In the competition for the 2012 Secretary's Award for Corporate
Excellence, Chevron was selected as a finalist by Under Secretary
of State Robert Hormats.  But in the end, the chipmaker edged out
the oil driller, and Intel won the coveted award.

As it happens, Intel had also been hit with a huge foreign
judgment, on allegations of maintaining a monopoly.  The European
Commission levied $1 billion fine against Intel in 2009, and the
EU General Court upheld the penalty last year.

Google faces similar allegations, but the judgment against Intel
remains the largest award ever in such a case.  There has been no
move to challenge the award through the U.S. courts.

Both Chevron and Intel are represented in the United States by the
Los Angeles-based firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.  It remains
uncertain whether Kaplan's ruling against the villagers will hold
up.  At a Second Circuit appellate hearing in April, Judge Richard
Wesley remarked: "We cannot find any case where there's been a
collateral attack on a foreign judgment."

On the other hand, Judge Barrington Parker made multiple comments
suggesting he found Kaplan's opinion persuasive.

During the oral argument, Wesley referred to an 1882 decision in
England where the Queen's Bench, the court that handles petitions
for equitable or nonmonetary relief, overturned a Russian judgment
against an English bank.  The English court ordered a retrial of
the dispute in England.

Addressing Chevron's lawyer, Ted Olson with Gibson Dunn, Judge
Wesley alluded to the international road the Lago Agrio case has
traveled, starting as a federal class action in the Southern
District of New York, moving on Chevron's motion to Ecuador, and
returning to the Southern District for an attack on the Ecuadorean
judgment.  Wesley said: "If we had the powers, as the Queen's
Bench did, we could order you to go to trial -- a trial that you
once resisted mightily in the Southern District -- and retry this
case."


CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Court Refuses to Dismiss Payroll Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge refused to dismiss all claims in a class
action accusing a California Lexus dealership of payroll fraud,
death threats and workplace violence.

Lead plaintiff Robert Brock Jr., six other employees and two of
their wives sued Concord Automobile Dealership, Lexus of Concord
and Toyota Motor Sales in April 2014.  Also named as defendants
were dealership owner Hank Torian, general sales manager Patrick
Miliano and general manager Greg James.

The plaintiffs claimed that Miliano filed false bonus forms in
their names, then pocketed the extra cash -- stealing from them
and increasing their tax liabilities.  They claimed that Miliano
used racial slurs in profusion, brought deadly weapons to work and
threatened them with violence.

Brock claimed that after he told the dealership's general manager
about the payroll fraud, Miliano threatened to kill him and his
family.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam on June 1 refused to dismiss
most of the claims, except for claims of fraud and conversion in
the bonus program.  He upheld Miliano and the dealership's
argument that the plaintiffs' second amended complaint failed to
allege that Miliano misrepresented the bonuses, that two of the
plaintiffs were not even eligible for bonuses, and that the
complaint contains no allegation that a plaintiff "relied on a
misrepresentation to their detriment."  He also agreed with the
defendants that the plaintiffs did not identify the amount of
money Miliano allegedly stole, so there is no "identifiable sum"
on which a conversion claim can be based, and that the plaintiffs'
increased tax liability is not in any of the defendants'
possession.

Gilliam recommended that the claims be amended with supporting
facts for each individual plaintiff.  He gave Brock et al. 21 days
to file a third amended complaint.

Neither side could be reached for comment June 3.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles Bonner, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF BONNER AND BONNER
          475 Gate Five Rd., Suite 212
          Sausalito, CA 94965
          Telephone: (415) 331-3070
          Facsimile: (415) 331-2738
          E-mail: charles@bonnerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David R. Sidran, Esq.
          TOSCHI, SIDRAN, COLLINS & DOYLE, APC
          5145 Johnson Drive
          Pleasanton, CA 94588
          Telephone: (510) 835-3400
          Facsimile: (510) 835-7800

The case is Robert E. Brock, et al. v. Concord Automobile
Dealership LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01889-HSG, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.


CONSOLIDATED FUNDING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tenley Hardin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Consolidated Funding, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04488
(C.D. Cal., June 12, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of contacting the Plaintiff on her cellular telephone, in
an attempt to solicit its services as a small business lender
using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Consolidated Funding, Inc. is a business loan provider with its
principal place of business in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


CORINTHIAN INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adrlan Turner, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Corinthian International
Parking Services, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
RG15773246 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 11, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
California Labor Code.

Corinthian International Parking Services, Inc. operates a full-
service valet parking and management company in Alameda County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      410 Arden A venue, Suite 206
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-7502
      Facsimile: (818) 230-7259

         - and -

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Action Over Fax Advertisements
------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a major wholesale company is being
accused of violating federal law by sending one advertisement over
a fax machine to a law firm.

The Backer Law Firm, of Independence, Mo., is the plaintiff in a
lawsuit filed on April 2 in Jackson County Circuit Court in
Missouri against Costco Wholesale Corporation claiming the company
sent an advertisement to its fax machine in December 2012.

The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Missouri on May 1.

The lawsuit claims the advertisement, which was sent on Dec. 17,
2012, was "unsolicited" and as a result violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

"(Backer Law Firm) never authorized (Costco) to use (the)
facsimile machine, telephone line, toner, paper, or memory for any
purpose," the lawsuit said.

The firm claims due to the advertisement being sent without its
permission it was no longer in control of its fax machine, that it
owned, and therefore was damaged by Costco as a result.

The law firm is seeking class status for the lawsuit against
Costco.  The firm is also seeking $500 to $1,500 in damages per
advertisement sent over fax machines to class members.

The firm files personal injury lawsuits and is represented by Ari
N. Rodopoulos, Noah K. Wood and Ari N. Rodopoulos of Wood Law
Firm, LLC located in Kansas City, Mo.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri case
number 4:15-cv-00327


CROCS INC: Faces Class Suit in California for Not Paying Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Crocs stiffed workers for
overtime for 4 years, a class action claims in California Superior
Court.


CVS HEALTH: Faces IBEW Local Union Suit Over Omnicare Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of IBEW Local Union No. 58,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
CVS Health Corporation, et al., Case No. 11131-VCG (Del. Ch., June
10, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public stockholders of
Omnicare, Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Omnicare by
CVS through an unfair and improper process, which has resulted in
an unfair price for the company's stockholders.

Headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio, Omnicare, Inc. is a Fortune 500
company that provides comprehensive pharmaceutical services to
patients and providers across the United States.

CVS Health Corporation is a pharmacy company with 7,800 retail
drugstores, nearly 1,000 walk-in medical clinics, a leading
pharmacy benefits manager with more than 70 million plan members,
and expanding specialty pharmacy services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      David E. Wilks, Esq.
      R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
      WILKS LUKOFF & BRACEGIRDLE LLC
      1300 N Grant Ave Ste 100
      Wilmington, DE 19806
      Telephone:  (302) 225-0850
      Facsimile: (302) 225-0851
      E-mail: dwilks@wlblaw.com
              rmcnew@wlblaw.com


CVS PHARMACY: Accused of Racially Profiling Blacks and Latinos
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that CVS Pharmacy racially
profiles black and Latino customers to prevent shoplifting, a
class of former market investigators for the chain's loss-
prevention department claims in New York Federal Court.


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: Sued Over Electronic Fund Transfer Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Terrence Chapman, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Discover Financial Services (Inc.), Case No. 1:15-cv-
05144 (N.D. Ill., June 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, specifically by
making preauthorized electronic fund transfers from the
Plaintiff's bank account without obtaining the requisite written
authorization from the Plaintiff and for failure to provide a copy
of such authorization.

Discover Financial Services (Inc.) is a direct banking and payment
services company that offers credit cards, student loans, personal
loans and deposit products through its Discover Bank subsidiary
and home loans through its Discover Home Loans, Inc. subsidiary.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 E. 6th Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


DISH NETWORK: Faces "Ray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Ray, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Dish Network L.L.C. and EchoSphere L.L.C., Case No.
1:15-cv-01239-NYW (D. Colo., June 11, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate call centers in Colorado for the purpose of
providing satellite television services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
      BRIAN D. GONZALES, THE LAW OFFICES OF
      123 North College Avenue, #200
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Telephone: (970) 212-4665
      Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
      E-mail: bgonzales@coloradotriallaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: Sued in Mass. Over Failure to Pay Sig-Up Bonus
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Gardner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DraftKings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-12320 (D. Mass.,
June 12, 2015), is brought on behalf of a Class of persons and
entities to recover amounts of money that the members of the Class
did not receive from the DraftKings despite its representations
that the Plaintiffs' initial payments would be doubled as a "free
bonus".

DraftKings, Inc. is a business that offers paid fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes for residents of 45 states and the
District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Emily Lisa Perini, Esq.
      PERINI-HEGARTY & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      225 Franklin Street, 26th Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 217-2832
      E-mail: elp@perinihegartypc.com

         - and -

      Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
      1010 Market Street, Suite 1720
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-5799
      Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
      E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

         - and -

      Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
      Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq.
      LERITZ, PLUNKERT & BRUNING, P.C.
      555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 231-9600
      Facsimile: (314) 231-9480
      E-mail: abruning@leritzlaw.com
              ajbruning@leritzlaw.com


DSK RESOURCING: "Pollock" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Pollock, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. DSK Resourcing, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00292-CEM-PRL (M.D.
Fla., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

DSK Resourcing, Inc. is a Florida corporation which operates the
Homosassa Riverside Resort in Homosassa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
      MATTHEW BIRK, ESQ., LAW OFFICE
      309 NE 1st St.
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


EBAY INC: Sued for Letting Dishonest Buyers to Defraud Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that echoing claims from an
ongoing federal class action, eBay sellers claim in the Alameda
County Superior Court that the online auction site and its payment
processor allow dishonest buyers to defraud them.


FIRST STUDENT: Faces "Hensley" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Hensley, et al., v. First Student Mgmt. LLC, First Student
Management LLC, and First Student Inc., Case No. L-002179-15 (N.J.
Super. Ct. Law Div., June 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay their bus drivers and driver
assistants overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate 24 separate bus yards in the state
of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven A. Berkowitz, Esq.
      CRONIN AND BERKOWITZ
      10000 Lincoln Drive East, Suite 202
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 350-6200
      Facsimile: (856) 751-1677
      E-mail: sab@berkpc.com


FLEET SERVICES: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees OT, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Silvestry, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Fleet Services, and James
Borek, Case No. 1:15-cv-05208 (N.D. Ill., June 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to properly pay
overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a towing and auto repair facility
located at 2641 South Leavitt Street, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Katherine Schmidlin, Esq.
      Bradley S. Manewith, Esq.
      THE SIEGEL LAW GROUP LTD.
      150 N Wacker Dr, Ste 1100
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 878-3210
      E-mail: aschmidlin@msiegellaw.com
              bmanewith@msiegellaw.com


GAMESTOP CORP: Faces "Aich" Suit Over Geeknet Merger
----------------------------------------------------
Prodosh Aich, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kathryn K. McCarthy, Matthew C. Blank, Matthew A.
Carey, Stephen Cornick, Thomas Coughlin, Peter A. Georgescu, Sir
Ronald Hampel, Kenneth G. Langone, Frank A. Riddick, III, Eric
Semler, Derek V. Smith, Gamestop Corp., and Gadget Acquisition,
Inc., Case No. 11133-VCN (Del. Ch., June 10, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all the public shareholders of Geeknet, Inc., to enjoin
the GameStop and Gadget's plan to acquire each issued and
outstanding share of Geeknet for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Geeknet, Inc. owns and operates ThinkGeek, the premier retailer on
the global geek community and $180 on the Internet Retailer Top
500.

