CAR_Public/150625.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, June 25, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 126


                            Headlines


3441 OSSINING: Faces "Carderras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ALLIED COLLECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
ALON USA: Plaintiff's Claims Severed Into 4 Separate Cases
AMBIT ENERGY: Sued in W.D.N.Y. Over Budget Billing Policies
AMERI-FORCE: Illegally Obtains Credit Report, "Solis" Suit Says

AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS: "Warman" Lawsuit Dismissed
APOGEE RETAIL: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Court Trims Claims in "Klune" Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Settlement Objectors' Bid for Fees
BANK OF AMERICA: Green Jacobson Removed as Lead Counsel

BANK OF AMERICA: "Larin" Class Action Dismissal Upheld
BEAVEX INC: "Lopez" FCRA Action Goes to N.D. Georgia
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Novoa May File Further Amended Complaint
CHICAGO: Education Board Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Layoff Suit
CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST: Illinois Court Dismisses "Johnson" Suit

CISNEROS NEWS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COLTON'S STEAK: July 30 Final Hearing on Harvill Suit Deal Set
CONTINENTAL AIR: Appeal From Oruta Suit Dismissal Order Tossed
COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Buckley" Denied
CRC INSURANCE: "Chapman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

CREDIT CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Strout" Suit Claims
DAIRY FARMERS: "O'Connor" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
DEER CONSUMER: Bid to Centralize Pretrial Proceedings Tossed
DELTA DENTAL: Faces "Dumas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DERIVATIVE PORTFOLIO: Cayman Law Applies to Plaintiffs' Claim

DYCK-O'NEAL: Faces "Ward" Suit in Fla. Over Violation of FDCPA
EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Sued Over Wrongful Test Administration
FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT: Sued Over Failure to Tender Surety Bonds
FLEMING & WISE: Faces "Knox" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FLOWERS BAKING: Court Denies Motion to Stay Class Notice

G4S SECURE: Faces "Frias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GEICO INSURANCE: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Prudhomme Case
GREAT-WEST LIFE: Court Trims Claims in "Teets" Action
HHGREGG INC: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOYT LIVERY: Court Tossed FLSA Claims of Unresponsive Plaintiffs

HOYT LIVERY: Court Denies Motion to Exclude Witness
INTERMEX WIRE: Removed "Porras" Suit to S.D. Florida
JEVIC HOLDING: Truck Drivers Lose 3rd Cir. Battle
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Cal. Court Won't Revive "Davidson" Class Action
LAKE COUNTY, IL: Trial Court Order in Suit v Vanderventer Flipped

LAZZARI FUEL: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
LEAL MEDICAL: Faces "Domingot" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LIFE TIME FITNESS: Court Denies Motion to Lift Discovery Stay
LIVE CHEAP: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: N.D. Cal. Court Stays Resolution of Motions

LYONDELL CHEMICAL: American Casualty Liable Under D&O Policy
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Wins More Time to Respond to Action
MAHARD EGG: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Sued Over Slack-Fill Product Packaging
MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in "Muller" Case

MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Court Sets Oct. 23 Final Settlement Hearing
MONCLA PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Must Face "Rilley" Suit, Minn. App. Court Says
NEW HAMPSHIRE BORING: Faces "O'Leary" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA

PALISADES COLLECTION: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws
PENNSYLVANIA: Inmate's Suit v. Allenwood FCI Dismissed
PENNYMAC LOAN: Dismissed from "Schmidt" Lawsuit
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Pollak" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws

RAJ PROPERTIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
REGENCY GP: Faces "Dieckman" Suit Over Energy Partners Merger
RFV ROOFING: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RITE AID: Court Narrows Claims in "Moore" Class Action
SACRAMENTO: "Dearwester" Can't Proceed as Class Action

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Top Load Washer
SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA: "Pizzuto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
SQUARE TWO: Removed "Lawson" Suit to Eastern District Missouri
SRM BEAUTY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Corporate Funds

SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Denies Motion to Stay "Hofer" Proceedings
TACO TRUCK: "Ladson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TD BANK: "Kuri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
TURNER INDUSTRIES: Court Tosses Motion to Set Aside Sanctions
TYMON LLC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Morales" Suit Claims

UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Howell" Trespassing Suit in Nevada
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Marker" Trespassing Suit in Oregon
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Perez" Trespassing Suit in Texas
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Terry" Trespassing Suit in New Mexico
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Valenzuela" Trespassing Suit in Arizona

UNITY HOSPICE: Faces "Pyle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNIVERSAL AUTO: Court Affirms Ruling on Document Production
US DIAGNOSTICS: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Claims
US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Court Grants Motion to Transfer Venue
VENOCO INC: Faces "Reyna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Armstrong" Suit Over AOL Merger
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Ahmed" Suit Over Loan Application Policies
WILLIAM DOUGLAS: CA Affirms Order Denying Class Certification
WOODMERE REHABILITATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Termination Notice
WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Approves Settlement in "Chung" Case

XUNLEI LIMITED: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports


                            *********


3441 OSSINING: Faces "Carderras" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Cecilio Carderras and all others similarly situated v. 3441
Ossining Pizza, LLC, Case No. 7:15-cv-04633 (S.D.N.Y., June 15,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

3441 Ossining Pizza, LLC owns and operates Domino's pizza
restaurant located at 189 South Highland Avenue, Ossining, NY
10562.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan Alexander El-Hag, Esq.
      EL-HAG AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      91 New Street
      Ridgefield, CT 06877
      Telephone: (914) 755-1579
      Facsimile: (914) 206-4176
      E-mail: jaelhag@yahoo.com


ALLIED COLLECTION: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Babek Eghbali, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Allied Collection Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
04507 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of contacting consumers on their cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Allied Collection Services, Inc. is in the business of consumer
debt buying and recovery and collection.

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


ALON USA: Plaintiff's Claims Severed Into 4 Separate Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on Oct. 29,
2013, ordered plaintiff Lesley Duke to show cause in writing why
it should not (1) dismiss his claims without prejudice for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction; (2) sever his claims as to each
defendant; and/or (3) separate his claims as to each different
state law based on considerations of venue and trial convenience.
On November 8, 2013, plaintiff filed his response to the show
cause order.

In the show cause order, the Court expressed doubt whether
plaintiff could obtain class certification and suggested that the
Court might lose subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d)(2), i.e. minimal diversity jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").  Plaintiff responded that even
if the Court denies his motion for class certification, it will
not lose subject matter jurisdiction under Section 1332(d)(2).

In an order dated June 9, 2015, District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil
said recent case law appears to support plaintiff's position in
this regard.  In light of this authority, the Court will not
dismiss plaintiff's claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
at this time, wrote Judge Vratil in her ruling, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1HbhAtlfrom Leagle.com.

"The Clerk shall sever plaintiff's claims into four separate cases
and re-file in the three new cases the original complaint in this
case. This case shall include plaintiff's claims against the
first-named defendant, i.e. Chevron USA, Inc. The new cases shall
include the following parties: (1) Duke v. Flying J, Inc.; (2)
Duke v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC; and (3) Duke v. Petro Stopping
Centers, L.P. and TravelCenters of America LLC. Plaintiff shall
have 14 days from the date of this order to remit filing fees for
the three additional cases. If plaintiff fails to pay the filing
fees within 14 days, the Court without further notice will dismiss
without prejudice his claims in the three new cases," Judge Vratil
explained.

The Court intends to suggest remand of Duke's claims to the
transferor court, Judge Vratil continued.  She directed the
parties tol jointly file a proposed supplement to the Court's
Suggestion Of Remand And Final MDL Order For Remanded Cases filed
November 15, 2013, setting forth events which have taken place to
date regarding the claims of Lesley Duke in this case and in any
newly filed/severed cases, and the issues which remain for
resolution in the transferor court. In addition, the parties were
directed to submit an exhibit which sets forth (1) Duke's
remaining claims against non-settling defendants and (2) any
motions which remain pending in this case and in any newly
filed/severed cases.

Finally, the parties shall begin the process of designating the
record, as set forth in Rule 10.4 of the JPML Rules of Procedure,
said the Court. Upon receipt of a final remand order from the
JPML, the parties shall provide the Clerk of this Court a "record
on remand" which includes a stipulation or designation of the
contents of the record or part thereof to be remanded.

The case is, IN RE: MOTOR FUEL TEMPERATURE SALES PRACTICES
LITIGATION, with respect Rushing, et al. v. Alon USA, Inc., et
al., D. Kan. Case No. 07-2300-KHV, N.D. Cal. Case No. 06-7621-PJH,
NO. 07-1840-KHV, (D. Kan.).


AMBIT ENERGY: Sued in W.D.N.Y. Over Budget Billing Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lazarek and Henry Breton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Ambit Energy Holdings, LLC, Ambit New
York, LLC, and Ambit Northeast, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-06361
(W.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' budget
billing practices that fail to inform customers that their budget
payments are not covering all amounts due, and misrepresenting the
balance customers actually owe, and adding additional budget
billing settlement charges on customers' final bills that are in
addition to any balance owed.

The Defendants operate an energy service company that serves more
than 1 million electric and natural gas customers in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven L. Wittels, Esq.
      J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
      Tiasha Palikovic, Esq.
      WITTELS LAW, P.C.
      18 Half Mile Road
      Armonk, NY 10504
      Telephone: (914) 319-9945
      Facsimile: (914) 273-2563
      E-mail: slw@wittelslaw.com
              jbm@wittelslaw.com
              tpalikovic@wittelslaw.com


AMERI-FORCE: Illegally Obtains Credit Report, "Solis" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Solis, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly
situated v. Ameri-Force Management Services, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-01310 (S.D. Cal., June 15, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to provide the class with stand-alone
written disclosures before obtaining a credit or background
report.

Ameri-Force Management Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that owns and operates a staffing and recruiting firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      SET AREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907 5
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
              tuvia@setarehlaw.com


AMERICAN NATIONAL STANDARDS: "Warman" Lawsuit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California dismissed the
complaint in the case captioned, JORDAN WARMAN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN
NATIONAL STANDARDS INSTITUTE, Defendant, Case No. 15CV907-LAB
(JMA) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jordan Warman filed this putative class action against
the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), alleged to be a
New York corporation with its headquarters in Washington, D.C.
Warman brought claims under both the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act and New York state law, and alleged he worked in Washington,
D.C., Maryland, and New Jersey when his claims arose. The
complaint's sole allegation concerning jurisdiction merely said
"Venue in this Court was proper because ANSI regularly conducted
business and employed employees throughout the country, including
California. In response, Warman contended that venue was proper
because it was likely that numerous unnamed class members were
currently working for ANSI in the Southern District of California.