Gamestop Corp. is a global multichannel video game, consumer
electronics and wireless services retailer with more than 6,600
stores worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Banko, Esq.
      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
      E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
              dfarrell@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
      New York, NY10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 667-6200
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
              mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


GCP EAST: Faces "Sanegarapu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Venkatesh Sanegarapu, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GCP East Realty Corp., and Theodoros Zorbas,
Case No. 706028/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the gas station business a principal
place of business in Queens County, New York, at 199-07 32nd
Avenue, Flushing, NY 11358.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


GERAWAN FARMING: Accused of Firing Lead Plaintiff in Labor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Gerawan Farming fired the
lead plaintiff in a labor class action for testifying at an
Agricultural Labor Relations Board hearing, the California ALRB
claims in Superior Court.


GOODFELLAS GRILL: "Jara" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis H. Jara, on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated
v. Goodfellas Grill Corp. and Dimitra Diamantis, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03404-BMC (E.D.N.Y., June 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Goodfellas restaurant located at
5626 Maspeth Avenue, Maspeth, New York 11378.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com
              jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Sued in Del. Over Company Merger Plans
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cyhyoung Park, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Graftech International Ltd., et al., Case No. 11125-
VCL (Del. Ch., June 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
public shareholders of GrafTech International Ltd. to enjoin the
agreement to sell GrafTech to Athena Acquisition Subsidiary Inc.,
for an unfair price, flawed process, and inadequate consideration.

GrafTech International Ltd. is Delaware corporations that
manufacture and sell of graphite and carbon material science-based
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


HEARTLAND RESTAURANT: Faces "Wachter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy L. Wachter, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Heartland Restaurant Group d/b/a Dunkin' Donuts, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00781-MRH (W.D. Pa., June 12, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Heartland Restaurant Group owns and operates 29 stores throughout
Western Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles H. Saul, Esq.
      Kyle T. McGee, Esq.
      MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
      525 William Penn Place, Suite 3300
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-4256
      E-mail: csaul@margolisedelstein.com
              kmcgee@margolisedelstein.com


HERBALIFE LTD: Settles Pyramid Scheme Class Action for $15MM
------------------------------------------------------------
L.A. Biz reports that a federal judge has given final approval to
a $15 million settlement among nutritional supplements company
Herbalife Ltd. and five former distributors.

In October, Los Angeles-based Herbalife agreed to settle a class-
action lawsuit filed by Dana Bostick and others who claimed the
company was operating an alleged pyramid scheme and misled
distributors on how much money they could earn selling the
products.

Herbalife sells weight-management, nutrition and personal care
products in more than 90 countries through a network of
independent members.  In recent years, the company has been
battling accusations that it runs a pyramid scheme, with the most
vocal critic being billionaire investor William Ackman, who has a
$1 billion short position on the company's stock.  In March, a
shareholder lawsuit accusing the company of operating an illegal
scheme was dismissed.

Herbalife in its October settlement didn't admit any liability or
wrongdoing and said at the time that it settled the suit to avoid
the potential cost and disruption to the company that prolonged
litigation would bring.

The company agreed to pay $15 million in cash, plus up to $2.5
million for product returns, according to Reuters.  Herbalife
would also make "numerous changes" to its business model for at
least three years after the settlement receives final approval.


HERBALIFE LTD: Bostick Class Action Gets Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews.com reports that Herbalife Ltd. said that it welcomed the
decision by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to grant final approval of the class action settlement
in the matter of Dana Bostick v. Herbalife International of
America Inc et al.

"As we have consistently stated, we believe that the settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate to class members, and we note the
court found that the low number of claimants was not surprising in
light of the substantial survey results indicating that most
people join Herbalife to become discount consumers of our
products," Herbalife said.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Faces Class Action Over Warranties
------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a major computer manufacturer is being
sued over allegations that it started warranties for its computers
prior to customers purchasing the products, which violates
California and Massachusetts state law.

Maury Adkins filed the suit on April 1 in Superior Court of
California against Hewlett-Packard Company claiming the company's
limited warranty begins on the date of purchase except if a person
buys computer hardware from a third-party retailer.

The defendant removed the case to U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on May 7 under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

The lawsuit alleges a "corporate policy" starts the warranty for
computer hardware "prior to the date of purchase by the consumer"
if it is bought from a retailer.

"As a result, consumers purchasing HP computer hardware from a
third-party retailer do not receive the promised one-year
warranty," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit also states HP doesn't tell customers that they can
request a revised warranty to begin on their purchase date.  If
individuals don't do that around the time they purchase the
hardware, then HP won't revise the warranty, the suit says.

"Consumers . . . are denied warranty service for defects that
arise during the limited warranty period," the lawsuit said.

Mr. Adkins is seeking class status for those who purchased HP
computers and didn't receive the full one-year warranty.  He is
also seeking an unspecified amount of damages in the lawsuit.

He is represented by Adam J. Gutride -- adam@gutridesafier.com --
Seth A. Safier -- seth@gutridesafier.com -- and Marie A. McCrary
of Gutride Safier LLP in San Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
number 5:15-cv-02035


HOLLISTER CO: Order Certifying Class in Gift Card Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Hollister must face a class-action lawsuit over the cancelation of
millions of dollars worth of gift cards, a New Jersey appeals
court ruled.

Lead plaintiff Vincent Daniels filed the suit over a late 2009
promotion in which the retailer promised $25 gift cards to
customers that bought $75 worth of merchandise.

Daniels alleged that Hollister voided all outstanding gift cards
on Jan. 30, 2010, although they had "no expiration date."  He
filed his lawsuit after he went to a Hollister store in January
2011 and was not allowed to use his gift card.

Though Hollister admitted that some cards did not mention an
expiration date, while others expressly said "no expiration date,"
the retailer argued that in-store signage revealed the Jan. 30,
2010, expiration date, and that it emailed customers a reminder of
this.

In fact, the trial court noted that Hollister admitted that "over
$3 million worth of $25 gift cards were voided."

The Ocean City Superior Court certified Daniels' class action, and
the Appellate Division affirmed on May 13, rejecting complaints
from Hollister about the difficulty in ascertaining the number of
people Daniels purports to represent.

"Had defendant obtained the identities of consumers when giving
out $25 gift cards, the problems it now offers as grounds for
upending certification would not exist," Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr.
wrote for a three-person panel.  "Allowing a defendant to escape
responsibility for its alleged wrongdoing by dint of its
particular record-keeping policies -- an outcome admittedly un-
troubling to some federal courts -- is not in harmony with the
principles governing class actions," Fisher added.

At this stage of the litigation, the court must credit the
allegations as pleaded, according to the ruling.

"Consumers may very well have purchased more than $75 of
defendant's merchandise because of the lure of a $25 gift card,
and this bargain was arguably snatched away by defendant's
unilateral cancellation of the gift card at a later date," Fisher
wrote.  "The class-action device was created not only to allow
compensation for such small wrongs but also to deter future
wrongdoing in the marketplace."

The Appellant is represented by:

          Brian J. Murray, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          77 West Wacker
          Chicago, IL  60601-1692
          Telephone: (312) 782-3939
          Facsimile: (312) 782-8585
          E-mail: bjmurray@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Richard A. Grossman, Esq.
          GROSSMAN, HEAVEY & HALPIN, P.C.
          Brick Professional Plaza
          1608 Highway 88 West, Suite 200
          Brick, NJ 08724
          Telephone: (732) 206-0200
          Facsimile: (732) 206-0205

The Respondent is represented by:

          James Shedden, Esq.
          SHEDDEN LAW
          145 Deer Valley Dr.
          Deer Park, IL 60610

               - and -

          Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
          Theodore E. Lorenz, Esq.
          Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
          FLITTER LORENZ, P.C.
          450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
          Narberth, PA 19072
          Telephone: (610) 266-7863
          Facsimile: (610) 667-0552

               - and -

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN, P.C.
          332 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1000
          Chicago, IL 60604-4408
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          Toll Free: (877) 990-4990
          Facsimile: (630) 333-0333
          E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com

The appellate case is Vincent Daniels, individually and on behalf
of a class, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Hollister Co., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. A-3629-13T3, in the
Superior Court Of New Jersey, Appellate Division.  The trial court
case is Vincent Daniels v. Hollister Co., Case No. L-2310-12, in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Ocean County.


IDAHO: 9th Circuit Lifts Ban on Second-Trimester Abortion
---------------------------------------------------------
An Idaho law criminalizing second-trimester abortions is
unconstitutional and a woman prosecuted under the law had legal
standing to challenge it, reports Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News
Service, citing a 9th Circuit ruling entered May 29.

Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act is "facially
unconstitutional," a 9th Circuit panel said in a 28-page ruling,
because "it categorically bans some abortions before viability"
and "places an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain an
abortion by requiring hospitalizations for all second-trimester
abortions."

The panel found that Jennie McCormack and her attorney-physician
Richard Hearn still faced the "lingering risk" of prosecution
under a law which banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
Therefore they could challenge the constitutionality of the law,
the panel said.

A federal judge in the state ruled in favor of McCormack after she
filed a federal class action against Bannock County's prosecutor
alleging that authorities had criminally charged her for having an
abortion in her second trimester.

McCormack was a single mother of three children and living on
about $250 a month when she became pregnant.  With no abortion
clinics in the eight southeastern Idaho counties -- and the
nearest abortion clinic close to 140 miles away in Salt Lake City,
Utah -- McCormack took five abortion pills to terminate the
pregnancy.

In 2011, Bannock County prosecutor Mark Hiedeman charged McCormack
with a felony charge of unlawful abortion after authorities
discovered she was keeping the fetus in a box on her back porch,
according to court records.

A state court dismissed the criminal complaint the same year.

Two statutes under Chapter 6 of the Idaho Code place abortion
restrictions on pregnant women during the first and second
trimester.  A third -- Idaho's Pain-Capable Unborn Child
Protection Act -- effectively bans abortions after 20 weeks of
pregnancy.

Under the regulations, a woman convicted of an "unlawful abortion"
faces a $5,000 fine or up to 5 years in state prison.

Idaho physicians also faced potential criminal charges for
prescribing FDA-approved abortion medications to women through the
second trimester of pregnancy.

In March 2013, Chief U.S. District Judge Lynn Winmill found that
the regulations are unconstitutional.

The 9th Circuit unanimously affirmed that decision on May 29,
ruling that just because prosecutors had granted McCormack
immunity from her criminal case did not mean they would not
prosecute her again in the future.

As for the law itself, the court found that it violates a woman's
right under the Fourteenth Amendment because it bans some
abortions before the fetus is viable.

"Although the state may ensure that the woman's choice is
informed, and protect the health and safety of a woman seeking an
abortion, the state may not prohibit a woman from making the
'ultimate decision' to undergo an abortion," Circuit Judge Harry
Pregerson wrote for the panel.

The Jimmy Carter appointee wrote that portions of the law
requiring women in their first trimester to go to "properly
staffed" facilities that are close to hospitals that can provide
care for acute injury or illness were unconstitutionally vague.

"The appropriate amount of staff and equipment for an abortion
remains unclear, as there may be differing opinions about what is
sufficient," Pregerson wrote.  "It also is unclear what types of
arrangements must be made with acute-care hospitals to comply with
the statute."

There are similar abortion laws in effect in Nebraska, Kansas,
Oklahoma, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Arkansas, North Dakota,
Texas and West Virginia.

Georgia's abortion law is enjoined because of pending litigation,
according to National Right to Life Committee.

Circuit Judge Kim Wardlaw and Louisiana U.S. District Judge Donald
Walter joined Pregerson's opinion.

The Defendant-Appellant is represented by:

          Clay R. Smith, Esq., Deputy Attorney General
          Steven L. Olsen, Esq., Chief of Civil Litigation
          OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          954 W. Jefferson Street, 2nd Floor
          P. O. Box 83720
          Boise, ID 83720-0010
          Telephone: (208) 334-2400
          Facsimile: (208) 854-8073
          E-mail: clay.smith@ag.idaho.gov
                  steven.olsen@ag.idaho.gov

The Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Richard A. Hearn, Esq.
          RACINE, OLSON, NYE, BUDGE & BAILEY, CHARTERED
          201 East Center Street
          Pocatello, ID 83201
          Telephone: (208) 232-6101
          Facsimile: (208) 232-6109
          E-mail: rah@racinelaw.net

The Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee is represented by:

          Jack Van Valkenburgh, Esq.
          Boise, ID

Amici Curiae Legal Voice, Center for Reproductive Rights, National
Advocates for Pregnant Women, and Planned Parenthood of the Great
Northwest are represented by:

          Kathleen M. O'Sullivan, Esq.
          Katherine G. Galipeau, Esq.
          PERKINS COIE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
          Seattle, WA 98101-3099
          Telephone: (206) 359-8000
          Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
          E-mail: KOSullivan@perkinscoie.com
                  KGalipeau@perkinscoie.com

Amicus Curiae Eagle Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund is
represented by:

          Lawrence J. Joseph, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE J. JOSEPH
          1250 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 355-9452
          E-mail: ljoseph@larryjoseph.com

The appellate case is Jennie Linn McCormack, Plaintiff-Appellee,
Richard Hearn, M.D., on his own behalf and on behalf of his
patients, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Stephen F. Herzog,
Bannock County Prosecuting Attorney, Defendant-Appellant, Case No.
13-35401, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

The District Court case is Jennie Linn McCormack, et al. v.
Stephen F. Herzog, Case No. 4:11-cv-00433-BLW, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Idaho.


IDREAMSKY TECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a mobile game developer is being sued
for making misleading statements to the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission prior to its initial public offering.

Abraham Jeremias, Roger Mariani and Michael Rubin filed the
lawsuit on May 5 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against iDreamSky Technology claiming the company
mislead investors about its business operations in China.

The company owns subsidiaries in China, which develop mobile
games.  The statements made prior to the initial public offering
stated it had a "strong competitive position in the Chinese
market."

However, in March, the lawsuit claims, it was revealed that
iDreamSky was facing "significant embedded operational and
financial difficulties from unpredictable and delayed source code
receipt for the launch of games."

After the news came out, the company's stock declined more than 33
percent to $7.22 per share, the lawsuit said.

The plaintiffs are seeking class status for those who purchased
iDreamSky stock at its initial public offering on Aug. 7.  The
plaintiffs are also seeking an unspecified amount of damages plus
court costs.

They are represented by Joseph H. Weiss and Mark D. Smilow
attorneys in New York City.

United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
case number 1:15-cv-03484


INTEL CORPORATION: Sued in Del. Over Altera Merger
--------------------------------------------------
Irwin Goldstein v. John P. Daane, T. Michael Nevins, A. Blaine
Bowman, Elisha W. Finney, Kevin McGarity, Krish A. Prabhu,
Shane V. Robison, John Shoemaker, Thomas H. Waechter, Altera
Corporation, Intel Corporation and 615 Corporation, Case No.
11126-VCG (Del. Ch., June 10, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
the public stockholders of Altera Corporation to enjoin the
agreement and plan of merger between the Company, Intel and Merger
Sub, for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Altera Corporation is a Delaware corporation that makes
programmable chips, called field programmable gate array chips, or
FPGAs.

Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices located at 2200 Mission College Boulevard, Santa
Clara, California 95054. Intel is a computer chip maker and
controls a majority of the worldwide market for server chips.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      P. Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 North Market Street, Suite 1401
      Citizens Bank Center
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: bdeleeuw@rmgglaw.com


JEWELRY CHANNEL: Accused in Cal. of Falsely Advertising Discounts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Jewelry Channel dba
Liquidation Channel falsely advertises discounts, a class action
claims in California Federal Court.


JIM SCHNEIDER: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Robinson, an individual v. Jim Schneider d/b/a J&L Backhoe
Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-00195-J (N.D. Tex., June 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Jim Schneider doing business as J&L Backhoe Services is engaged in
the pulling of fiber optics cables and the related backhoe
business or services for commerce in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip R. Russ, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PHILIP R RUSS
      2700 S Western, Suite 1200
      Amarillo, TX 79109
      Telephone: (806) 358-9293
      Facsimile: (806) 358-9296
      E-mail: philiprruss@russlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jerry Dan McLaughlin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JERRY DAN MCLAUGHLIN
      2700 S. Western, Suite 1000
      Amarillo, TX 79109
      Telephone: (806) 371-9110
      Facsimile: (806) 373-9029
      E-mail: jmclaw@suddenlinkmail.com


JOTAS ASSOCIATES: Tenants Sue Over Failure to Repair Units
----------------------------------------------------------
Diccie Dennis v. Jotas Associates, Marilyn Rose and Does 1-30,
Case No. RG15773828 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 11, 2015), is brought
on behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical
injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a
result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of
the habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


KNIGHT'S INSPECTION: "Aceves" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Aceves, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Knight's Inspection Services, LLC and Clint
Knight, Case No. 7:15-cv-00086 (W.D. Tex., June 11, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Knight's Inspection Services, LLC is an inspection company in the
oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua C. Borsellino, Esq.
      BORSELLINO, P.C.
      1020 Macon St., Suite 15
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 908-9861
      E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Falsely Marketed Merchandise Prices, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Russell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-01143 (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2015),
is a class action against Defendant for falsely advertising
original prices, regular prices, and price discounts for its
apparel and other merchandise, in its direct marketing
to consumers via in-store advertising displays, print advertising,
and internet.

Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. owns and operates a chain retail
clothing stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
      DOUGLAS CAIAFA LAW OFFICE
      11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 444-5240
      Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
      E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
      77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G
      Palm Desert, Ca 92211
      Telephone: (760) 469-5986
      Facsimile: (760) 345-1581
      E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com


KRAFT FOODS: Falsely Marketed Juice Products, "Osborne" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuri Osborne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kraft Foods Group, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02653 (N.D.
Cal., June 12, 2015), is brought on behalf of the Class comprised
of California purchasers of 4 flavor varieties of Kraft's Capri
Sun 100% Juice beverages, that are falsely marketed as "All
Natural".

The Products at issue are not "All Natural" because they contain
unnatural, synthetic, artificial, and genetically modified
ingredients, including but not limited to Citric Acid and Natural
Flavor.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc. owns and operates a consumer packaged food
and beverage company, with its principal place of business located
at Three Lakes Drive, Northfield, Illinois 60093.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
      EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
      580 California Street, Suite 1200
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 324-8620
      Facsimile: (415) 520-2262
      E-mail: BLopatin@ELPLawyers.com


KRAFT FOODS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Action in Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on May 15 disclosed
that it filed a class action lawsuit on May 13, 2015, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division on behalf of the shareholders of Kraft Foods Group, Inc.
against Kraft and its Board of Directors for, among other things,
violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

Kraft Is Accused of Disseminating a False and Misleading Proxy
Statement

The complaint arises out of a March 25, 2015 press release
announcing that Kraft had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with H.J. Heinz Company pursuant to which Kraft
shareholders would receive one share of the combined company, The
Kraft Heinz Company, and a $16.50 special dividend for each share
owned.  Kraft shareholders will own a 49% stake in the combined
company and current Heinz shareholders will own a 51% stake.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff
and all other similarly situated shareholders of Kraft.  The named
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a
materially false and misleading Definitive Proxy Statement with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of the
Exchange Act. The omitted and/or misrepresented information is
believed to be material to Kraft's shareholders' ability to make
an informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Kraft stock prior to the
announcement of the Proposed Transaction on March 25, 2015, and
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than sixty days from May 15, 2015.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

Any member of the 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.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- concentrates
its practice in the area of shareholder rights litigation,
represents individual and institutional investors in securities
class action lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions.


LAS VEGAS VALLEY: Faces Class Suit for Overcharging Customers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that defective
radio-equipped water meters -- installed for $38 million --
overcharged customers, who had to pay again to replace them, a
class action claims in Clark County Court.

Jeffrey Welted et al. claim in their May 26 lawsuit that Las Vegas
Valley Water District defrauded them by overbilling, then made
them foot the bill for meters that worked.  Welted claims that in
2002, looking for ways to reduce the cost of manually checking
residential water meters, the district agreed to buy a "Firefly"
automated meter-reading system from Datamatic.

The system took hourly usage readings and broadcast them via radio
transmitter to a Datamatic Roadrunner device. The district
downloaded the information to compute monthly bills.

Datamatic is not a party to the complaint.

The water district spent $38 million installing the Firefly system
on about 385,000 Las Vegas-area residences, Welted says.

Soon, it "became clear that the Firefly AMRs [automated meter
readers] did not function as intended" and "over-reported water
usage by customers," Welted claims.

"We've seen ranges varying in the hundreds to thousands of
dollars," class attorney Justin C. Jones said.  "We've seen
people's bills go from $60 per month to several hundred."

Jones said all of the water meters at issue were installed on
residential properties, and a large percentage of them were
defective.

"Other jurisdictions saw about 40 percent of the devices were
defective," Jones said.

Welted says some of the automated readers falsely reported no
water use for days, weeks or months for some residences.

When the water district realized that some residences were not
being reported, it manually checked the meters and billed them for
multiple months, and because the district uses tiered rates, it
charged them higher rates than it should have, the class claims.

And, Welted says, though the district knew the Firefly system was
malfunctioning, it continued installing them and continued
charging customers for water they did not use.

In 2013, Welted claims, the district paid another company $18
million to replace the defective meters.  And instead of charging
Datamatic, Welted says, the "full cost" of replacing them "will be
passed along to the very same customers who were overcharged . . .
for water service."

Jones said Datamatic declared bankruptcy in 2013.

Welted seeks class certification and compensatory and punitive
damages for fraud, bad faith, intentional and negligent
misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Water district officials could not be reached for comment.

It's not the water district's first go-round in court this year.
Its former comptroller sued the district in March, claiming it
fired him for refusing to falsify reports to make it look like $80
million in land purchases were turning profits rather than large
losses.  And on March 25, a senior employee claimed the district
fired her and 16 others on pretexts, to try to cover up the
botched overspending on the $80 million land purchases and the
water meters that are at the heart of the new case.

The plaintiff in that case, Lyndalou Ballard, claimed the
automated meter readers "never worked" and were "a complete and
utter failure."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin C. Jones, Esq.
          WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SHULMAN & RABKIN LLP
          3556 East Russell Road, Second Floor
          Las Vegas, NV 89120
          Telephone: (702) 341-5200
          Facsimile: (702) 341-5300
          E-mail: jjones@wrslawyers.com


LEGACY PRESSURE: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Reyes, Jr., individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Legacy Pressure Control, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00258
(S.D. Tex., June 11, 2015), seeks to recover to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Legacy Pressure Control, Inc. provides services to the oil and gas
production facilities in South Texas Ohio and West Virginia.