Judge Burns, in the Order dated May 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/to9BbJfrom Leagle.com, dismissed the complaint
without prejudice due to improper venue. Claims of unnamed class
members were irrelevant to the question of specific jurisdiction.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
     AMARTIN LAW, PC
     600 West Broadway, Suite 700
     San Diego, CA 92101

Defendant is represented by Cheryl Ann Sabnis, Esq. --
csabnis@kslaw.com -- KING & SPALDING LLP


APOGEE RETAIL: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marina E. Martinez and Esdras Rafael Sanchez Soriano, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Apogee Retail
LLC and Apogee Retail NY LLC d/b/a Unique Thrift Stores, Case No.
2:15-cv-03446 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a chain of retail establishments that
specializes in pre-owned clothes and household goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Court Trims Claims in "Klune" Action
------------------------------------------------------
Bozena Klune filed a putative class action against Ashley
Furniture for violation of the FLSA and various individual claims
in this case on December 19, 2014 in the case captioned, Bozena
Klune, v. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. CV-15-1003 PA (FFMX) (N.D. Cal.).

The First Amended Complaint included individual claims for (1)
violations of Cal. Lab. Code Sections 96(d), 98.6, 232, 232.5, and
1102.5(c); (2) wrongful termination in violation of public policy
or statute; (3) harassment based on age, sex, national
origin/ancestry, medical conditions, and actual and perceived
physical disabilities; (4) discrimination and retaliation based on
age, sex, national origin/ancestry, medical conditions, and actual
and perceived physical disabilities in violation of Cal. Gov. Code
Sections 12940(a) and 12940(h); (5) failure to accommodate in
violation of Cal. Gov. Code Section 12940(m); (6) failure to
engage in the interactive process in violation of Cal. Gov. Code
Section 12940(n); (7) failure to prevent discrimination and
harassment in violation of Cal. Gov. Code Section 12940(k); (8)
breach of contract; (9) estoppel; (10) negligent
misrepresentation; (11) assault and battery; and (12) defamation.
Claims 13 through 23 were wage and hour claims brought by
Plaintiff individually and on behalf of a putative class.

District Judge Percy Anderson of the United States District Court
for Northern District of California in the Order dated May 14,
2015 available at http://is.gd/UkqN1sfrom Leagle.com, dismissed
without prejudice the putative class claims 13 through 23. The
Court determined that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over
claims 1 through 12 and, in the alternative, that those claims
substantially predominate over claims 13 through 23. The pending
Motions to Remand and for Judgment on the Pleadings were denied as
moot.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     I Benjamin Blady, Esq.
     BLADY WEINREB LAW GROUP LLP
     6310 San Vicente Blvd #400
     Los Angeles, CA 90048
     Tel:(323)933-1352

Defendants are represented by:

     Elizabeth C. Nguyen, Esq.
     John Kevin Lilly, Esq.
     Sam Sani, Esq.
     Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
     LITTLER MENDELSON PC
     E-mail: enguyen@littler.com
             klilly@littler.com
             ssani@littler.com
             slidman@littler.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Denies Settlement Objectors' Bid for Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Kirby and Susan House sought attorneys' fees and incentive
awards, and objected to the settlement agreement in the case
captioned, STEPHANIE ROSE, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., and FIA
CARD SERVICES, N.A., Defendants. CAROL DUKE and JACK POSTER, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA, CORP.; and FIA CARD
SERVICES, N.A., Defendants, Case No. 5:11-CV-02390-EJD (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs Stephanie Rose, Sandra Ramirez, Shannon Johnson, Amin
Makin, Carol Duke, Jack Poster, and Freddericka Bradshaw initiated
a class action lawsuit against Bank of America Corp., Bank of
America, N.A., and FIA Card Services, N.A. alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The parties reached
a settlement agreement resolving six actions alleging that Bank of
America engaged in a systematic practice of calling or texting
consumers' cell phones through the use of automatic telephone
dialing systems and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice without
their prior express consent, in violation of the TCPA.

On March 31, 2014, Kirby et al. filed their objection to the
settlement agreement arguing that the compensation offered to
class members was too low, the injunctive relief did not benefit
the class, the attorneys' fee request was excessive, and the quick
pay provision for attorneys' fees elevated class counsel's
interests over those of the class. The Objectors sought
$393,311.24 in attorneys' fees, and an incentive award of $2,000
each.

District Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California in the Order dated May
18, 2015, available at http://is.gd/adOzzxfrom Leagle.com, denied
Objectors' attorneys' fee request, finding it to be unwarranted
and unreasonable.  The Court said the Objectors' counsel failed to
comply with Civil Local Rule 54-5(b), which required that a motion
for attorneys' fees include a statement of the services rendered
by each person for whose services fees are claimed along with a
summary of the time spent by each person, a statement describing
the manner in which time records were maintained, a brief
description of the relevant qualifications and experiences, and a
statement of the customary hourly charges of each person. Without
this supporting documentation, the Court cannot assess the
reasonableness of the fee request which on its face appears
extraordinarily high.

Plaintiff is represented by Douglas James Campion, Esq. -- Law
Offices of Douglas J. Campion, Beth E. Terrell, Esq. --
bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC,
Daniel M. Hutchinson, Esq. -- dhutchinson@lchb.com -- Douglas I.
Cuthbertson, Esq. -- dcuthbertson@lchb.com -- Jonathan David
Selbin, Esq. -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Nicole Diane Sugnet, Esq. --
nsugnet@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP, Joshua
B. Swigart, Esq. -- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE &
SWIGART, and:


     Mark Daniel Ankcorn, Esq.
     ANKCORN LAW FIRM
     11622 El Camino Real #100
     San Diego, CA 92130
     Tel: (619)870-0600

          - and -

     Matthew Ryan Wilson, Esq. -- mwilson@meyerwilson.com -- MEYER
WILSON CO., LPA;

          - and -

     Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Ave D-1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (800)400-6808

Defendant is represented by Felicia Yangru Yu, Esq. --
fyu@reedsmith.com -- Marc Albert Lackner, Esq. --
mlackner@reedsmith.com -- Abraham Joshua Colman, Esq. --
acolman@reedsmith.com -- Benjamin David Spohn, Esq. --
bspohn@reedsmith.com -- David S. Reidy, Esq. --
dreidy@reedsmith.com -- Jordan Seungjin Yu, Esq. --
jyu@reedmsith.com -- Matthew James Brady, Esq. --
mbrady@reedsmith.com -- Raymond Yoon Ho Kim Esq. --
rkim@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH, LLP


BANK OF AMERICA: Green Jacobson Removed as Lead Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------
IN RE BANK OF AMERICA CORP. SECURITIES LITIGATION, CASE NO. 4:99-
MD-1264-CEJ, (E.D. Mo.) is before the Court on the motions of
David P. Oetting, the representative of the NationsBank classes,
for appointment of a new lead counsel and for appointment of a
separate bankruptcy counsel, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-
4(a)(3)(B)(v). Also before the Court is the cross-motion of two
former named partners of the now-defunct lead class counsel law
firm, Green Jacobson, P.C., seeking appointment as co-lead class
counsel.

Oetting raises two issues in the instant motions: First, he
requests the appointment of Frank H. Tomlinson as new lead class
counsel because Green Jacobson Firm is no longer in existence, is
in receivership, and is involved in an involuntary Chapter 7
bankruptcy proceeding. Though they represent no class member in
this litigation, Martin M. Green and Joe D. Jacobson (who now
practice in separate firms) oppose Oetting's motion and move to
have themselves appointed as co-lead class counsel. Second,
Oetting moves for the appointment of Daniel D. Doyle as special
bankruptcy counsel to represent the classes in the Green Jacobson
Firm's bankruptcy proceedings.

District Judge Carol E. Jackson, in his memorandum and order
entered May 29, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1BoOJizfrom Leagle.com, ruled that:

* Green Jacobson, P.C. is removed as lead counsel to the
NationsBank classes.

* the motion to appoint Martin M. Green and Joe D. Jacobson as co-
lead counsel for the NationsBank classes is denied.

* the motion for appointment of a special bankruptcy counsel is
denied.

Within 30 days, David P. Oetting must file a supplemental
memorandum in support of his motion for the appointment of Frank
H. Tomlinson as lead counsel for the NationsBank classes that
addresses the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(g)(1)(A)-(B) and the issue of conflict of interest, Judge
Jackson added.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Larin" Class Action Dismissal Upheld
------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Larin took an appeal from the district court's dismissal
of his putative class action complaint for failure to state a
claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
ruling on June 4, 2015, in a memorandum, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1BoPrw4from Leagle.com.

The Ninth Circuit said the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing the case with prejudice, given Larin's
multiple opportunities for amendment.

The case is EDUARDO LARIN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 12-57288.


BEAVEX INC: "Lopez" FCRA Action Goes to N.D. Georgia
----------------------------------------------------
BeavEx Incorporated and LFL Enterprises, LLC asked the District
Court for the Northern District of California to transfer to the
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1404, the venue of the case captioned, LEOBARDO
LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BEAVEX, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
C 15-00550 JSW (N.D. Cal.).

Leobardo Lopez filed this purported class action against
Defendants under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff
alleged that BeavEx violated the FCRA by obtaining consumer
reports for employment purposes as part of the application process
for new employees, without providing the required disclosures and
signed authorizations.  Plaintiff alleged that Proforma, a
consumer reporting agency, provided consumer reports to BeavEx and
other consumer report users for purposes of evaluating applicants
for employment.

Plaintiff applied for a position with BeavEx on September 11, 2011
in Union City, California. Plaintiff sought statutory and punitive
damages on behalf of the purported class.

Defendants sought to have the Court transfer this action to the
Northern District of Georgia.

California District Judge Jeffrey S. White, in the Opinion dated
May 20, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1JmGTXLfrom Leagle.com,
granted Defendants' motion to transfer to the case, finding that
the majority of factors weighed in favor of transfer and that the
Defendants met their burden of demonstrating that the action
should be transferred to the Northern District of Georgia.

Defendants are represented by Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. --
rfliegel@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON; and Pamela Q. Devata,
Esq. -- pdevata@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Novoa May File Further Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe signed on June 3, 2015, a
stipulation and order in the case captioned LUIS NOVOA,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:13-CV-01302-AWI-BAM, (E.D. Cal.).

Mr. Novoa filed his Complaint against Charter Communications in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Stanislaus. On
August 16, 2013, Defendant removed the action to the Eastern
District of California Court. A first amended complaint was filed
on October 31, 2013.  The Plaintiff seeks to file his Second
Amended Complaint which adds Michael Alvarez, Brian Belote-Dinford
and Trevor Grant as additional class representatives.

Accordingly, the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1G9AuLlfrom Leagle.com, provides that
the Plaintiff may file his Second Amended Complaint, and the
Defendant's response will be due 30 days after the Second Amended
Complaint is filed.

All dates previously set remain in effect.

David R. Markham, THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM, San Diego, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

Stuart C. Talley, KERSHAW CUTTER & RATINOFF, Sacramento,
California.

Joseph Cho, Autumn E. Love, Ronald H. Bae, AEQUITAS LAW GROUP, Los
Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff.

Thomas Kaufman, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP, Los
Angeles, CA, Attorney for Defendant.


CHICAGO: Education Board Appeals Class Cert Ruling in Layoff Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Milton I. Shadur granted the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, for injunctive relief and for
damages in the case captioned CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION, LOCAL 1,
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO, TERRI FELLS, LILLIAN
EDMONDS, and JOSEPHINE HAMILTON PERRY; individually and on behalf
of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BOARD OF
EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a body politic and corporate,
Defendant, Case No.: 12 C 10338, (N.D. Ill.)

Chicago Teachers Union, Local 1 and three individual teachers
filed suit against the Board of Education of the City of Chicago
claiming that Board violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 when it carried out a large-scale series of layoffs that
resulted in the termination of employment of a great many African
American teachers and paraprofessionals. Plaintiffs moved for
certification of their lawsuit as a class action, for injunctive
relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and for damages under Rule
23(b)(3), or in the alternative for certification of their
designated class for resolution of the issue of liability under
Rule 23(c)(4).  They seek to certify a class of "All African
American persons whose employment as a tenured teacher or staff
member, as defined by the collective bargaining agreement between
the Chicago Teachers Union and the Board of Education of the City
of Chicago, was terminated by the Board of Education pursuant to
its 'layoff policy' in 2011."

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 22, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/JZsbVpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Shadur granted the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification for injunctive relief.
The court certified the plaintiff class as: "All African American
persons whose employment as a tenured teacher or staff member, as
defined by the collective bargaining agreement between the Chicago
Teachers Union and the Board of Education of the City of Chicago,
was terminated by the Board of Education pursuant to its "layoff
policy" in 2011."

According to the judge, that class' common claim is that Board
terminated their employment as CPS employees in violation of Title
VII by selecting schools for layoffs in such a way that the
layoffs created a disparate impact on African American employees.
If the Board is found liable under either an intentional or
disparate impact theory of discrimination, the District Court will
take up the common question of what injunctive relief is
appropriate -- and thereafter any remaining damages claims will
either be severed or tried together to a jury following
appropriate notice and the opportunity to opt out being given to
class members.

The Court appointed as class counsel the law firm of Robin Potter
& Associates, P.C. and the Mandel Legal Aid Clinic of the
University of Chicago.

                           *     *     *

The Chicago Board of Education has filed a Fed. R. Civ. P. (Rule)
23(f) petition for interlocutory review in the case.  The District
Court's May 22, 2015 comprehensive memorandum opinion and order --
that in principal part granted the motion of the Teachers Union
and the individual plaintiffs for class certification -- concluded
by setting the next status hearing for June 1.  On that date, the
status hearing was reset to June 15.  Then on June 5, exactly 14
days after the Court's issued its Opinion, the Board filed a
petition for interlocutory review, although Board's counsel did
not comply with the District Court's Local Rule 5.2(f) that
required the prompt delivery of a paper copy of that and all other
court filings to the chambers of the assigned judge.

In a Memorandum dated June 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/KGMGRLfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Shadur said he
expressed no substantive view on the petition, but believed that
it would have been remiss if it did not bring that noncompliance
to the attention of the Court of Appeals.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robin B. Potter, Esq.
     ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES P.C.
     111 E Upper Wacker Dr
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312)861-1800

The Board of Education is represented by Cary E. Donham, Esq. --
cdonham@taftlaw.com -- John J. Hagerty, Esq. --
jhagerty@taftlaw.com  -- Sherri L. Thornton-Pierce, Esq. --
sthornton@taftlaw.com  -- Daniel Reza Saeedi, Esq. --
dsaeedi@taftlaw.com -- Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP; Cheryl J.
Colston, Esq., Board of Education of the City of Chicago; Susan
Margaret O'Keefe, Esq., of Chicago Board of Education; and Susan
L. Poll-Klaessy, Esq. -- spollklaessy@foley.com -- Shefsky &
Froelich.


CHURCH OF GOD IN CHRIST: Illinois Court Dismisses "Johnson" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois dismissed Plaintiff's
complaint in the case captioned, ANDRE JOHNSON, individually and
on behalf of more than 50 other Credentialed Delegates of the
General Assembly of the Church of God in Christ, Inc., Plaintiff,
v. JAMES W. HUNT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-8986 (N.D.
Ill.).

Andre Johnson (Plaintiff) brought the suit on behalf of himself
and "more than 50 other credentialed delegates of the General
Assembly of the Church of God in Christ, Inc." against the Church
of God in Christ, Inc. (the Church), James W. Hunt, Sr., Charles
E. Blake, Sr., Phillip Aquina Brooks II, Lawrence H. Winbush,
Frank O. White, and Jerry Wayne. The complaint sought declaratory
and injunctive relief related to internal disputes regarding
Church governance. Plaintiff's complaint asserts that the Court
possesses both federal question jurisdiction over this suit under
28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a).

District Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the United States District
Court For N. D. Illinois in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
May 26, 2015 available at http://is.gd/R3vqqrfrom Leagle.com,
dismissed without prejudice Plaintiff's complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff failed to meet his burden
of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the value of
the relief he seeks exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew Robert Wildermuth, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW R. WILDERMUTH
     33 N LaSalle St #1900
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312)425-2500

Appellant is represented by William J. Raleigh, Esq. --
wraleigh@nisen.com -- Carly Vandewalle Gibbs, Esq. --
cgibbs@nisen.com -- NISEN & ELLIOTT


CISNEROS NEWS: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Martinez, on behalf of himself and a class of similarly
situated persons v. Raul Cisneros d/b/a Cisneros News Agency, Case
No. 2015-CH-09136 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June 10, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violations of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

Raul Cisneros owns Cisneros News Agency, a newspaper warehouse
located at 4820 South California, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
      Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
      332 South Michigan, Suite 1020
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312)957 -9005
      Facsimile: (888)826-5848
      E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com
              pgonzalez@law-rb.com


COLTON'S STEAK: July 30 Final Hearing on Harvill Suit Deal Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Ross issued a memorandum and order, a copy
of which is available at http://bit.ly/1LyQcmEfrom Leagle.com, in
the case captioned LUCAS HARVILL, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PHELPS COUNTY RESTAURANT,
LLC d/b/a COLTON'S STEAK HOUSE & GRILL, and CHRIS MORGAN,
Defendants, NO. 4:14-CV-1444 JAR, (E.D. Mo.).

Judge Ross' June 8, 2015 ruling granted the parties' Joint Motion
for (1) Certification of a Class For Settlement Purposes; (2)
Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement; and
(3) Approval of the Notice to Class Members.

For purposes of settlement, two separate classes are certified:
(a) all persons who opted into the lawsuit on Count I of the
Complaint by filing a consent-to-join form with the Court on or
before April 24, 2015; and (b) all persons who worked for Colton's
at any time from August 19, 2012 to July 31, 2014 and whose
compensation included receiving tips and/or who participated in a
tip pool or tip sharing arrangement.

The parties' proposed class notice will serve as notice in this
case. The Court directed the class counsel to send the notice to
the class members by first class mail.

The Court will hold a final fairness hearing on Thursday, July 30,
2015 at 2:00 p.m., for purposes of determining whether final
approval of the Class Settlement Agreement is appropriate, whether
Class Counsel fairly and adequately protected the interests of the
Settlement Class, and whether Class Counsel's attorney's fees,
costs, and expenses should be approved by the Court.

The Court's June 3, 2015 Order was vacated.

Lucas Harvill, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated,, Plaintiff, represented by Russell C. Riggan --
russ@rigganlawfirm.com -- RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC & Samuel W. Moore
-- smoore@rigganlawfirm.com -- RIGGAN LAW FIRM, LLC.

Phelps County Restaurant LLC, doing business as Colton's Steak
House & Grill, Defendant, represented by Jonathan C. Browning,
MARIEA AND SIGMUND & Dougglas A. Stultz, MARIEA AND SIGMUND LLC.

Chris Morgan, Defendant, represented by Jonathan C. Browning,
MARIEA AND SIGMUND & Dougglas A. Stultz, MARIEA AND SIGMUND LLC.


CONTINENTAL AIR: Appeal From Oruta Suit Dismissal Order Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
LARRY ORUTA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CONTINENTAL AIR TRANSPORT,
INC., et al., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-3782 (7th Cir.),
appeals from the dismissal of a civil complaint for failure to
state a claim for relief.

Mr. Oruta purported to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and one other, raising disparate allegations in which he
alludes to deficiencies in state proceedings for workers'
compensation, an unlawful arrest, and exposure to asbestos in
county jail. The district court described the complaint as
"incomprehensible," dismissed it without prejudice for failure to
state a claim for relief, and identified other defects relating to
Oruta's attempt to bring a class action. Oruta amended his
complaint, restyling it as one under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and
naming only himself as the plaintiff. The district court concluded
that Oruta had not cured the deficiencies identified in its
earlier order and dismissed the suit with prejudice.

On appeal, Mr. Oruta contests the district court's ruling and
insists that he rectified the court's concerns by dropping his
fellow plaintiff and abandoning his attempt to pursue a class
action.

In its order entered June 4, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1LmWypmfrom Leagle.com, the United States Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit, dismissed the appeal saying "Oruta may
have fixed those two issues, but he has not articulated any reason
to disturb the district court's conclusion that the allegations in
his amended complaint do not give rise to any cognizable federal
claim. Because Oruta fails to illuminate how his amended complaint
alleges sufficient facts to state a plausible claim for relief, we
are left with nothing to review and thus dismiss the appeal.

Judges: JOEL M. FLAUM, FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, MICHAEL S. KANNE


COUNTRYWIDE HOME: Renewed Class Cert. Bid in "Buckley" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification in the
case, RANDALL D. BUCKLEY, an individual man; and JUNE TAYLOR, an
individual woman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS, INC., a New York
corporation; and COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation, Defendants, Case No. CO8-1200RSM (W.D. Wash.).

Buckley was a personal homeowner who brought suit against
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. and Countrywide Financial Corporation
under the Washington Consumer Protection Act, (CPA), RW Section
19.86.010. Plaintiff alleged that Countrywide changed the terms of
a home mortgage refinance transaction without informing Plaintiff
before they closed the deal.

Buckley renewed a prior motion for class certification arguing
that new evidence demonstrates common issues predominate amongst
the proposed class and a class action would be superior to other
methods of resolving this case. Defendants responded that the
evidence upon which Plaintiff now relied was available at the time
he made his previous motion, but he chose to pursue certification
under a different theory.  Defendants further responded that the
instant motion was untimely for several reasons and that the Court
need not reach a substantive analysis of the issues raised.

District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, in the Order dated
May 20, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1Jhkk8Efrom Leagle.com,
denied Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification finding
that the motion was not timely. The Court ordered the Clerk to
issue a Scheduling Order and for Plaintiff to proceed
individually.

Plaintiff is represented by Ari Y. Brown, Esq. -- ari@hbsslaw.com,
Steve W. Berman, Esq. -- berman@hbsslaw.com -- Thomas E. Loeser,
Esq. -- loeser@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Kim
D. Stephens, Esq. -- kstephens@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN
STEPHENS

Defendants are represented by:

     Brooks R. Brown, Esq.
     Thomas M. Hefferon, Esq.
     Tim J. Filer, Esq.
     FOSTER PEPPER LLC
     3rd Ave #3400
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206)447-4697


CRC INSURANCE: "Chapman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanne Chapman, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. CRC Insurance Services, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-80851 (S.D.
Fla., June 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

CRC Insurance Services, Inc. owns and operates a wholesale
insurance business with more than 20 office locations throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      2300 Glades Road Suite 360W
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (888) 505-9941
      Facsimile: (561) 807-0020
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


CREDIT CORP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Strout" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Strout, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Credit Corp Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-04521 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of contacting consumers in their cellular telephone using
an automatic telephone dialing system.