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


LORD TENNYSON: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Unit Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Cooks and Terrell King v. Lord Tennyson Voa Affordable
Housing, L.P., Yvonne Lopez and Does 1-30, Case No. RG25773342
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-
payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the
Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the
habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


MACDERMID AMERICAS: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Company Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Klinger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Joseph Scaminace, Richard W. Blackburn, Steven J.
Demetriou, Katherine L. Plourde, Patrick S. Mullin, Hans-Georg
Betz, Carl Christenson, John A. McFarland, Duke Acquisition
Holdings, LLC, Duke Acquisition, Inc., and MacDermid Americas
Acquisitions Inc., Case No. 11119-VCN (Del. Ch., June 9, 2015), is
brought on behalf of the public shareholders of OM Group, Inc., to
enjoin the Duke Acquisition Holdings, LLC, Duke Acquisition, Inc.,
and MacDermid's attempt to purchase OM, for inadequate
consideration, following a flawed sales process to the detriment
of the Company's public shareholders.

OM Group, Inc. is a technology-driven diversified industrial
company serving attractive global markets, including automotive
systems, electronic devices, aerospace and defense, industrial and
medical.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4957
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

         - and -

      Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
      Christopher Schuyler, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 594-5300
      Facsimile: (212) 868-1229


MAJOR LEAGUE: Class Action Over Sports TV Packages Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge in New York says
a lawsuit challenging all-or-nothing sports TV packages that
require purchasing all professional hockey or baseball games can
proceed as a class action.

Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled on May 14.  She says all fans with
some appetite for watching hockey and baseball broadcasts are
affected by league policies requiring consumers to buy all league
games rather than just the games of one team or a few teams.  Her
written decision follows a three-day hearing in March.

Lawyers for the leagues have said fans who brought lawsuits
against Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League had
failed to show common injuries warranting a class.

The judge ruled last summer that baseball's antitrust exemption
didn't shield it from the litigation.


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers PPE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Arias, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Marriott International, Inc., Case No. 2015-CA-004324 (D.C. Super.
Ct., June 11, 2015), is brought on behalf of the Marriott
housekeeping employees, who suffered various health problems as a
proximate result of the Defendant's failure to provide specified
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for the employee's use when
handling hazardous chemical agents.

Marriott International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is the
business of providing temporary lodging accommodations for
individuals for profit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harry T. Spikes, Sr., Esq.
      HARRY T. SPIKES ATTORNEY AT LAW
      P.O. Box 23828, L'Enfant Plaza S.W.
      Washington, DC 20026
      Telephone:  (202) 288-4175
      E-mail: harryspikes@gmail.com


MERU NETWORKS: Sued in Del. Chancery Court Over Fortinet Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Scherba, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Meru Networks, Inc., Bami Bastani, Barry Cox, Stephen
Domenik, John Kurtzweil, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, Fortinet, Inc., and
Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., Case No. 11127-VCP (Del. Ch., June
10, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of
Meru Networks, Inc., to enjoin the agreement to sell the Company
to Fortinet, Inc. through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Malbrouck
Acquisition Corp., for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Meru Networks, Inc. provides intelligent wireless LAN solutions
that optimize the network to deliver the highest performance,
reliability, and operational simplicity.

Fortinet, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is a worldwide
provider of network security appliances and the market leader in
unified threat management (UTM).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeena@weisslawllp.com


MERU NETWORKS: Sued in Santa Clara Court Over Fortinet Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors of Meru Networks
are selling the WLAN, short for wireless local area network,
supplier too cheaply through an unfair process to Fortinet, for
$44 million or $6 a share, a class claims in the Santa Clara
County Superior Court.


MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Court Scolds Firms Over Treatment of Witnesses
----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick Divito reports that a
federal judge gave a tongue-lashing to a pair of law firms for
outing and misquoting confidential informants in a failed class
action securities case against Millennial Media.

Shareholders claimed in Manhattan Federal Court that the digital-
advertising company lost 86 percent of the $310 million it made
since its 2012 initial public offering.  But plaintiffs started
dropping like flies, and the case was dismissed.  That was because
the confidential witnesses weren't told by attorneys at Labaton
Sucharow and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann that they were
going to be used as plaintiffs in the case, and were misquoted,
U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer wrote in his scathing May 29
opinion.

"The court, the public, and above all such witnesses have the
right to expect better of counsel," Engelmayer wrote.  "They have
a right to expect counsel to treat witnesses with decency.  They
have a right to expect counsel, before designating a person as a
[confidential witness], to take into account how that person might
be affected were this designation to lead to his identification."

Engelmayer continued: "They have a right to expect counsel to
consider thoughtfully, for each person who submits to an
interview, whether the consequences of potentially outing that
person are justified -- genuinely justified -- by counsel's duty
of zealous representation of their clients."

By "globally identifying" 11 interviewees as confidential
witnesses with no advance notice, attorneys "treated these people
shabbily."

"The court's hope and expectation is that, in future cases,
counsel will aspire to better," he wrote.

He said 10 of 11 confidential witnesses were interviewed solely by
a Labaton investigator, but never by the attorneys at the firms
who pursued the case.

Four then asked that all references to them be dropped in
subsequently filed amended complaints.  Several said they were
misquoted.

"This case addresses underscores why it is a best practice -- if
not an ethical imperative -- for counsel . . . to verify the
statements that counsel propose to attribute," the judge wrote.

The admonishing comes after two securities class actions were
filed against Millennial Media Inc. in March 2012 and May 2014.
Those cases were then consolidated.

The resulting amended complaint claimed that the digital
advertising company lied about its technological capabilities and
outlook to inflate stock prices.

Four days before defendants were to file their motion to dismiss
last April, plaintiffs filed a letter to remove all references
from a confidential informant.

What attorneys didn't say in their filing is that the informant
never agreed to be quoted in the lawsuit.

Engelmayer let plaintiffs file a newly amended complaint, and gave
the media company two weeks to answer.

Four affidavits then surfaced, from the confidential witness and
three others from those associated with Labaton, featuring
strongly worded e-mails that the informant was never told he or
she would be quoted as a confidential witness.

Plaintiffs then revealed that attorneys had never spoken to 10 of
the 11 confidential witnesses in the lawsuits, and that they were
only interviewed over the phone by an investigator with Laboron.

None were told they would be quoted.

Three more confidential witnesses then asked to be dropped from
the complaint.  At least four confidential witnesses said they
were misquoted.

Plaintiffs sought to dismiss the case.  The judge, however,
ordered attorneys to publicly file redacted versions of their
submissions a few days later that removed the confidential
witnesses' names.  He said the decision by the four confidential
witnesses to be removed is "unsettling."

"Counsel's practices with regard to preparing the complaint create
significant potential for inaccuracy," he wrote.

"These circumstances raise serious questions," Engelmayer wrote.
"Did plaintiffs' counsel take proper care to verify the statements
attributed" to confidential witnesses before an amended complaint
was filed? he posited.

And were the confidential witnesses "fairly treated when, without
notice, they were designated" in the complaint, "creating a risk
that their names would be revealed later in this litigation?"

The consolidated case is captioned In re Millennial Media, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:14-cv-07923-PAE, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York.


NAILSWAY INC: Workers File Class Action Over Wage Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that two New York
City manicurists on May 14 filed a proposed class action lawsuit
claiming four nail salons routinely violated minimum wage and
overtime laws, days after a New York Times investigation revealed
rampant wage theft and hazardous conditions in the industry.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Manhattan says
employees at the salons, which have the same owners and are all on
Manhattan's Upper East Side, are paid $60 or less for 10-hour
shifts and often denied breaks.  The lawsuit said the salons --
Nailsway, Naulo Nails, Nailsmetic and Nailscure -- violated New
York's minimum wage law and a federal law requiring time-and-a-
half pay for overtime as well as meal and rest breaks.

One of the owners of the salons, Surya Gurang, did not respond to
a request for comment.

The New York Times has published a series of articles that say
nail salon owners routinely exploit employees, particularly
immigrants, paying them as little as $30 a day and failing to
provide equipment or ventilation to safely deal with toxic
chemicals.

Gregory Filosa, the lawyer who filed the May 14 lawsuit, said in
an interview that his clients, Blanca Fernandez and Gloria Marca,
approached him before the Times articles were published.

The minimum wage claims were filed on behalf of anyone who worked
at the salons over the last six years, while the overtime and
break claims go back three years.  Mr. Filosa said the minimum
wage class would probably include more than 50 people.

In response to the Times articles, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo,
a Democrat, said that he was creating a task force to investigate
nail salons and establish new rules to protect manicurists from
harmful chemicals.

Mr. Cuomo also said regulators would begin an education campaign,
notifying workers of their rights in six different languages.

Mr. Filosa said the campaign could lead to a rise in lawsuits
against nail salons as employees realize their bosses have been
violating labor laws.

The case is Fernandez v. Nailsway Inc, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 15-cv-3710.


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Slaps UNC With 5 Serious Academic Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
National Collegiate Athletic Association has charged the
University of North Carolina with five serious violations relating
to the school's long-running academic scandal.

The university posted the 59-page notice of allegations and
hundreds of pages of exhibits from the NCAA on its Carolina
Commitment website on June 4 following a privacy rights review.
It said received the notice on May 20, and will respond within the
90-day deadline to do so.

The five charges included in the notice accuse the university of
failing to "sufficiently monitor" its African and Afro-American
Studies departments and preferential treatment it accorded
athletes; of academic counselors providing athletes with benefits
"not generally available to the student body"; of counselors
helping members of the university's women's basketball team with
research papers and other course work; and of key staff members
not cooperating with NCAA investigators.

The NCAA began looking into the issue of academic misconduct
related to the African and Afro-American studies department last
summer, focusing particularly on studies that required no class
time and little tangible work.

The investigation was overseen by former U.S. Justice Department
official Kenneth Wainstein, who in the past has estimated that as
many as 3,100 students may have been affected by these practices.

All of the charges are considered severe breaches of conduct, the
NCAA said.

The NCAA violations come in the wake of several lawsuits by former
student athletes who now contend they were poorly served by the
university.

In March, two former student-athletes filed a class action
claiming the university failed to provide them with a quality
education and, instead, funneled them into sham classes that gave
high grades for little or no work.

At least two similar class actions were filed in February, and in
November 2014.

In a statement, Chancellor Carol Folt and Director of Athletics
Bubba Cunningham said:

"We take the allegations the NCAA made about past conduct very
seriously.  This is the next step in a defined process, and we are
a long way from reaching a conclusion.  We will respond to the
notice using facts and evidence to present a full picture of our
case.  Although we may identify some instances in the NCAA's
notice where we agree and others where we do not, we are committed
to continue pursuing a fair and just outcome for Carolina.

"We believe the University has done everything possible to address
the academic irregularities that ended in 2011 and prevent them
from recurring.  We have implemented more than 70 reforms and
initiatives to ensure and enhance academic integrity.  We will
continue to monitor the effectiveness of those measures and,
wherever needed, put additional safeguards in place," the
statement continued.


NATIONAL SECURITY: Class Appeals Order in Internet Snooping Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Marshall, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a class of citizens on June 4 appealed a ruling in a case that
accused the NSA of illegally searching and seizing Americans'
Internet communications.

The ruling found further litigation would expose the state secrets
vital to national security.

Lead plaintiff Carolyn Jewel appealed that ruling and all other
prior interlocutory findings on which the ruling and subsequent
judgment were based to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Jewel filed the case seven years ago, claiming the government
acquires AT&T customers' email and other data using spy devices
attached to the company's network.  Digital watchdog group
Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) represents Jewel in the
action.

The appeal comes two days after Congress passed a bill to end bulk
collection of the phone records of millions of American citizens
and a little under a month after the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals found the Patriot Act did not authorize the NSA to scoop
up telephone metadata.

In an order issued in February, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White
found that the plaintiffs did not establish legal standing to show
that the government violated the Fourth Amendment, and that even
if they had the claim would have to be dismissed in order to
protect national security.

White's ruling is in response to a motion for partial summary
judgment EFF filed in July 2014 and the government's cross motion
two months later.  The ruling does not dismiss the case in its
entirety.

EFF attorneys argued that the government uses a surveillance
program called "Upstream" to collect communications, and that some
of the information obtained is domestic.

The watchdog group relied particularly on information from Mark
Klein, a former AT&T communications technician, who said AT&T was
routing web data to a secret NSA-controlled location in San
Francisco.

In his ruling, White said that Klein's information is not enough
to prove EFF's account of how "Upstream" works.  Though the
government has acknowledged the existence of such a program, the
details remain classified.

"Without disclosing any of the classified content of the [NSA's]
submissions, the court can confirm that the plaintiffs' version of
the significant operating details of the Upstream collection
process is substantially inaccurate," White said.

And, White said, even if the plaintiffs' had enough public
evidence to show standing, the "adjudication of the standing issue
could not proceed without risking exceptionally grave damage to
national security."

White acknowledged the challenge of weighing government evidence
that is not public.

"The court is frustrated by the prospect of deciding the current
motions without full public disclosure of the court's reasoning
and analysis.  However, it is a necessary by-product of the types
of concerns raised by this case," the judge wrote.  "The court is
persuaded that its decision is correct both legally and factually
and furthermore is required by the interests of national
security."

White's ruling on the Upstream claim doesn't mean the case is
over, however.  Jewel's original complaint also included other
claims, including allegations of the illegal collection of
telephone records.

Andrew Crocker from the EFF told Courthouse News, "We're appealing
the district court's ruling on our claim that the NSA's Upstream
surveillance program violates Americans' constitutional rights by
collecting their communications from the backbone of the Internet
and searching through them. We think this is a matter of utmost
importance for the Ninth Circuit to consider.  It's particularly
important in light of the passage of the USA Freedom Act, which
provides significant reforms to the NSA's surveillance power, but
does not specifically address the NSA's Upstream program."

The NSA is represented by Anthony Coppolino, deputy branch
director of the Justice Department's civil division.  The
department declined comment "beyond our court filings," DOJ
spokeswoman Nicole Navas said.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Cindy Cohn, Esq.
          Lee Tien, Esq.
          Kurt Opsahl, Esq.
          James S. Tyre, Esq.
          Mark Rumold, Esq.
          Andrew Crocker, Esq.
          David Greene, Esq.
          ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION
          815 Eddy Street
          San Francisco, CA 94109
          Telephone: (415) 436-9333
          Facsimile: (415) 436-9993
          E-mail: cindy@eff.org
                  lee@eff.org
                  kurt@eff.org
                  jstyre@eff.org
                  mark@eff.org
                  andrew@eff.org
                  davidg@eff.org

               - and -

          Richard R. Wiebe, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD R. WIEBE
          One California Street, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433-3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433-6382
          E-mail: wiebe@pacbell.net

               - and -

          Rachael E. Meny, Esq.
          Michael S. Kwun, Esq.
          Audrey Walton-Hadlock, Esq.
          Benjamin W. Berkowitz, Esq.
          Justina K. Sessions, Esq.
          Philip J. Tassin, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST, LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          Facsimile: (415) 397-7188
          E-mail: rmeny@kvn.com
                  mkwun@kvn.com
                  ahadlock@kvn.com
                  bberkowitz@kvn.com
                  jsessions@kvn.com
                  ptassin@kvn.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Moore III, Esq.
          ROYSE LAW FIRM, PC
          1717 Embarcadero Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94303
          Telephone: (650) 813-9700
          Facsimile: (650) 813-9777
          E-mail: tmoore@rroyselaw.com

               - and -

          Aram Antaramian, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ARAM ANTARAMIAN
          1714 Blake Street
          Berkeley, CA 94703
          Telephone: (510) 289-1626
          E-mail: aram@eff.org

The Government Defendant-Appellee Entities and Official-Capacity
Individuals: National Security Agency, Department of Justice,
United States of America, Barack Obama, Michael S. Rogers, Loretta
E. Lynch, James R. Clapper, Jr., are represented by:

          Anthony J. Coppolino, Esq., Deputy Branch Director
          James J. Gilligan, Esq., Special Litigation Counsel
          Rodney Patton, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Julia Berman, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Marcia Berman, Esq., Senior Trial Counsel
          Paul Gerald Freeborne, Esq., Attorney
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION
          20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Room 6102
          Washington, DC 20530
          Telephone: (202) 514-4782
          Facsimile: (202) 616-8470
          E-mail: tony.coppolino@usdoj.gov
                  james.gilligan@usdoj.gov
                  rodney.patton@usdoj.gov
                  julia.berman@usdoj.gov
                  marcia.berman@usdoj.gov
                  paul.freeborne@usdoj.gov

The Government Defendants in their Personal Capacities: Keith B.
Alexander, Michael V. Hayden, George W. Bush, Richard B. Cheney,
David S. Addington, Alberto R. Gonzales, John D. Ashcroft, John M.
McConnell, John D. Negroponte, Michael Mukasey are represented by:

          James R. Whitman, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          1425 New York Ave., N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 616-4169
          Facsimile: (202) 416-4314
          E-mail: james.whitman@usdoj.gov

The case is captioned Carolyn Jewel, Tash Hepting, Young Boon
Hicks, as executrix of the estate of Gregory Hicks, Erik Knutzen
and Joice Walton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. National Security Agency, et al., Case No. 4:08-cv-
04373-JSW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division.


NESTLE USA: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Perez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nestle USA, Inc., et al., Case No. RG15773654 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor
Code.

Nestle USA, Inc. is the world's leading nutrition, health and
wellness company that produces and markets food and beverage
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021


NEWPORT UNIVERSAL: Faces "Tremolada" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Antonio Brocq Tremolada and all others similarly situated v.
Newport Universal Group Corp. and Javier Choroszcz, Case No. 1:15-
cv-22223-KMW (S.D. Fla., June 11, 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 an auto repair shop in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Housing Authority Workers OT, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edith Robinson, et al., v. City of New York, New York, Case No.
1:15-cv-04543-JPO (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure pay Community Coordinator, Community
Associate, and Community Assistant in the New York City Housing
Authority, their overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

New York City is, among other things, a juridical entity amenable
to suit under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hope Allison Pordy, Esq.
      SPIVAK LIPTON WATANABE SPIVAK & MOSS LLP
      1700 Broadway, Suite 2100
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 765-2100
      Facsimile: (212) 541-5429
      E-mail: hpordy@spivaklipton.com


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Sued Over Discrimination Against Black Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that New York City and its Police
Department discriminate against black workers who maintain NYPD
vehicles, a class action claims in New York County Supreme Court.


OPENGATE CAPITAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Arias and David Johnson, individually, and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. Opengate Capital LLC,
Opengate Capital Management LLC, Opengate Capital Group, LLC, and
Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-00792811 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 11, 2015), is an action for damages, including,
but not limited to, back pay and benefits for the period of
the violations, final wages including unpaid accrued vested
vacation time, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, and all other
legal or equitable relief as a result from the Defendants' illegal
actions in connection with the closing of multiple PennySaver
facilities in California, without sufficient and adequate notice.

The Defendants owned and operated multiple PennySaver facilities
throughout California. PennySaver was one of the largest direct
mail shopping publication in the United States, and reached
approximately 9 million readers weekly.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raul Perez, Esq.
      Melissa Grant, Esq.
      Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
      Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAW APC
      1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: Raul.Perez@capstonelawyers.com
              Melissa.Grant@capstonelawyers.com
              Arnab.Banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
              Suzy.Lee@capstonelawyers.com


PATHWAYS CENTER: Faces "Caswell" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Caswell, individually, and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Pathways Center For Developmental and
Behavioral Growth and Jade Benefield, Case No. 3:15-cv-00100-TCB
(N.D. Ga., June 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40
per week.

The Defendants operate a behavioral health care organization that
serves children, adolescents, and adults addressing an array of
mental health and substance abuse issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward D. Buckley, Esq.
      Rachel Berlin, Esq.
      The Buckley Law Firm, LLC
      Promenade, Suite 900
      1230 Peachtree Street, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 781-1100
      Facsimile: (404) 781-1101
      E-mail: edbuckley@buckleylawatl.com
              rberlin@buckleylawatl.com


PEDDLER'S HOME: Faces "Nickel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra L. Nickel, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Peddler's Home Cooking #1, Inc. d/b/a
Peddler's Family Restaurant, Cynthia Barnes, and Glenda Rutledge,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00389-SJD (S.D. Ohio, June 11, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in Ironton, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard T. Robol, Esq.
      ROBOL LAW OFFICE
      433 West Sixth Avenue
      Columbus, OH 43201
      Telephone: (614) 282-5412
      Facsimile: (614) 737-3756
      E-mail: rrobol@robollaw.com


PILOT FLYING J: Remaining Plaintiffs Uncover Rebate Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that after a 2013 FBI raid on the
truck-stop chain owned by Cleveland Browns owner Jimmy Haslam and
Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam, Pilot Flying J moved quickly to settle
fraud claims.  But a handful of companies that refused to settle
say they have uncovered a deception that other firms overlooked.

The trucking companies agreed to buy fuel exclusively from Pilot
Flying J in exchange for special rates, according to court
documents.  Those rates varied from company to company but often
were based on the fuel cost plus a few cents per gallon.  Pilot
has admitted that in many cases it failed to provide the promised
rate -- for example, tacking on an additional 3 cents per gallon
rather than a promised 2 cents.

But trucking firms suing in federal court say they also were
deceived about the initial cost those rebates were based on.

In documents filed on May 11, the firms say they believed Pilot's
"cost-plus" offers were based on Pilot's actual fuel costs.  In
reality, they were based on an industry average plus various fees
and taxes.

"Pilot, as the largest retail supplier of diesel fuel, does not
pay an average price," the lawsuit claims.

Pilot attorney Aubrey Harwell said the Oil Price Information
Services contract average used by Pilot is simply the industry
standard.

"For many years, Pilot has been totally transparent about the
basis for cost.  They have not taken advantage of any customers,
notwithstanding the allegations by a select few to the contrary,"
Harwell said.

After the rebate fraud was exposed, the company quickly settled
claims with about 5,500 trucking firms, agreeing in a class-action
lawsuit to pay $85 million in money owed and interest in November
2013.

Several companies opted out of the class action and filed their
own lawsuits in federal court.  At least one outstanding lawsuit
raises similar claims against Pilot in state court in Illinois.

Since the raid, 10 former Pilot employees have pleaded guilty to
fraud. CEO Jimmy Haslam has not been charged and has said he was
unaware of the scheme.  Gov. Bill Haslam has said he is not
involved in Pilot's day-to-day operations.

Last July, Pilot agreed to pay a $92 million penalty, and federal
attorneys agreed not prosecute the company.  Pilot had $31.4
billion in revenue last year.