Credit Corp Solutions, Inc. is engaged in the business that loans
money to consumers.

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


DAIRY FARMERS: "O'Connor" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nancy Torresen of the United States District Court
for the District of Maine granted Plaintiffs' motion for
conditional certification of a collective action pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b) in the case captioned, CHRISTOPHER O'CONNOR,
KEVIN O'CONNOR, JAMES ADAM COX, MICHAEL FRASER, and ROBERT
McNALLY, Plaintiffs, v. OAKHURST DAIRY and DAIRY FARMERS OF
AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case Nos. 2:14-00192-NT (D. Maine).

The Plaintiffs were current and former Maine-based drivers for
Oakhurst Dairy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Dairy Farmers of
America, Inc.  Oakhurst bottles milk and produced other dairy
products from a facility in Portland, Maine. The Plaintiffs
alleged that Oakhurst misclassification their job designation as
"route salesmen," when in fact they operated as delivery drivers.
Plaintiffs sought unpaid overtime for hours worked in excess of
forty hours per week, as required by 29 U.S.C. Section 207.

The Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of the following
FLSA collective: all persons who are employed or have been
employed by Defendant Oakhurst as delivery drivers based in the
State of Maine at any time since three years prior to the filing
of the Complaint, May 5, 2014.

The Defendants objected on the grounds that: (1) the Plaintiffs'
declarations established that they did not share similar job
duties and pay provisions; (2) the alleged misclassification was
not a "policy" or "practice" sufficient to support conditional
certification; and (3) their defenses based on FLSA exemptions
required fact-intensive, individualized inquiries.

Judge Torresen, in the Order dated May 22, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/li8YGNfrom Leagle.com, granted Plaintiffs' motion
for conditional certification of the following FLSA collective:
all persons who are employed or have been employed by defendant
Oakhurst as delivery drivers based in the State of Maine at any
time since three years prior to the filing of the Complaint, May
5, 2014. The Court ordered the Defendants to provide employee
information; authorized the Plaintiffs to circulate the Notice and
Consent Form to all potential collective action members;
authorized the Plaintiffs to post the Notice and Consent Form on
the Johnson, Webbert & Young website; and authorized the
Defendants to post the Notice and Consent Form at their four Maine
base locations.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Carol Garvan, Esq.
     Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
     Roberta L. De Araujo, Esq.
     JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP
     160 Capitol St #3
     Augusta, ME 04332
     Tel: (207)623-5110

Defendants are represented by Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. --
patricj.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Danielle Y. Vanderzanden,
Esq. -- danielle.vanderzanden@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE,
DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.


DEER CONSUMER: Bid to Centralize Pretrial Proceedings Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In IN RE: DEER CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION.
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, MDL NO.
2628, before the Panel is Defendants Goldman Kurland and Mohidin,
LLP, and Ahmed Mohidin's (collectively, the Auditor Defendants)
motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407 to centralize pretrial
proceedings in this litigation in the Central District of
California. This litigation consists of two actions, one pending
in the District of Arizona and one in the Central District of
California.  None of the other parties in these actions responded
to the Auditor Defendants' motion.

Chair Sarah S. Vance, in an order dated June 8, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://bit.ly/1LyTjevfrom Leagle.com,
concluded that centralization will not serve the convenience of
the parties and witnesses or further the just and efficient
conduct of this litigation.

"These actions do share factual questions arising from allegations
that Deer Consumer Products, Inc. (Deer) and other defendants,
including the Auditor Defendants, made false and/or misleading
statements with respect to Deer's operations, revenue, and net
income. But where only a minimal number of actions are involved,
the proponent of centralization bears a heavier burden to
demonstrate that centralization is appropriate," she said.  "The
Auditor Defendants have not met that burden here. There are only
two actions, and they are in adjacent districts and involve a
common defendant. Only one action is a putative class action.
Voluntary cooperation and coordination among the parties and the
involved courts thus seems a preferable alternative to
centralization. We encourage the parties to employ various
alternatives to transfer which may minimize the potential for
duplicative discovery and inconsistent pretrial rulings."

Hence, the motion for centralization of these actions is denied,
ruled the Court.


DELTA DENTAL: Faces "Dumas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Helena Dumas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Delta Dental Plans Association, Case No. 1:15-cv-05258
(N.D. Ill., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Headquartered in Lisle, Illinois, Delta Dental Plans Association
is the largest dental benefits carrier in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 201-0575
      Facsimile: (312) 332-0600
      E-mail: cpsons@bormeslaw.com
              bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

      Thomas Michael Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS RYAN
      35 E. Wacker Drive, #650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 726-3400
      E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com


DERIVATIVE PORTFOLIO: Cayman Law Applies to Plaintiffs' Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, KENNETH M. KRYS, MARGOT MACINNIS, and THE
HARBOUR TRUST CO. LTD., Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT AARON, DERIVATIVE
PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT LLC, DPM-MELLON, LLC, DERIVATIVE PORTFOLIO
MANAGEMENT, LTD., DPM-MELLON, LTD, and BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 14-2098 (JBS/AMD)(D.N.J.), the
parties sought a pretrial determination of whether the law of the
Cayman Islands or of New Jersey/New York will apply to the
fiduciary duty claims against a former director of SPhinX, namely,
Robert Aaron.

In 2002, PlusFunds created SPhinX, a global hedge fund consisting
of approximately seventy Cayman Islands funds, as an investment
vehicle to track the Standard & Poor's hedge fund index. One of
the seventy SPhinX funds, SPhinX Managed Futures Fund, in turn,
maintained brokerage accounts with the onshore and offshore
affiliates of Refco, a then-existing financial services and
brokerage firm. In connection with such accounts, PlusFunds agreed
to sweep any of SMFF's excess cash on deposit with Refco, LLC, the
onshore affiliate in New York, to Refco Capital Markets, Ltd, the
offshore affiliate in the Cayman Islands. After the revelation
that several of Refco's officers and directors participated in a
wide-scale, fraudulent underreporting of corporate liabilities,
however, Refco filed for bankruptcy on October 17, 2005. At that
time, Refco held $312 million of SMFF's excess cash in
unsegregated accounts, all of which the bankruptcy proceeding
placed beyond the reach of PlusFunds or SPhinX, and ultimately
caused these entities to file their own bankruptcy proceedings.

Plaintiffs Kenneth M. Krys and Margot Macinnis, the Joint Official
Liquidators of the SPhinX Trust, and The Harbour Trust Co. Ltd.,
the Trustee of the SPhinX Trust alleged in relevant part that one
of the former directors of SPhinX, Defendant Robert Aaron
facilitated the unauthorized movement of SMFF's excess cash into
unsegregated accounts with Refco and failed to take certain
corrective steps in the face of Refco's potential insolvency, in
breach of his fiduciary duty to SphinX.

Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey in the Opinion dated May 20, 2015
available at http://is.gd/7yYWCpfrom Leagle.com, granted
Defendants' motion and applied the Cayman Law to Plaintiffs' claim
against Mr. Aaron for breach of fiduciary duty. Judge Simandle
denied without prejudice Plaintiffs' cross motion.

Plaintiffs are respresented by:

     David J. Molton, Esq.
     Andrew S. Dash, Esq.
     Mason C. Simpson, Esq.
     BROWN RUDNICK LLP
     E-mail: dmolton@brownrudnick.com
             wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com
             msimpson@brownrudnick.com

          - and -

     Leo R. Beus, Esq.
     L. Richard Williams, Esq.
     Malcolm Loeb, Esq.
     Thomas A. Gilson, Esq.
     Lee M. Andelin, Esq.
     BEUS GILBERT PLLC
     701 N 44th St
     Phoenix, AZ 85008
     Tel: (480)429-3000

Defendants are represented by B. John Pendleton, Jr., Esq. --
john.pendleton@dlapiper.com -- Andrew O. Bunn, Esq. --
andrew.bunn@dlapiper.com -- Kristin A. Pacio, Esq. --
kristin.pacio@dlapiper.com -- Gina Trimarco, Esq. --
gina.trimarco@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP


DYCK-O'NEAL: Faces "Ward" Suit in Fla. Over Violation of FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kami Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00357-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla.,
June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory J. Guidish, Esq.
      William Justin Cottrell, Esq.
      COTTRELL LAW & TITLE GROUP
      Suite 5, 809 Walkerbilt Rd
      Naples, FL 34110
      Telephone: (239) 449-4888
      Facsimile: (239) 449-4894
      E-mail: gregory@wjc-law.com
              justin@wjc-law.com


EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Sued Over Wrongful Test Administration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julia Ellinghaus, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Educational Testing Service, and The College
Board, Case No. 2:15-cv-03442 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), is an
action that seeks monetary damages and declaratory and equitable
relief on behalf of all examinees of the June 6th Test, as a
result of the Defendants' defective administration and scoring of
the SAT (formerly known as the Scholastic Aptitude Test).

Educational Testing Service is a New Jersey corporation and is the
world's largest private nonprofit educational testing and
assessment organization.

The College Board is a New York nonprofit corporation that
provides of paid college entrance standardized examination
services in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
      768 Plandome Road 3
      Manhasset, NY 11030
      Telephone: (516) 426-6870
      Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
      E-mail: pcwhalen@gmail.com

         - and -

      Ariana J. Tadler, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Penn Plaza
      New York, NY 11030
      Telephone: (212) 594-5300
      Facsimile: (212) 868-122
      E-mail: atadler@milberg.com


FIDELITY AND DEPOSIT: Sued Over Failure to Tender Surety Bonds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amrish Rajagopalan, et al. v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of
Maryland and Platte River Insurance Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00957 (W.D. Wash., June 15, 2015), is an action for damages as a
proximate result of the Defendant's failure to investigate the
surety bond claims and refusal to tender the bonds to the Class.

The Defendants own and operate an insurance company that issues
regulatory and contractual surety bonds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Thomas E. Loeser, 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
              toml@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
      THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
      1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 626-4486
      Facsimile: (866) 734-0622
      E-mail: stuart@paynterlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Celeste H.G. Boyd, Esq.
      THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
      1340 Environ Way
      Chapel Hill NC 27517
      Telephone: (919) 636-7563
      Facsimile: (866) 734-0622
      E-mail: cboyd@paynterlawfirm.com


FLEMING & WISE: Faces "Knox" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lesa Knox v. Fleming & Wise Orthodontics, Ltd., et al., Case No.
5:15-cv-01195 (N.D. Ohio, June 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Fleming & Wise Orthodontics, Ltd. owns and operates a dental
clinic that specializes in orthodontics for children and adults.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      Ste. 1325, 815 Superior Avenue, E
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      Facsimile: (216) 621-1094
      E-mail: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com


FLOWERS BAKING: Court Denies Motion to Stay Class Notice
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT REHBERG, WILLARD ALLEN RILEY, and MARIO
RONCHETTI, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiffs, v. FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF JAMESTOWN,
LLC, and FLOWERS FOODS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-00596-
MOC-DSC (W.D.N.C.), pending before the District court were the
parties' Joint Proposed Class Notice, Defendants' Motion to Stay
Class Notice and Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to such
motion.