PLAINS ALL: Faces Savvy Suit Over Santa Barbara Oil Spill
---------------------------------------------------------
Savvy of Boulder LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
Similarly situated v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Case No.
2:15-cv-04440-DDP-JPR (C.D. Cal., June 11, 2015), is a class
action complaint for damages, restitution, contribution,
injunctive relief, and any and all other relief, as proximate
result of the Defendant's failure to adhere to statutory
guidelines, failure to meet the requisite standard of care, and
negligence which resulted in the release, disposal, and
exfiltration, of petroleum and petroleum byproducts, at and near
Santa Barbara County, which continues to spread, exacerbate, and
contaminate previously uncontaminated areas, negatively impacting
the local economy, particularly that which is reliant on tourism.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. owns and operates a pipeline
system, which transported crude oil, obtained from ExxonMobil's
Santa Ynez fields at Las Flores Canyon to Gaviota Pump Station in
Santa Barbara County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      S. Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              mike@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

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


PLAINS ALL: Faces "Cheverez" Suit Over Santa Barbara Oil Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the Texas company that spilled oil off Santa Barbara had sued the
county to fight installation of a simple shutoff valve that could
have prevented the disaster, a class action lawsuit states.

A Plains All American Pipeline company line broke on May 19,
spilling more than 100,000 of gallons of oil off Refugio Beach
near Santa Barbara.

Lead plaintiff Stace Cheverez claims that Plains' pipeline was the
only one of its kind in Santa Barbara County without an automatic
shutoff valve, and that rather than install the safety device, "as
all the other pipeline owners in the area had done," Plains had
sued the county, claiming that "the county lacked the authority to
force it to install an automatic shut-off system or inspect its
pipeline."

Cheverez's attorney Robert Nelson said in a statement that the
class action was filed "to repair the damage done to local
fisherman and businesses, and to hold Plains accountable for all
the harm it has wrought on the Santa Barbara community."

Gov. Jerry Brown declared a state of emergency and the state
closed offshore areas to fishing as the oil slick spread to 9
square miles.  State beaches were closed and habitat for
endangered California Least Tern and Western Snowy Plover was
threatened.

"These waters are home to hundreds of sensitive animal species,
and serve as the backbone of the local economy.  Tourists come to
these beaches to enjoy the unspoiled sand and water.  People
support themselves and their families by harvesting fish and
shellfish from these waters.  All that has been damaged by this
spill, and that damage will likely last for decades," the
complaint states.

Cheverez says that when Plains built Pipeline 901 in 1987, the
county asked to inspect the welds with X-rays to ensure proper
construction and asked the company to install the automatic
shutoff valve for safety.  Cheverez calls this a "routine"
procedure.

But rather than cooperate, Plains sued the county in Federal
Court, "arguing it lacked jurisdiction to regulate its pipeline
design and installation."

The complaint continues: "As a result, today Line 901 in the only
pipeline in Santa Barbara County 'whereby the county is preempted
from monitoring and safety inspections," said Kevin Drude,
director of the County's Energy Division.  Drude has publicly said
that defendant's employees rarely, if ever, attend monthly
meetings that he holds to discuss safety concerns with all the
pipeline operators under his jurisdiction."

Plains has reaped $389 million on $2 billion in earnings by
prioritizing profits over safety, and in addition to fouling the
coast, has dumped the costs of its failure on the people of Santa
Barbara County, the complaint states.

It adds: "The lax safety standards at Line 901 were not isolated
incidents for defendant.  Since 2006 it has been cited for more
than 175 violations of safety requirements, which have caused
nearly $24 million in property damage.  Eleven of those incidents
were in California.  Defendant is one of the top four most-cited
pipeline operators in the country."

The beaches north of Santa Barbara are known as the Gaviota Coast.
Its scenic beaches and opportunities for whale-watching attract
thousands of tourists each year, and commercial fishing off the
coast netted $6.5 million in 2009, according to the complaint.

Line 901 took 6.3 million gallons of crude oil a day between
Gaviota and Los Flores on a 10-mile stretch past several state
parks, including Refugio State Beach, where the rupture occurred.
Professional clean-up crews and volunteers armed with nothing but
shovels and buckets quickly responded to the spill, but Plains'
presence was notably absent during the first days, according to
the complaint.

Despite volunteers' efforts the oil continues to spread, claiming
the lives of fish, birds and marine mammals and polluting the
ocean with tar balls and "oil pancakes" that are drifting toward
other state parks.  Oil that sinks below the waves is smothering
reefs, contaminating sea grass beds and killing lobsters, crabs,
and other underwater species, according to the complaint.

"In Santa Barbara, those environmental impacts translate to
profound economic impacts.  In the short term, the oil from
defendant's ruptured pipeline has closed fishing grounds and
shellfish areas, and caused canceled reservations from tourists
who otherwise would be spending their money on hotels,
restaurants, kayaking or surf trips, and fishing charters," the
complaint states.

Long-term impacts of the spill could last for generations,
Cheverez says.  He describes himself as a diver and nearshore
fisherman who fishes for offshore species such as lobster, grass
rockfish and sea urchin.

He says the oil spill has threatened his livelihood by
contaminating the eel grass and kelp beds where the species spawn
during the winter and by killing the sea urchins that cling to
rocks close to shore.

Cheverez says he has been unable to fish or dive since officials
closed fishing areas and two beaches, and the Santa Barbara County
Health Department declared Refugio Beach a "Hazmat" zone.

"But for defendant's oil spill, plaintiff Cheverez would have been
or would presently be fishing the nearshore areas that are
currently closed due to the spill," the complaint states.

Calls to Plains' media relations office redirected a reporter to a
website for clean-up efforts at Refugio Beach.  Further requests
for comment were not immediately returned.

Cheverez seeks class certification, disgorgement of unjust profits
and compensatory, statutory and treble damages for violations of
the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act and of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, strict liability for ultrahazardous activities,
negligence, unfair competition, and public nuisance.  He also
wants Plains ordered to restore fisheries affected by the spill
and "to repair reputational damage done to Santa Barbara's seafood
industry."

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

               - and -

          Robert Nelson, Esq.
          LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Toll Free: (800) 541-7358
          Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
          E-mail: rnelson@lchb.com


PLAIN GREEN: Faces Class Action Over Predatory Lending
------------------------------------------------------
Matt Volz, writing for The Associated Press, reports that two
Vermont women are trying to open a class-action lawsuit that, if
successful, could upend the practice of online lending companies
using Native American tribes' sovereignty to skirt state laws
against high-interest payday loans.

Jessica Gingras and Angela Given say in their lawsuit filed on
May 13 in U.S. District Court in Vermont that Plain Green LLC is
exploiting and extorting its borrowers through predatory lending
in violation of federal trade and consumer laws.

Plain Green charges annual interest rates of up to 379 percent for
its loans, which are typically used by low-income borrowers in
need of emergency cash.  The company is owned by Montana's
Chippewa Cree Tribe, which uses the tribal-sovereignty doctrine to
ignore states' laws that cap interest rates on payday loans.

The doctrine grants tribes the power of self-government and
exempts them from state laws that infringe on that sovereignty,
and it gives them immunity in many judicial proceedings.

Non-Indian companies have formed partnerships with tribes to
operate the lending operations while benefiting from tribal
sovereignty, a setup the lawsuit calls a "rent-a-tribe" scheme.
In this case, a company called ThinkCash provided Plain Green with
the marketing, funding, underwriting and collection of the loans,
according to the lawsuit.

"The rent-a-tribe concept bugs me. It takes advantage of people in
tough circumstances," Matt Byrne, the attorney for Ms. Gingras and
Given, said on May 15.  "We want to show that tribal immunity
cannot be used to shield bad conduct."

The lawsuit names Plain Green CEO Joel Rosette and two of the
company's board members as defendants.  A call to Rosette was
referred to a Helena public relations firm.  The Associated Press
refused The Montana Group's demand that questions be submitted in
advance as a condition to interview Rosette.

The Montana Group later released a statement attributed to Rosette
that he has confidence in Plain Green's compliance with the
industry regulations and in making sure borrowers understand the
loans.  "Plain Green takes every effort to educate our customers
and ensure they are provided the highest quality of service," the
statement said.

The Great Falls Tribune first reported the Vermont lawsuit.

Ms. Gingras and Ms. Given separately took out multiple loans from
Plain Green that ranged from $500 to $3,000.  They allege that the
interest rates they were charged and the company's requirement to
access a borrowers' bank account as a condition of granting a loan
violated federal trade and consumer protection laws.

They say the company also is breaking federal law by not
investigating its borrowers' ability to repay their loans and by
setting repayment schedules designed to maximize interest
collections.  They are asking a judge to bar Plain Green from
making any more loans and to prevent the company from lending on
the condition that it has access to the borrowers' bank accounts.
They are seeking the return of all interest that was charged above
a reasonable rate and the return of other financial charges made
on the loans.  They are seeking to turn the case as a class-action
lawsuit.  It is unclear how many people have borrowed money from
Plain Green, though the women estimated there are thousands of
borrowers.

The Montana attorney general's office has received 53 complaints
against Plain Green since 2011, and the Better Business Bureau has
fielded 272 complaints about the company over the last three
years.

A separate civil lawsuit filed last year by the Chippewa Cree
Tribe against a former partner estimates that Plain Green has made
at least $25 million for Rocky Boy's Indian Reservation since
2011.


PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC: "Cavazos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baldwin Cavazos, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Professional Traffic Control LLC and Mohammed
F. Moosani, Case No. 4:15-cv-01658 (S.D. Tex., June 11, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Professional Traffic Control LLC is a Texas limited liability
company that provides traffic control and flagging services for
all of your roadway construction projects.

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


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Plunge in Stock
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Puma Biotechnology stock fell
from $225 to $197.67 after it "shocked the market" by changing
plans for a breast cancer drug, shareholders claim in California
Federal Court.


RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating FDA Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zeba Siddiqui, writing for Firstpost, reports that generic
drugmaker Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd has been sued in a district
court in the United States for allegedly manipulating U.S. Food
and Drug Administration rules for years to keep rival generic
drugs out of the market.

Ranbaxy filed "grossly inadequate" applications seeking approval
for its drugs and deceived the FDA into granting approvals and
giving the company market exclusivity, the class action lawsuit
asserts.  It was filed by U.S. retailer Meijer Inc on May 12 in
the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts.

The suit also names India's largest drugmaker Sun Pharmaceutical
Industries Ltd, which completed a $3.2 billion deal to buy Ranbaxy
in March and is now helping Ranbaxy fix its manufacturing
problems.

Ranbaxy repeatedly made misstatements to the FDA about the
compliance status of its manufacturing plants, the lawsuit says.
The FDA has banned import of drugs from all of Ranbaxy's India-
based plants under a wider scrutiny of the country's $15 billion
pharmaceutical industry, which is the largest supplier of generic
medicines to the United States.

In 2013, Ranbaxy pleaded guilty to felony charges related to drug
safety and agreed to civil and criminal fines of $500 million in a
settlement with the United States to resolve claims that it sold
substandard drugs and made false statements to the FDA about
manufacturing practices at its plants.

The lawsuit says customers overpaid for Roche's antiviral Valcyte
and Novartis's hypertension drug Diovan because the release of
generic versions of both drugs was delayed due to Ranbaxy having
wrongfully gained market exclusivity.

Drugmakers that are first to file with the FDA to make a generic
version of a brand name drug are entitled to a six-month market
exclusivity, a huge revenue-generating opportunity that many
companies like Ranbaxy compete for.

The FDA in November last year stripped Ranbaxy of a tentative
approval and six-month exclusivity it gave the company in 2008 for
launching a Valcyte generic.

Meijer has sought damages and monetary relief on behalf of all
direct purchasers of drugs for which the release of cheaper copies
was delayed due to market exclusivity secured by Ranbaxy,
according to the lawsuit.