On March 24, 2015, the District court granted class certification
of Plaintiffs' North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23.  Defendants filed a petition pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(f) to appeal the certification order, which was
denied on May 21, 2015. Defendants asked the court to stay Class
Notice pending a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit on the interlocutory appeal.  That appeal was
considered as moot since the Fourth Circuit denied the petition
for permission to appeal.

Defendants asked the District court to consider staying class
notice until the court rules on Defendants' dispositive motions
which were due to be filed June 5, 2015.

District Judge Max O. Cogburn, in the Order dated May 22, 2015
available at http://is.gd/y0en9cfrom Leagle.com, denied
Defendants' Motion to Stay Class Notice. The court would not rule
on any dispositive motions in the case until all class members
were given notice and the opportunity to opt out of the litigation
as required by Rule 23(c)(2). Judge Cogburn ordered the parties to
submit briefs regarding the two areas of dispute identified in the
Proposed Class Notice within 14 days upon issuance of the Order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Shawn Justin Wanta, Esq. --
sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- Bryce Matthew Miller, Esq. --
bmmiller@baillonthome.com -- Ann Groninger, Esq. --
agroninger@baillonthome.com -- BAILLON THOME JOZWIAK & WANTA LLP

Defendants are represented by Anthony Craig Cleland, Esq --
craig.cleland@ogletreedeakins.com -- Kevin Patrick Hishta, Esq. --
kevin.hishta@ogletrredeakins.com -- Margaret Santen Hanrahan, Esq.
-- margaret.hanharan@ogletreedeakins.com -- and Benjamin Robert
Holland, Esq. -- benjamin.holland@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE
DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART PC


G4S SECURE: Faces "Frias" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Frias and Rosaly Ramirez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., Case
No. 9:15-cv-80847-DMM (S.D. Fla., June 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc. operates a security company that
specializes in the provision of security products, services and
solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Barry Solomon, Esq.
      MCLAUGLIN & STERN, LLP
      525 Okeechobee Blvd, Suite 1530
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Telephone: (561) 659-4020
      Facsimile: (561) 659-4438
      E-mail: nsolomon@mclaughlinstern.com


GEICO INSURANCE: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Prudhomme Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
GEICO Casualty Insurance Company and Government Employees
Insurance Company filed a Motion To Dismiss First Supplemental And
Amending Petition For Property Damages, Penalties, Attorneys Fees
And For Class Certification and Plaintiffs filed an Opposition
Memorandum in the case captioned, Prudhomme, et al. v. Geico
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 15-00098 (W.D. La.).

Prudhomme and Jack were involved in automobile accidents and were
both covered under an insurance policy issued by Defendants. Both
made claims against the collision provision of the policy.
Defendants tendered amount to the Plaintiffs way lower than the
valuation provided by NADA Valuation Reports. Plaintiffs filed a
classa action on December 2, 2014 for breach of their insurance
contract, statutory penalties and attorney's fees, and fraud.
Plaintiffs alleged that the CCC Valuescope resulted in unfairly
low valuations of vehicles, and that although GEICO was aware of
this fact, it refused to use the NADA and/or the Kelly Blue Book
values which were the generally accepted valuation tools. GEICO
argued that Plaintiffs' Complaint must be dismissed because they:
(1) have no standing to bring these claims against GEICO; (2) have
not alleged a plausible claim for a statutory violation, breach of
contract and/or fraud; (3) cannot pursue a claim under the
Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA); and (4) Prudhomme's
claims for penalties and attorney's fees are prescribed.

District Judge Richard T. Haik, Sr., in the Memorandum Order dated
May 14, 2015 available at http://is.gd/e8N12Hfrom Leagle.com,
denied Plaintiffs' Motion To Dismiss [Plaintiffs'] First
Supplemental And Amending Petition for Property Damages,
Penalties, Attorneys Fees and For Class Certification filed by
Defendants.


GREAT-WEST LIFE: Court Trims Claims in "Teets" Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6)  in the case captioned, JOHN TEETS, Plaintiff,
v. GREAT-WEST LIFE & ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 14-CV-2330-WJM-NYW (D. Colo.).

John Teets on behalf of a class of all participants in and
beneficiaries of retirement plans brought a putative class action
against Great-West Life and Annuity Insurance Company  alleging
that Defendant breached its fiduciary duty in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Plaintiff brought
three claims: (1) Defendant breached its fiduciary duty of loyalty
under ERISA Sections 502(a)(2)-(3) by setting the interest rate
artificially low and charging excessive fees in order to increase
its own profits; (2) Defendant engaged in self-dealing
transactions prohibited under ERISA Section 406(b); and (3)
Defendant caused the Plan to engage in prohibited transactions
with a party in interest in violation of ERISA Section 406(a).

In the Motion to Dismiss, Defendant raised two arguments that
Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed: (1) the Fund falls under
the guaranteed benefit policy ("GBP") exemption in ERISA, and thus
Defendant was not an ERISA fiduciary that could have breached any
fiduciary duties; and (2) Plaintiff's Claim 3 fails because
Defendant cannot be both a fiduciary and a party in interest under
ERISA Section 406(a).

Colorado District Judge William J. Martinez, in the Order dated
May 22, 2015 available at http://is.gd/wu8jVVfrom Leagle.com,
granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's
Claim 3 under ERISA Section 406(a), 29 U.S.C. Section 1106(a), and
that claim is dismissed without prejudice and denied in all other
aspects.

Plaintiff is respresented by Garrett W. Wotkyns, Esq. --
gwotkyns@schneiderwallace.com -- Todd Michael Schneider, Esq. --
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- Mark T. Johnson, Esq. --
MJohnson@schneiderwallace.com -- Michael Craig McKay, Esq. --
mmckay@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL BRAYTON
KONECKY; and

     Nina Rachel Wasow, Esq.
     Julie Hayden Wilensky, Esq.
     Todd Franklin Jackson, Esq.
     LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE & JACKSON, P.C.
     476 9th St, Oakland, CA 94607
     Tel: (510) 839-6824

          - and -

     Scot David Bernstein, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, P.C.
     101 Parkshore Drive Suite 100
     Folsom, CA 95630
     Tel: (916) 447-0100

Defendants are represented by Daniel Robert Thies, Esq. --
dthies@sidley.com -- Joel Stephen Feldman, Esq. --
jfeldman@sidley.com -- and Mark B. Blocker, Esq. --
mblocker@sidley.com  -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Edward Craig Stewart,
Esq. -- stewart@wtotrial.com -- WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL, LLP


HHGREGG INC: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stein, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. hhgregg, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00396 (S.D.
Ohio, June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

hhgregg, Inc. operates 220 retail stores throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. O'Hara, Esq.
      Aaron M. Beck, Esq.
      Megan E. Mersch, Esq.
      O'HARA, RUBERG, TAYLOR, SLOAN & SERGENT
      25 Town Center Blvd., Suite 201
      Covington, KY 41017
      Telephone: (859) 331-2000
      E-mail: mohara@ortlaw.com
              aaronbeck@ortlaw.com
              mmersch@ortlaw.com


HOYT LIVERY: Court Tossed FLSA Claims of Unresponsive Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROGER LASSEN, JR., individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. HOYT LIVERY,
INC., SANTO SILVESTRO, and LYNDA SILVESTRO, Defendants, Case No.
3:13-CV-01529 (VAB)(D. Conn.), Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss Opt-In Plaintiffs who have failed to participate in
discovery.

Plaintiffs brought a class action against Defendants under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Connecticut Minimum Wage
Act (CMWA). The Court conditionally certified a collective action
under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and certified a class action
under Rule 23 for the CMWA claim. Fifteen individuals opted in to
the FLSA collective while 41 individuals opted out of the CMWA
class. Some of the Opt-In Plaintiffs failed to meet the February
28 deadline for providing written responses to the Discovery
Requests. The Court held a Telephonic Status Conference with the
parties on March 3, 2015, during which such failure was discussed
and the Court issued an order that all Opt-In Plaintiffs must
provide written responses to Defendants' discovery requests by no
later than March 30, 2015. Five of the Opt-In Plaintiffs had still
not responded in any manner to the Discovery Requests: Jean
Menard, Jimmy Dominguez, Luis Chaves, Dion Stanfield, and Jorge
Cardona. Two other Opt-In Plaintiffs, Albert Profeta and Ragah
Matouk, did provide written responses to the Discovery Requests in
a timely manner, but only produced responsive documents on April
23, 2015.

Defendants moved to dismiss all seven of these Opt-In Plaintiffs
with prejudice. Plaintiffs' counsel conceded that the Unresponsive
Plaintiffs' FLSA claims should be dismissed, but argued that their
CMWA claims should survive, and fully opposed the motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs Profeta and Matouk.

District Judge Victor A. Bolden of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut in the Ruling dated May 15,
2015 available at http://is.gd/FK9XSCfrom Leagle.com, dismissed
with prejudice the claims of Plaintiffs Menard, Dominguez, Chaves,
Stanfield, and Cardona under the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Those
Plaintiffs were allowed to to continue to participate, to the
extent the Court deemed appropriate, as absent class members on
their claims under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act, if the Rule
23 class action remained certified. The Court denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs Profeta and Matouk because the Court
could not find that the Second Circuit's standards for dismissal
under Rule 41(b), discussed supra, have been met with respect to
Plaintiffs Profeta and Matouk.

Plaintiff is represented by Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq. --
apantuso@hayberlawfirm.com -- Erick Ignacio Diaz-Vazquez, Esq. --
ediaz@hayberlawfirm.com -- Margaret B. Ferron, Esq. --
mferron@hayberlawfirm.com -- Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq. --
rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC

Defendants are represented by Barry J. Miller, Esq. --
bmiller@seyfarth.com -- Anthony S. Califano, Esq. --
scalifano@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, Jan A. Marcus, Esq. --
jmarcus@kwcllp.com -- KEIDEL, WELDON & CUNNINGHAM, LLP


HOYT LIVERY: Court Denies Motion to Exclude Witness
---------------------------------------------------
Defendants moved to exclude or strike the Plaintiffs' proffered
expert witness designation in the case, ROGER LASSEN, JR.,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. HOYT LIVERY, INC., SANTO SILVESTRO, and
LYNDA SILVESTRO, Defendants, Case No. 3:13-CV-01529(VAB) (D.
Conn.).

Plaintiffs sued Hoyt Livery under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), and the Connecticut Minimum Wage Act (CMWA). Plaintiffs
claimed that Defendants violated the overtime-pay requirements of
the FLSA and the CMWA. The Court conditionally certified a
collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA, and certified
a class action under Rule 23 for the CMWA claim. Defendants argued
that Plaintiffs must prove that individual drivers worked more
than forty hours in at least one particular workweek. Plaintiffs
sought to proffer expert testimony as to Plaintiffs' damages,
based primarily on an analysis of documents produced to them by
Defendants on February 25, 2015 in response to requests propounded
on February 26, 2014.