RANDSTAD GENERAL: Obtains Favorable Ruling in OT Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry Analysts reports that a Michigan federal court
ruled Randstad's account managers, assistant branch manager, and
staffing consultants are administrative employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and not entitled to overtime pay.

The plaintiffs had claimed that they were misclassified as exempt
from the overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act by
Randstad, their former employer.

The plaintiffs -- Judith Perry, Erin Lane, Aimee Dooling and
Suhaima Choudhury -- worked for Randstad at its Troy, Mich.,
branch in several positions; their base pay ranged from $32,000 to
$48,125 and they were also eligible for commissions and bonuses.
All of the plaintiffs, except Choudhury, were classified as
exempt.  Ms. Choudhury was classified as non-exempt, but claimed
she was not informed of this or permitted to claim overtime hours.

The plaintiffs argued they did not qualify for the administrative
exemption because their primary duty did not include the exercise
of discretion and independent judgment with respect to matters of
significance, and because the employer's "Work Planning Index"
dictated what tasks they performed, constraining their discretion
and exercise of independent judgment.

However, the court found the plaintiffs performed inherently
discretionary tasks and rejected their argument that they were
"micromanaged" and "constrained" by the Work Planning Index.

The case is Perry v. Randstad Gen. Partner (US) LLC.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces Suit Over Galaxy Smartwatch Battery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Galaxy Gear S Smartwatch
battery does not last the 24 to 48 hours Samsung advertises, a
federal class action claims.


SANDISK CORP: Court Certifies Class in Flash Memory Monopoly Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge certified in
part a class that claims Sandisk virtually monopolized the market
for flash memory chips and overcharged for them.

Plaintiffs -- three electronics companies and the trustee of a
bankruptcy estate -- sought to certify a nationwide class who had
bought Sandisk NAND flash chips since July 1997, from Sandisk or
"from its controlled and licensed joint venture with Toshiba
Corporation."

Lead plaintiff Alfred T. Giuliano, bankruptcy trustee for the Ritz
Estate, claims the price-fixing cost plaintiffs $72 million.

U.S. District Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong certified a nationwide
class who had bought the chips since June 25, 2006.  She appointed
as class counsel Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel;
Berry Law; and Stueve, Siegel, Hanson. Morgan, Duffy-Smith &
Tidalgo were appointed liaison counsel.

The May 14 order was unsealed on May 29, after Sandisk was given
the opportunity to redact confidential information.

The case is Alfred T. Giuliano, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz
Estate, et al. v. Sandisk Corporation, Case No. 4:10-cv-02787-SBA,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Division.


SEARS HOMETOWN: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Johnson" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Breana Johnson, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated v. Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores, Inc. and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. RG15773421 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 9, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Headquartered in Illinois, Sears Hometown and Outlet Stores, Inc.
is a retailer that sells home appliances, lawn and garden
equipment, apparel, mattresses, sporting goods and tools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Morgan M. Mack, Esq.
      LAZEAR MACK
      435-14th Street, #1117
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 735-6316
      Facsimile: (510) 545-4226
      E-mail: arthur@lazearmack.com


SEGA OF AMERICA: Consumers Withdrew Claims Over Aliens Promo
------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service reports that keeping
their focus on Sega, consumers withdrew claims over promos for
"Aliens: Colonial Marines" that they say misrepresented the video
game's quality.

Lead plaintiffs Damion Perrine and John Locke brought a federal
complaint against Sega of America and Gearbox Software in 2013,
claiming the game's misleading promo induced them to buy it.

The game is based on James Cameron's 1986 film "Aliens."

This past May, U.S. District Judge James Donato refused to certify
a 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," finding the group unascertainable.

Donato followed that decision up with a one-page order on May 29
that says the parties "have agreed to a settlement of this case as
to defendant Gearbox."

Sega remains a defendant in the case, which is soon to be set for
trial.

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.


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Kunces" Suit Over Company Merger Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Kunces, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. SFX Entertainment, Inc., Robert F. X. Sillerman,
Mitchell Slater, D. Geoff Armstrong, Andrew N. Bazos, Michael
Meyer, Joseph F. Rascoff, John Miller, Edward Simon, Pasquale
Manocchiahas, SFXE Acquisition LLC, SFXE Merger Sub Inc., and
Sillerman Investment Company III LLC, Case No. 11120-CB (Del. Ch.,
June 9, 2015) is brought on behalf of all the shareholders of SFX
Entertainment, Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of SFX
Entertainment, Inc. by SFXE Acquisition LLC and SFXE Merger Sub
Inc., through for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

SFX Entertainment, Inc. engages in the production of live events
and digital entertainment content that focuses on the electronic
music culture (EMC) and other festivals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com


SOCIAL SECURITY: Accused of Blindsiding Hundreds of Kentuckians
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger at Courthouse News Service reports that Social
Security blindsided hundreds of Kentuckians whose attorney may
have defrauded the government of millions, two of those clients
claim in Kentucky Federal Court.

In a May 30 complaint, Cheryl Martin and Robert Martin claim that
the agency has "chosen to punish hundreds of individuals for whom
there is no allegation of wrongdoing" without bringing charges
against the attorney.  The Martins note that they share a last
name but are not related.

In May, the Social Security Administration suspended payments for
900 former clients of attorney Eric Conn, whom the government
suspects may have used fraudulent information to secure over $22
million in benefit payments from the agency.

As the plaintiffs note, Conn has not been charged with any crime,
but the U.S. government sued him on June 1 to recoup allegedly
fraudulently obtained disability benefits.

The government's complaint says Conn and an administrative law
judge named David Daugherty engaged in a "fraudulent scheme
involving Daugherty wrongfully taking control of a high number of
Conn's clients Social Security Disability claims from randomly
assigned administrative law judges and conducting sham
proceedings, resulting in the Conn clients overwhelmingly and
fraudulently obtaining successful results."

Conn represented Cheryl Martin in her disability case following a
car accident, and Martin began receiving benefits in 2009.  She
says she received a suspension of benefits letter from Social
Security on May 22.

The letter claimed "that her benefits were suspended because
'there was reason to believe fraud was involved in certain cases
including evidence from [several doctors]' . . . [and] that she
had ten days to submit additional evidence to the Appeals Council,
after which her case would be remanded to an Administrative Law
Judge to await a new hearing, during which time she would receive
no Social Security Disability payments," the complaint says.

Martin, who is 65, has stage four lung cancer with a five percent
chance of survival, and says she "is prescribed approximately 22
medications, the monthly out-of-pocket expenses for which exceed
$600.00.

"Plaintiff Cheryl Martin does not believe that she can afford her
necessary medications without the $1,100.00 per month that she is
receiving from Social Security Disability," the complaint says.

The class of affected individuals seeks a judgment that the SSA
violated the Social Security Act when it suspended their benefits,
as well as an injunction restoring benefit payments.

According to an article in the Lexington (Kentucky) Herald Leader,
Attorney Eric Conn, who is still licensed to practice law in
Kentucky, was "the subject of damning reports by both the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives, the Wall Street Journal and
60 Minutes."

Conn collected his millions over a ten-year period from 2001-2013,
and allegedly destroyed computers and shredded millions of
documents when the Wall Street Journal published its report on his
alleged conduct.

The class is seeking restoration of their benefits and injunction
preventing Social Security from suspending them again.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Noah R. Friend, Esq.
          NOAH R. FRIEND LAW FIRM, PLLC
          PO Box 610
          Pikeville, KY 41502
          Telephone: (606) 369-7030
          E-mail: noah@friendlawfirm.com


SOCIETE AIR FRANCE: Wins Final OK of $39-Mil. Antitrust Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge approved a $9 million award to plaintiffs in a $39
million settlement of an antitrust class action accusing eight
airlines of conspiring to fix prices on trans-Pacific flights.

The $9 million awarded to the plaintiff passengers was roughly 30
percent of the defendant airlines' $39 million settlement fund,
according to U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer's May 26 order.

Of that, $20 million went to attorneys' fees and expenses,
including an anticipated $3 million in anticipated expenses for
non-settling defendants.  Each of the 15 class representative was
awarded $7,500.

The plaintiffs claimed the airlines imposed air fare hikes and
fuel surcharge increases that "were in substantial lockstep both
in their timing and amount."

The settling airlines are Air France, Cathay Pacific Airways,
Japan Airlines, Malaysian Airlines, Qantas Airways, Singapore
Airlines, Thai Airways and Vietnam Airlines.

Breyer wrote that the distribution of the settlement money was
because "this was not a run-of-the-mill class action that settled
relatively early; it was a heavily litigated, complicated case
that was filed in 2007."  He rejected objections that the
settlement inappropriately treats all class members the same
despite difference in the value of their claims, finding the
settlement as a whole "substantial and fair." He also dismissed
objections to the settlement's $3 million "future litigation
fund," since there is "no reason to believe that plaintiffs would
misuse the funds."

Breyer said that the notice provided to class members was adequate
though it did not include direct notice to individual members,
which he said is not mandated by due process.

Neither side could be reached for comment May 28.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Buescher, Esq.
          COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
          San Francisco Airport Office Ctr.
          840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
          E-mail: ebuescher@cpmlegal.com

The case is captioned In re Transpacific Passenger Air
Transportation Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:07-cv-05634-CRB,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Judge Tosses Investor Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge has thrown out
the class-action lawsuit brought by investors of aircraft parts
maker Spirit AeroSystems.

U.S. District Judge Eric Melgren on May 14 dismissed the 2013
lawsuit alleging the firm and four of its officers made misleading
statements that artificially inflated the stock price before the
company recorded a $590 million loss on six contracts in October
2012.

Judge Melgren ruled shareholders failed to show misleading
statements were material to an investor deciding whether to buy or
sell stock.  The judge also noted it's unclear whether the company
and officers had anything to gain by delaying announcement of the
loss.

CEO Jeffrey Turner announced his resignation shortly after the
announcement.


SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Traffic Court Officials Face Motorists Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Traffic court officials in Suffolk County conspired to try, issue
arrest warrants for, and suspend the licenses of motorists for
traffic offenses, a class claims in New York Federal Court,
reports Nick Rummell at Courthouse News Service.

"I think this court is revenue driven," Christopher Cassar, the
Huntington, N.Y.-based attorney who filed the May 28 complaint,
said in an interview.  "I think the politicians created this court
in the interest of creating revenue for the county and it is not
interested in constitutional principles."

Cassar said the policies seem to be directed mainly to Latino
drivers, but that the unconstitutionality of the traffic court is
by no means exclusionary.

Suffolk County has not returned a request for comment.

Cassar represents Jose Medrano and two other locals being
prosecuted by Suffolk County Traffic Court.

A fourth plaintiff is an attorney who regularly practices in the
court.

"The defendants are depriving the plaintiffs and class members of
due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment by
issuing arrest warrants for motorist[s] who fail to appear to
answer a 'simplified traffic information' when 'simplified traffic
information' does not contain 'reasonable cause to believe' a
motorist committed the offense upon which the warrant is based,"
the complaint states.

One section of the 50-page filing complaint about the lacking
"separation of powers" between the traffic prosecutor and the
judiciary in the Suffolk County Traffic Court.

Medrano says the court's executive director Paul Margiotta
appoints the prosecutors.

"I've never been in a [traffic] court where the executive director
selects the [judicial hearing officers] and also selects the
prosecutors," Cassar said in an interview.

The Suffolk County Web site says motorists who plead not guilty to
traffic tickets are heard by judicial hearing officers, who
determine whether the drivers are guilty and, if so, set fines.

Cassar said he expects to seek damages in the millions, and that
he has other drivers and even court attorneys coming forward to
possibly join the class.


THERATECHNOLOGIES INC: 121851 Canada Can Discontinue Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theratechnologies Inc. on May 15 disclosed that the Superior Court
of Quebec has authorized 121851 Canada Inc. to discontinue all
class action proceedings filed pursuant to the Securities Act
(Quebec) and the Civil Code of Quebec against the Company, a
director and a former president and chief executive officer.

The authorization to discontinue the proceedings against the
Company, a director and a former president and chief executive
officer results from the April 17, 2015 decision of the Supreme
Court of Canada.

The discontinuation of the proceedings by 121851 Canada Inc. in
relation to this litigation will become effective on May 19, 2015.

                   About Theratechnologies

Theratechnologies -- http://www.theratech.com-- is a specialty
pharmaceutical company addressing unmet medical needs in metabolic
disorders to promote healthy ageing and improved quality of life.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Kessler Topaz Files Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on May 15 disclosed that the
firm has filed a shareholder class action against Trinity
Industries, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between February 20, 2014 and April 29, 2015,
inclusive.

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/case/TrinityIndustries

Shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com

Trinity is a diversified industrial company that owns a variety of
businesses which provide products and services to the energy,
transportation, chemical, and construction sectors.  Through a
wholly-owned subsidiary, the Company manufactures, among other
things, "highway products" that are sold throughout the U.S.,
Canada, and Mexico.  One of the highway products manufactured and
sold by Trinity is the ET-Plus guardrail system, which is
installed on highways across the nation.

As detailed in the Complaint, on October 20, 2014, the jury
hearing a federal whistleblower case filed against the Company
(United States ex rel. Harman v. Trinity Ind., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-
00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.)) found that Trinity had violated the False
Claims Act by making a series of false claims to the government
about its ET-Plus system.  As reported by Bloomberg, the jury
found that Trinity "deliberately withheld information from the
U.S. about cost-saving changes to its highway guardrail system
that made it more dangerous," and ruled that "the company
defrauded the government out of $175 million."  Following the news
of the jury's verdict against Trinity, shares of the Company's
stock declined $4.45 per share, or more than 12%, to close on
October 20, 2014 at $31.63 per share, on heavy trading volume.

On April 22, 2015, Bloomberg reported that Trinity's ET-Plus
system was the subject of a U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
federal criminal probe.  The article further reported that
"federal investigators are interviewing potential witnesses about
issues including Trinity's relationship with the [Federal Highway
Administration ("FHWA")]," and that "[i]nvestigators from a public
corruption and special prosecutions unit of the Justice Department
have subpoenaed documents from court battles involving Trinity's
ET-Plus on behalf of a grand jury."  On this news, shares of the
Company's stock declined $3.43 per share, or over 9%, to close on
April 22, 2015 at $32.82 per share.

On April 24, 2015, Trinity's executives confirmed that the DOJ was
investigating the Company.  Also on April 24, 2015, Trinity filed
its Quarterly Report with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC"), and reported that Company had been named in several class
action lawsuits filed by municipalities in both the U.S. and
Canada for its conduct with respect to the ET-Plus system.  On
this news, shares of the Company's stock declined an additional
$4.66 per share, or nearly 14%, to close on April 24, 2015 at
$28.70 per share.

Finally, on April 29, 2015, Bloomberg reported that Trinity had
received a subpoena from the DOJ "over its allegedly defective
guardrail safety system" seeking "documents from 1999 and later
regarding Trinity's guardrail end terminals . . . ."  On this
news, shares of the Company's stock declined an additional $0.98
per share, or nearly 3.5%, to close on April 30, 2015 at $27.09
per share.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Trinity
and certain of its executive officers failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's financial well-being, business
relationships, and prospects.  Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose, inter alia, that: (1) Trinity had improperly obtained
FHWA approval of the modified ET-Plus system in 2005 by, among
other things, failing to disclose certain changes it had made to
the ET-Plus system and conducting insufficient crash testing on
the modified product; (2) Trinity had manipulated the FHWA's
approval process for the modified ET-Plus system; and (3) such
conduct caused the Company to violate the False Claims Act,
exposing it to significant civil liabilities, criminal
investigation, and bans of the ET-Plus system.  As a result of the
foregoing, the defendants' statements about the Company's
financial well-being and future business prospects were lacking in
a reasonable basis when made.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com

For additional information about the lawsuit, or to request
information about the action, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/case/TrinityIndustries

Members of the class may, no later than June 29, 2015, petition
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  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.

The plaintiff in the shareholder class action filed against
Trinity is represented by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP.  The
plaintiff's Complaint is captioned as Nemky v. Trinity Industries,
Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-00732 (E.D. Tex).

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country


TWEEN BRANDS: Faces "Loor" Suit Over Fictional Merchandise Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yanetsy Loor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tween Brands, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-00953-RBD-DAB
(M.D. Fla., June 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
continuous representation of discount off of a fictional regular
price.

Tween Brands, Inc. owns and operates hundreds of stores in the
United States, which sell consumer products, including children's
clothing, fashion apparel and more.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary C. Rosen, Esq.
      BECKER & POLIAKOFF, PA
      Suite 1800, 1 E Broward Blvd
      Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 987-7550
      Facsimile: (954) 985-4176
      E-mail: bthomas@becker-poliakoff.com


UNION PACIFIC: Sued Over Illegal Use of the Railroad Right-of-Way
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Durazno Street Partners, L.P., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, SFPP, L.P.
f/k/a Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating
LP. "D", and Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00177-DCG
(W.D. Tex., June 11, 2015), is a class action that seeks to
recover to the class of Texas property owners unpaid rents,
damages, and interest, as a result of the Defendant's trespass
upon the class's real property and wrongful occupation with the
railroad to use the subsurface of the railroad right-of-way.

The Defendants operate a subterranean petroleum pipeline that runs
beneath the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad Company
through El Paso County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carl H. Green, Esq.
      MOUNCE, GREEN, MYERS, SAFI & GALATZAN, P.C.
      P.O. Box 1977
      El Paso, TX 79999
      Telephone: (915) 532-2000
      Facsimile: (915) 541-1597
      E-mail: green@mgmsg.com


WEATHERFORD INT'L: July 6 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Labaton Sucharow LLP
and Bleichmar Fonti Tountas & Auld LLP regarding Freedman v.
Weatherford International, Ltd, et al.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

GLENN FREEDMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff,
v. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL LTD., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No.: 12-CV-02121-LAK-JCF

To: All persons and entities that purchased or acquired
Weatherford International Ltd. ("Weatherford" or "the Company")
common stock in the United States between March 2, 2011 and July
24, 2012, inclusive.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the following
class has been certified in the above-captioned action (the
"Action"):

All persons and entities that purchased or acquired Weatherford
common stock in the United States between March 2, 2011 and July
24, 2012, inclusive, and who were damaged thereby (the "Class").
Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the
immediate family of any Defendant; (iii) any person who was an
officer or director of Weatherford during the Class Period; (iv)
any firm, trust, corporation, officer, or other entity in which
any Defendant has or had a controlling interest; (v) Defendants'
directors' and officers' liability insurance carriers, and any
affiliates or subsidiaries thereof; (vi) the Company's employee
retirement and benefit plan(s); and (vii) the legal
representatives, agents, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-
interest, or assigns of any such excluded party.  Also excluded
from the Class is any person or entity that timely and validly
requests exclusion from the Class.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION.  A full printed Notice of Pendency of Class Action is
currently being mailed to known Class Members.  If you have not
yet received a full printed Notice, you may obtain copies of this
document by downloading it from
www.Weatherford2012SecuritiesLitigation.com or by contacting the
Administrator:

Freedman v. Weatherford International, Ltd., et al.
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10177
Dublin, OH 43017-3177
(855) 382-6459

If you did not receive the Notice by mail, and you are a member of
the Class, please send your name and address to the Administrator
so that if any future notices are disseminated in connection with
the Action, you will receive them.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Class Counsel:

Javier Bleichmar
BLEICHMAR FONTI
TOUNTAS & AULD LLP
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
www.bftalaw.com
(888) 879-9418

Ira A. Schochet
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
(888) 219-6877

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.  If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in
Weatherford common stock during the period from March 2, 2011
through and including July 24, 2012.  You will automatically be
included in the Class and all orders or judgments in the Action
will apply to you.  If you do not wish to remain a member of the
Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself from the Class.  If
you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class,
you will be bound by the proceedings in the Action, including all
past, present and future orders and judgments of the Court,
whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment in the Action, but you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you
must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later
than July 6, 2015 in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the full printed Notice.  Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, it is within the Court's discretion
whether to allow a second opportunity to request exclusion from
the Class if there is a future settlement in the Action.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the
Administrator.

Please Do Not Call the Court with Questions.

Dated:  May 15, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
Southern District of New York


WELLS FARGO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Prather" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Prather, John W. Prather, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Wells
Fargo Education Financial Services, Case No. 3:15-cv-01296-MMA-WVG
(S.D. Cal., June 11, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of contacting the Plaintiffs and the Class Members on their
cellular telephones without their prior express consent, using an
automatic telephone dialing system.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a diversified financial services company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

Wells Fargo Education Financial Services is in the business of
providing and servicing educational loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas J. Campion, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DOUGLAS J. CAMPION, APC
      17150 Via Del Campo, Suite 100
      San Diego, CA 92127
      Telephone: (619) 299-2091
      Facsimile: (619) 858-0034
      E-mail: doug@djcampion.com

         - and -

      Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
      LIEFF CAB RASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (212) 355-9500
      Facsimile: (212) 355-9592

         - and -

      Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street 29th Floor
      San FrancIsco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008


WIPRO: Faces Overtime Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------
The Financial Express reports that IT major Wipro is faced with a
class-action lawsuit in the US from one of its former employees,
an Indian national, who has alleged that the company did not pay
his wages for overtime services, which was in violation of labour
laws.

The lawsuit, filed by Suri Payala in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, alleges that many of its
employees were citizens of foreign countries who come to the US
under L-1B visas processed by Wipro and were not aware of their
rights under California's wage and hour laws.

The lawsuit alleges, "Wipro intentionally misclassifies employees
who provide computer support, troubleshooting, testing related to
repairs and technical services as exempt from overtime pay.
However, according to California statutes, such employees are not
exempt if they earn less than an annual salary of $84,130 as of
January 2014."

Mr. Payala claims that for the first six months of 2014, he was
employed by Wipro as a computer technician with the title of
"architect" and was outsourced to DirecTV in California.  The
lawsuit says he was not paid for his overtime services and travel
time to the outsourced job site despite earning a salary of less
than $7,000 per month, which is in violation of state wage and
hour laws.

The class-action lawsuit seeks to represent any employee --
providing computer support, troubleshooting, testing related to
repairs and technical services over the past four years prior to
the filing on March 30 -- who received compensation less than
$7,000 per month and who was categorized as an exempt employee.

The lawsuit alleges various illegalities, including unlawful
failure to pay overtime and double-time wages and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Act, and finally, failure to pay
all wages due at separation.  The lawsuit states, "Wipro's
business model is extremely profitable, in no small part because
it does not pay its employees overtime for work in excess of 40
hours per week as required by the California law."

In response to a query from FE on these developments, a statement
by Wipro said, "Wipro abides by the laws of every jurisdiction
where we do business.  While we do not comment on pending
litigation, suffice it to say Wipro will vigorously defend these
allegations."


                            *********

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  * * *