District Judge Victor A. Bolden of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut in the Ruling dated May 15,
2015 available at http://bit.ly/1F0tl2Rfrom Leagle.com, denied
Defendant's motion to exclude or strike and instead, ordered the
parties to confer and submit for the Court's consideration a joint
proposed modified scheduling order. The proposal should include a
date by which Plaintiffs must provide the required expert report
from their proffered expert, as well as for disclosure of any
rebuttal experts from Defendants and for completion of expert
depositions. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to pay Defendants'
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees with respect to the
preparation for  two motions, not to exceed $250 as sanctions for
Plaintiff's failure to meet court deadlines.

Plaintiff is represented by Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq. --
apantuso@hayberlawfirm.com -- Erick Ignacio Diaz-Vazquez, Esq. --
ediaz@hayberlawfirm.com -- Margaret B. Ferron, Esq. --
mferron@hayberlawfirm.com; and Richard Eugene Hayber, Esq. --
rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC

Defendants are represented by Barry J. Miller, Esq. --
bmiller@seyfarth.com -- Anthony S. Califano, Esq. -
scalifano@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, Jan A. Marcus, Esq. -
jmarcus@kwcllp.com -- KEIDEL, WELDON & CUNNINGHAM, LLP


INTERMEX WIRE: Removed "Porras" Suit to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Claudia Porras and other similarly
situated individuals v. Intermex Wire Transfer, Inc., Case No.
15-11279CA01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-
Dade County to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-
cv-22263-RNS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
              agp@rgpattorneys.com


JEVIC HOLDING: Truck Drivers Lose 3rd Cir. Battle
-------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the
approval of a settlement in, and the structured dismissal of the
Chapter 11 bankruptcy case of Jevic Holding Corp., et al.

The case before the Third Circuit is captioned, OFFICIAL COMMITTEE
OF UNSECURED CREDITORS on behalf of the bankruptcy estates of
Jevic Holding Corp., et al., v. CIT GROUP/BUSINESS CREDIT INC., in
its capacity as Agent; SUN CAPITAL PARTNERS, INC.; SUN CAPITAL
PARTNERS IV, LP; SUN CAPITAL PARTNERS MANAGEMENT IV, LLC CASIMIR
CZYZEWSKI; MELVIN L. MYERS; JEFFREY OEHLERS; ARTHUR E. PERIGARD
and DANIEL C. RICHARDS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Appellants, NO. 14-1465 (3d Cir.).

A group of Jevic Transportation, Inc.'s terminated truck drivers
and the United States Trustee objected to the approval of a
settlement agreement and the structured dismissal of Jevic's
Chapter 11 case, mainly because it distributed assets of the
estate to creditors of lower priority than the Drivers under
Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code in violation of the Code's
"absolute priority rule."

The Third Circuit, however, concluded that the Bankruptcy Court
had sufficient reason to approve the settlement and structured
dismissal of Jevic's Chapter 11 case.  It held that this
disposition remained the least bad alternative since there was "no
prospect" of a plan of reorganization being confirmed and
conversion to Chapter 7 would have resulted in the secured
creditors taking all that remained of the estate in "short order."
The appellate court believed that the Bankruptcy Code permits a
structured dismissal, even one that deviates from the Section 507
priorities, when a bankruptcy judge makes sound findings of fact
that the traditional routes out of Chapter 11 are unavailable and
the settlement is the best feasible way of serving the interests
of the estate and its creditors.

A copy of the May 21, 2015 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/8ARpInfrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Appellants:

     Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
     Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     E-mail: jar@outtengolden.com
             RSR@outtengolden.com

          - and -

     Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
     LOIZIDES, P.A.
     1225 King Street, Suite 800
     Wilmington, DE 19801

Attorneys for Appellee Debtors:

     Domenic E. Pacitti, Esq.
     Linda Richenderfer, Esq.
     KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG
     919 Market Street, Suite 1000
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     E-mail: dpacitti@klehr.com
             lrichenderfer@klehr.com

Attorneys for Appellee Official Committee of, Unsecured Creditors:

     Robert J. Feinstein, Esq.
     PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES
     780 Third Avenue, 36th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     E-mail: rfeinstein@pszjlaw.com

          - and -

     James E. O'Neill III, Esq.
     PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES
     919 North Market Street, P.O. Box 8705, 17th Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     E-mail: joneill@pszjlaw.com

Attorneys for Appellee Sun Capital Partners IV, LP, Sun Capital
Partners, Inc., Sun Capital Partners, Management IV, LLC:

     Christopher Landau, Esq.
     James P. Gillespie, Esq.
     Jason R. Parish, Esq.
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS
     655 15th Street, N.W., Suite 1200
     Washington, DC 20005
     E-mail: christopher.landau@kirkland.com
             james.gillespie@kirkland.com
             jason.parish@kirkland.com

          - and -

     Danielle R. Sassoon, Esq.
     E-mail: danielle.sassoon@kirkland.com
     KIRKLAND & ELLIS
     601 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10022

          - and -

     Curtis S. Miller, Esq.
     MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
     1201 North Market Street, P.O. Box 1347
     Wilmington, DE 19899
     E-mail: cmiller@mnat.com

Attorneys for Appellee CIT Group Business Credit Inc.:

     Tyler P. Brown, Esq.
     Shannon E. Daily, Esq.
     HUNTON & WILLIAMS
     951 East Byrd Street, 13th Floor
     East Tower, Riverfront Plaza
     Richmond, VA 23219
     E-mail: tpbrown@hunton.com
             sdaily@hunton.com

          - and -

     Richard P. Norton, Esq.
     HUNTON & WILLIAMS
     200 Park Avenue, 52nd Floor
     New York, NY 10166
     E-mail: rnorton@hunton.com

Attorneys for Amicus Curiae:

     Ramona D. Elliott, Esq.
     P. Matthew Sutko, Esq.
     Wendy L. Cox, Esq.
     United States Department of Justice
     441 G Street, N.W., Suite 6150
     Washington, DC 20530

Based in Delanco, New Jersey, Jevic Transportation Inc. --
http://www.jevic.com/-- provided trucking services.  Two
affiliates -- Jevic Holding Corp. and Creek Road Properties --
have no assets or operations.  Jevic et al. sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 08-11008) on May 20, 2008.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Cal. Court Won't Revive "Davidson" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) to reconsider the order granting
defendants' motion to dismiss the first amended complaint ("FAC")
and the judgment entered in this case on December 19, 2014 in the
case captioned, JENNIFER DAVIDSON, Plaintiff, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK
CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. C-14-1783 PJH (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Jennifer Davidson filed a putative class action on March
13, 2014, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, alleging that defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation,
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc., and Kimberly-Clark Global Sales
LLC had falsely advertised that cleansing cloths (wipes) they
manufactured and sold under four different brand names are
"flushable." Plaintiff asserted claims under the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code; the False Advertising
Law (FAL), California Business & Professions Code; and the Unfair
Business Practices Act (UCL), California Business & Professions;
plus a claim of common law fraud, deceit and/or misrepresentation.
Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint (FAC) on September 5,
2014. Kimberly-Clark moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, and moved to strike
certain allegations in the FAC. On December 19, 2014, the court
issued an order granting the motions. On January 16, 2015,
plaintiff filed motion seeking reconsideration under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b).

In the motion, Plaintiff contended that reconsideration of the
court's final order is warranted for three main reasons:

     (1) because the court dismissed the claim for injunctive
relief rather than remanding it to the San Francisco Superior
Court as plaintiff had requested;

     (2) because the court dismissed the complaint with prejudice
rather than granting leave to amend to allege additional facts
showing why the wipes are not "flushable;";  and

     (3) because the court committed error in ruling that
plaintiff had not adequately pled damages.

District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, in the Order dated May 15,
2015 available at http://bit.ly/1BllU1gfrom Leagle.com, denied
plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the judgment. Plaintiff, the
Court said, had not presented any newly discovered evidence, had
not shown that the court committed clear error or that the
dismissal was manifestly unjust, and had not shown any intervening
change in the controlling law. Nor had plaintiff established
mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect; provided
newly discovered evidence which, with reasonable diligence, could
not previously have been discovered; or articulated any other
reason that justifies relief.

Plaintiff is represented by Seth Adam Safier, Esq. --
seth@gutridesafier.com -- Adam Gutride, Esq. --
adam@gutridesafier.com -- Kristen Gelinas Simplicio, Esq. --
kristen@gutridesafier.com -- Marie Ann McCrary, Esq. --
marie@gutridesafier.com -- GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP

Defendants are represented by Amy P. Lally, Esq. --
alally@sidley.com -- Emily Z. Culbertson, Esq. --
eculbertson@sidley.com -- Naomi Ariel Igra, Esq. --
nigra@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP


LAKE COUNTY, IL: Trial Court Order in Suit v Vanderventer Flipped
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Anne M. Burke of the Supreme Court for Illinois reversed
trial court's order and remanded proceedings in the case
captioned, JASON S. MARKS et al., Appellees, v. MARY ELLEN
VANDERVENTER et al., Appellants, Case No. 116226, 116825 CONS.
2015 IL 116226 (Ill.).

Jason Marks and Lauren Marks filed their complaint against Mary
Ellen Vanderventer, recorder of deeds of Lake County, and Lake
County itself, alleging that the preamended version of the $10
Rental Housing Support Program state surcharge was
unconstitutional. They asserted that the statute created an
unconstitutional fee office in violation of article VII, section
9(a), of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. Plaintiffs also
alleged that the statute violated the equal protection and due
process clauses as well as the uniformity clause in the state
constitution. Plaintiffs requested relief in the form of a refund
of the surcharges paid by them, exemplary damages, attorney fees,
and costs. The trial court certified a class of plaintiffs and a
class of defendants consisting of the recorders of deeds in each
of the counties in the state. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
partial summary judgment  and the trial court granted the motion
and held that the statute, as written, created an impermissible
fee office in violation of article VIIe, section 9(a), of the
Illinois Constitution, and, thus, was unconstitutional on its face
and that the amended Section 3-5018 statute was unconstitutional
based on violations of the due process and uniformity clauses in
the Illinois Constitution.

Defendants appealed both rulings directly to this court, and the
appeals were consolidated.

Justice Burke, in the Opinion dated May 21, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1PUN9LZfrom Leagle.com, reversed the judgments of
the circuit court and the cause was remanded for further
proceedings concluding that the surcharge was reasonably related
to legitimate government interests and, therefore, survives
rational basis review.


LAZZARI FUEL: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved for final approval of a class settlement and
class counsel moved for attorney's fees and expenses in the case
captioned, IL FORNAIO (AMERICA) CORPORATION, OLIVETO PARTNERS,
LTD. and THE FAMOUS ENTERPRISE FISH COMPANY OF SANTA MONICA, INC.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LAZZARI FUEL COMPANY, LLC, CALIFORNIA CHARCOAL AND
FIREWOOD, INC., CHEF'S CHOICE MESQUITE CHARCOAL, RICHARD MORGEN,
ROBERT COLBERT, MARVIN RING, and WILLIAM W. LORD, Defendants, Case
No. C 13-05197 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed a civil antitrust class action following a guilty
plea to a per se violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act. An October 2014 order certified a nationwide Rule 23(b)(3)
class of "all persons and entities in the United States who,
between January 1, 2000 and September 30, 2011, directly purchased
mesquite lump charcoal from any defendant". The class was mainly
composed of restaurants and food distributors After class
certification and rejection of two prior iterations of proposed
class settlements, a December 2014 order granted preliminary
approval of the instant proposed claims-made class settlement. The
class administrator mailed notice of the proposed class settlement
and fee petition along with claim forms to class members and
thrice published a banner-styled notice in an online trade
website. No one opted out of the class settlement. Out of more
than 1,100 class members, 138 timely submitted claim forms. For
notices returned as undeliverable, the class administrator
searched the National Change of Address database and mailed new
notices and claim forms. The Court found that the class
administrator gave the best notice practicable under the
circumstances and disseminated notice in a reasonable manner.

District Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in the Order dated May 20, 2015
available at http://is.gd/mVppEPfrom Leagle.com, granted final
approval of a class settlement finding it fair, reasonable and
adequate to comport with due process and Rule 23(e)(1). The Court
granted in part Class Counsel's fee petition. Class counsel were
awarded $915,000 in attorney's fees and $220,397.86 in expenses.
Half of the fees might be paid within 45 days of the Court's
order. The other half of the fees and all expenses should be held
until after the class has been paid.

The Court futher ordered the parties to file a joint status
statement (with pertinent declarations and a proposed order) by
January 15, 2016 at noon.

Plaintiffs are represented by Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Esq. --
ecp@pritzkerlevine.com -- Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq. --
bc@pritzkerlevine.com -- Shiho Yamamoto, Esq. --
sy@pritzkerlevine.com -- PRITZKER LEVINE LLP, Aaron M. Sheanin,
Esq. -- asheanin@pswlaw.com -- Bruce Lee Simon, Esq. --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Robert George Retana, Esq. --
rretana@pswlaw.com -- PEARSON SIMON WARSHAW & PENNY LLP

Defendants are represented by David C. Brownstein, Esq. --
dbrownstein@fbj-law.com -- William S. Farmer, Esq. - wfarmer@fbj-
law.com -- FARMER BROWNSTEIN JAEGER LLP; and

     Jeffrey Scott Sanger, Esq.
     Robert Marshall Sanger, Esq.
     Stephen Kerr Dunkle, Esq.
     SANGER SWYSEN AND DUNKLE
     125 E De La Guerra St #102
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Tel: (805)962-4887


LEAL MEDICAL: Faces "Domingot" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ernesto Domingot and all others similarly situated v. Leal
Medical Center, LLC, ABC-ALSY Adult Day Care Centers, LLC, Jhacnea
P. Leal, and Yaima Delgado, Case No. 1:15-cv-22251-KMW (S.D. Fla.,
June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a healthcare facility in 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


LIFE TIME FITNESS: Court Denies Motion to Lift Discovery Stay
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John R. Tunheim of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota denied Plaintiff's motion to lift the
discovery stay and for expedited discovery in the case captioned,
MATTHEW LUSK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LIFE TIME FITNESS, INC., BAHRAM AKRADI,
GILES H. BATEMAN, JACK W. EUGSTER, GUY C. JACKSON, JOHN K. LLOYD,
MARTHA A. MORFITT, JOHN B. RICHARDS, and JOSEPH S. VASSALLUZZO,
Defendants, Case No. 15-1911 (JRT/JJK)(D. Minn.).

Plaintiff Matthew Lusk, a shareholder of defendant Life Time
Fitness, Inc., filed a case on April 10, 2015, against Life Time
and its Board of Directors, challenging the proposed sale of Life
Time to a consortium of investors led by Leonard Green & Partners,
L.P. Lusk alleged that the sale price of $72.10 per share was
unfair and that the proxy materials regarding the upcoming June 4,
2015 shareholder vote to approve the sale were materially
misleading, in violation of federal securities laws. Lusk argued
that Life Time failed to disclose material facts about the
economic interests of Life Time Chief Executive Officer Bahram
Akradi in the proposed sale, including details about the Rollover
Agreement Akradi signed that would allow him to roll over his
shares in Life Time into the surviving corporate entity. Moreover,
Lusk claimed that Life Time failed to disclose adequately the
value of its real estate holdings. Lusk sought to stop the sale
and, in a pending preliminary injunction motion, asked the Court
to enjoin the June 4, 2015 shareholder meeting and vote.  Lusk
asked the Court to lift the discovery stay imposed by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) and order expedited,
limited discovery that would take place prior to the Court's
hearing on Lusk's preliminary injunction motion.

Judge Tunheim, in the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated May 18,
2015, available at http://is.gd/oZInVgfrom Leagle.com, denied
Lusk's Motion to Lift Discovery Stay and for Expedited Discovery
because he has not shown that he would suffer undue prejudice if
the discovery stay was not lifted.

Plaintiffs are represented by Kai H. Richter, Esq. --
krichter@nka.com -- and Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. --
cengstrom@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
-- jason@blockesq.com -- and Mark A. Delaney, Esq. --
mark@blockesq.com -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, James M. Ficaro, Esq. --
jmf@weiserlawfirm.com -- THE WEISER LAW FIRM

Defendant is represented by Wendy J. Wildung, Esq. --
wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com -- Matthew B. Kilby, Esq. --
matthew.kilby@FaegreBD.com -- and Justin P. Krypel, Esq. --
Justin.krypel@faegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP, Peter W.
Carter, Esq. -- carter.peter@dorsey.com -- and James K. Nichols,
Esq. -- Nichols.james@dorsey.com -- DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP


LIVE CHEAP: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Moore, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Live Cheap, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-22264-UU (S.D. Fla.,
June 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Live Cheap, LLC is in the business of renting residential units to
low income tenants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: N.D. Cal. Court Stays Resolution of Motions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in Washington v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 15-cv-
01475-JST (Washington Plaintiffs), filed a motion for preliminary
injunction and Plaintiffs in related case Silverthorn v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., No. 15-cv-01428-JST (Silverthorn Plaintiffs),
filed a motion asking the Court to grant expedited discovery in
the case captioned, JAMES SILVERTHORN, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LUMBER
LIQUIDATORS, INC., et al., Defendants. LILA WASHINGTON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., Defendant. AND RELATED
CASES, Case Nos. 15-CV-01428-JST, 15-CV-01475-JST (N.D. Cal.).

On March 1, 2015, the television news program 60 Minutes aired a
segment claiming that Defendant's products were in violation of
California Air Resources Board (CARB) certifications related to
formaldehyde emissions from laminate flooring. There were 20
related cases filed wherein dozens of other cases involving
similar allegations across the country.

Plaintiffs in Washington v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 15-cv-
01475-JST filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking to
enjoin Defendant from continuing to represent that its air testing
kits were an effective method of detecting the level of
formaldehyde and requiring Defendant to advise inquiring customers
to retain a qualified industrial hygienist, environmental
scientist, or toxicologist to perform proper testing.  Plaintiffs
in related case Silverthorn v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., No. 15-
cv-01428-JST filed a motion asking the Court to grant expedited
discovery relating to the air testing program and to enter a
provisional protective order to prevent prejudice to potential
class members that might result from Defendant's communications in
connection with the home air testing kit.

District Judge Jon S. Tigar, in the Order dated May 15, 2015
available at http://bit.ly/1F65D0Jfrom Leagle.com, stayed the
resolution of the motions until the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ruled on the motion for consolidation and
transfer. Judge Tigar said that in the event the motion for
transfer is granted, the motions will be resolved by the
transferee judge in whatever manner that judge deems appropriate.
In the event the motion for transfer is denied, the Court will
advise the parties of how it intends to proceed.


Plaintiff is represented by Behram Viraf Parekh, Esq. --
bvp@kirtlandpackard.com -- Heather Baker Dobbs, Esq. --
hmb@kirtlandpackard.com -- Michael Louis Kelly, Esq. --
mlk@courtroomwarrior.com -- KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP

Defendant is represented by William Lewis Stern, Esq. --
wstern@mofo.com -- Lauren Lynn Wroblewski, Esq. --
lwroblewski@mofo.com -- Lisa Ann Wongchenko, Esq. --
lwongchenko@mofo.com -- William Francis Tarantino, Esq. --
wtarantino@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP


LYONDELL CHEMICAL: American Casualty Liable Under D&O Policy
------------------------------------------------------------
In AMERICAN CASUALTY COMPANY OF READING, P.A., ET AL., Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. MORRIS GELB, ET AL., Defendants-Respondents, 15335,
653280/11. 2015 NY Slip Op 04724, Defendants are former directors
and officers of Lyondell Chemical Company who seek insurance
coverage for their defense of an adversary proceeding commenced by
the creditors committee in Lyondell's bankruptcy proceeding. The
bankruptcy proceeding was commenced in 2009 by Lyondell, a company
with which it had merged in 2007, and about 90 of their
subsidiaries. Before the merger was consummated, a shareholder
brought a putative class action challenging the merger price and
alleging that Lyondell's directors and officers had failed to get
the best price possible for the company. Plaintiffs provided a
defense for the directors and officers in that action, which
eventually was dismissed (Lyondell Chem. Co. v Ryan, 970 A.2d 235
[Del 2009]). For the purpose of prosecuting the adversary
proceeding, the creditors committee's claims were assigned to a
litigation trust, which alleged in its complaint that the merger
price set by the directors resulted in a windfall to them, that
the price was derived from misleading financial data, and that the
financing arranged to consummate the merger was over-leveraged,
leading to the bankruptcy.

Defendants seek coverage for the adversary proceeding under excess
directors and officers liability policies issued by plaintiffs to
Lyondell in various layers over the course of two separate policy
periods running from 2006 to 2007 and from 2007 to 2013. This
excess coverage was to follow form to Lyondell's primary coverage.

The primary insurer provided a defense for the directors and
officers in the adversary proceeding. However, after the primary
policies were exhausted and the defense was tendered to
plaintiffs, plaintiffs commenced this action for a declaration
that they have no obligation to defend defendants in that
proceeding.

Plaintiffs argue that both the merger litigation commenced in 2007
and the adversary proceeding commenced in July 2009 arose out of
the merger transaction and therefore must be treated as a single,
unified claim that came into existence when the merger litigation
was commenced, and that since that claim came into existence
during the 2006-2007 policy period, it is subject to the exclusion
in the 2006-2007 policies for claims brought by or on behalf of
Lyondell against any of its own directors or officers (the
"insured versus insured" [IVI] exclusion). In April 2009, the IVI
exclusion was narrowed, as announced by the primary insurer as
part of its "Select Form," so that it no longer excluded claims
brought or maintained by, inter alia, a bankruptcy creditors
committee.

In its decision dated June 4, 2015, a copy of which is available
at http://bit.ly/1H2Lq33from Leagle.com, the Appellate Division
of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department, rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that the merger litigation and the adversary
proceeding constitute one continuous claim. It pointed out that
the two proceedings, while arising from the merger, are wholly
different, with different parties, different allegations, and
different causes of action. In essence, the Court added, the
merger litigation was premised on the allegation that the price
per share set by Lyondell's directors and officers was too low,
while the adversary proceeding is premised on the allegation that
the price was in a sense too high, supported by unsustainable
revenue projections and requiring excessive leverage by Lyondell
to finance and consummate the transaction. Thus, the adversary
proceeding claim came into existence in July 2009, after the
Select Form had been announced, and is not subject to the IVI
exclusion.

"We have considered plaintiffs' remaining arguments and find them
unavailing," ruled the Appellate Court.

DLA Piper (US) LLP, New York (Joseph G. Finnerty III of counsel),
for appellants.

Dickstein Shapiro LLP, New York (James R. Murray of counsel), for
respondents.


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Wins More Time to Respond to Action
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar signed on June 2, 2015, a stipulation
and order extending defendants' time to respond to the class
action complaint captioned OKLAHOMA POLICE PENSION & RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, et
al., Defendants, ASE NO. 3:15-CV-01797-JST, (N.D. Cal.).

The deadline for filing a response to the Complaint for Defendants
Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Needham & Company, LLC and UBS Securities
LLC (collectively, the "Underwriter Defendants") was June 4, 2015.

The deadline for filing a response to the Complaint for Defendant
Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. ("Avenue Capital") was June 4,
2015, as well.

On May 4, 2015, the Court entered a Related Case Order finding
that the action is related to Thomas, et al. v. Magnachip
Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160-JST, which is also
pending before the Court.  A motion to consolidate the action with
the Thomas Action has been filed.

In the Thomas Action, the Court extended the Thomas Action
defendants' time to respond to the operative complaint pending
resolution of the motion to consolidate.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II), motions for
appointment of lead plaintiff in Case No. 3:15-cv-01797-JST are
due on June 22, 2015.

Following resolution of the motion to consolidate and the
appointment of a lead plaintiff for this action, filing of a
consolidated or amended complaint may be permitted or required.

Accordingly, the parties stipulated and agreed that:

1. The Underwriter Defendants and Avenue Capital will not be
required to answer or otherwise respond to the Complaint until
resolution of the motion to consolidate cases in the Thomas Action
and resolution of all motions for appointment of lead plaintiff,
in Case No. 3:15-cv-01797-JST that are filed on or before June 22,
2015. The Underwriter Defendants' and Avenue Capital's time for
responding to the Complaint, or any amended or consolidated
complaint required or permitted by the Court, will be set when the
Court rules on the foregoing motions.

2. Agreement to this Stipulation by the Underwriter Defendants and
Avenue Capital does not constitute a general appearance by any of
the Underwriter Defendants or Avenue Capital and is without
prejudice to and without waiver of any of the Underwriter
Defendants' or Avenue Capital's defenses, objections or arguments
in this matter or any other matter.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://bit.ly/1K1HEG0from Leagle.com.

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, SHAWN A. WILLIAMS, San
Francisco, CA, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, SAMUEL H. RUDMAN,
MARY K. BLASY, Melville, NY, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP,
DAVID C. WALTON, DANIELLE S. MYERS, San Diego, CA, Attorneys for
Plaintiff.

LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, PATRICK E. GIBBS, Menlo Park, CA, LATHAM &
WATKINS LLP, JAMES E. BRANDT, (pro hac vice pending), JASON C.
HEGT, (pro hac vice pending), New York, NY, Attorneys for
Defendants Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc.,
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Needham & Company, LLC, and UBS
Securities LLC.

AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP, JOHN C. MURPHY, (admitted pro
hac vice), New York, NY, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP,
MICHAEL A. ASARO, (admitted pro hac vice), DOUGLASS B. MAYNARD
(admitted pro hac vice), SYDNEY SPECTOR, (admitted pro hac vice),
New York, NY, Attorneys for Defendant Avenue Capital Management
II, L.P.


MAHARD EGG: "Miranda" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Transito Isabel Miranda, Cesar Bautista, and Victor Corpos
Casillas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mahard Egg Farm, Inc., and Mahard Pullet Farms, Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00406-ALM (E.D. Tex., June 15, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate egg farms and egg processing plants
in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jimmy Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Sued Over Slack-Fill Product Packaging
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Dupler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. McCormick & Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03454
(E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), arises from the Defendant's misleading
and deceptive use of traditional-size, non-transparent metal tins,
with unlawful slack-fill packaging of its ground black pepper
products, which contain approximately 25% less ground black pepper
than the consumers previously received in the identical sized
tins.

McCormick & Company, Inc. is a Maryland corporation that
manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes,
condiments, and other flavorful products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
      Robert J. Berg, Esq.
      DENLEA & CARTON LLP
      One North Broadway, Suite 509
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 920-7400
      Facsimile: (914) 761-1900
      E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com
              rberg@denleacarton.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in "Muller" Case
------------------------------------------------------
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Class Action
Complaint in the case captioned, PAUL MULLER, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND
FUNDING, LLC, and MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC. Defendants, Case
Nos. 15-CV-01428-JST, 15-CV-01475-JST.

Plaintiff filed a putative class action against Defendants Midland
Funding, LLC, (Midland) and Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM)
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) for false
representation or deceptive means to collect a debt that did not
exist. He alleged violation of  several provisions of the FDCPA by
sending him written communications on November 25, 2013, and again
on January 4, 2014 in connection with the collection of a debt.

Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim arguing
that the 2013 Letter was exempt from the requirements of the FDCPA
because it was not a communication sent in connection with the
collection of any debt and that Plaintiff could not sue for FDCPA
violations based on false representations within the 2014 Letter
because he did not first challenge the validity of the debt
described in that letter as provided by 15 U.S.C. Section 1692g.

District Judge Kenneth A. Marra of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida in the Opinion and
Order dated May 20, 2015, available at http://is.gd/vL2tUrfrom
Leagle.com, granted in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint to the extent that Defendants
violated Section 1692g and denied in all other aspects.


Plaintiff is represented by Aaron D. Radbil, Esq. --
aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com -- James Lee Davidson, Esq. --
jdavodson@gdrlawfirm.com -- Michael Lewis Greenwald, Esq. --
mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC

Defendants are represented by Cory William Eichhorn, Esq. --
cory.eichhorn@hklaw.com -- and Philip E. Rothschild, Esq. --
Philip.rothschild@hklaw.com -- HOLLAND & KNIGHT


MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Court Sets Oct. 23 Final Settlement Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti granted preliminary approval of a
class action settlement in IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION.  The ruling relates to: Crago, d/b/a Dash Computers,
Inc., et al. v. Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, et al., Case No.
14-CV-2058 (SC), MASTER FILE NO. CV-07-5944-SC, MDL NO. 1917,
(N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs filed on February 13, 2015, a motion for
preliminary approval of a class action settlement with Thomson SA
(now known as Technicolor SA) and Thomson Consumer Electronics,
Inc. (now known as Technicolor USA, Inc.); and Technologies
Displays Americas LLC (formerly known as Thomson Displays Americas
LLC) ("TDA") (collectively, "Settling Defendants"). The Court
granted the motion and gave its preliminary approval to the
Settlement Agreement, subject to a final fairness hearing.

The Court provisionally certified the Settlement Class defined as:
All persons and entities who, between March 1, 1995 and November
25, 2007, directly purchased a CRT or a CRT Product in the United
States from any Defendant or any subsidiary or affiliate thereof,
or any co-conspirator. Excluded from the Class are defendants,
their parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates, any co-
conspirators, all governmental entities, and any judges or
justices assigned to hear any aspect of this action.

CRT Products refers to all forms of Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs), as
well as electronic devices that contain CRTs. It includes color
picture tubes (CPTs), color display tubes (CDTs), monochrome
display tubes, and the finished products that contain CPTs and
CDTs -- televisions and monitors. The Class definition encompasses
those who bought a CRT Product directly from a Defendant and Co-
Conspirator, even if the CRT contained therein was manufactured by
an affiliated entity, principal, agent, or co-conspirator.

The Court appointed the Plaintiffs named in the First Amended
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint Against
Mitsubishi and Thomson ("FAC"). Crago, d/b/a Dash Computers, Inc.,
et al. v. Mitsubishi Elec. Corp., et al., Case No. 14-CV-2058 (SC)
(N.D. Cal.) (Dkt. No. 14-3), filed May 20, 2014, as Representative
Plaintiffs of the Settlement Class.

The court appointed the law firm of Saveri & Saveri, Inc. to serve
as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.

The Court will conduct a Fairness Hearing on Friday, October 23,
2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 1, 17th Floor, San Francisco
Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Ave., San Francisco, CA 94102 to
determine:

a. Whether the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be granted final approval;

b. Whether final judgment should be entered dismissing the claims
of the class against Thomson and TDA;

c. Approval of the plan of allocation;

d. Such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

All further direct purchaser class proceedings as to Thomson and
TDA are stayed except for any actions required to effectuate the
settlement.

A copy of the Court's June 12, 2015 order is available at
http://bit.ly/1LyU3QNfrom Leagle.com.


MONCLA PRESSURE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Billeaudeau, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Moncla Pressure Pumping, LLC, Case No. 6:15-
cv-01873 (W.D. La., June 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours a week.

Headquartered in Lafayette, Louisiana, Moncla Pressure Pumping,
LLC provides oilfield services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W DEJEAN
      P O Box 4325
      Lafayette, LA 70502
      Telephone: (337) 235-5294
      Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
      E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com


MONEYMUTUAL LLC: Must Face "Rilley" Suit, Minn. App. Court Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John P. Smith of the Court of Appeals for Minnesota
affirmed a district court ruling in the case captioned, Scott
Rilley, et al., Respondents, v. MoneyMutual, LLC, Appellant, Case
No.A-14-1307.

Rilley et al. are four Minnesota residents who used the
MoneyMutual website to obtain loans.  They filed a class-action
complaint against MoneyMutual for alleged website and advertising
containing false and misleading statements in violation of the
Minnesota's consumer-protection statutes, breached its duty not to
engage in or facilitate illegal conduct,  unjustly enriched
itself, participated in a civil conspiracy, and aided and abetted
unlicensed lenders.

On April 28, 2014, MoneyMutual moved to dismiss the complaint for
lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to join
indispensable parties. The district court denied MoneyMutual's
motion, concluding that MoneyMutual has sufficient contacts with
Minnesota because of its advertising and regular communication
with Minnesota loan applicants and that the lenders were not
indispensable parties because it could provide complete relief for
the claims in their absence. MoneyMutual appealed arguing that the
district court erred by denying its motion to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction and that its website also was not expressly
aimed at Minnesota and that basing personal jurisdiction on a
website would subject website operators to universal jurisdiction
because they could be sued anywhere the website was accessed.

Judge Smith, in the Opinion dated May 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/66qrAzfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the district court's
denial of MoneyMutual's motion to dismiss because the respondents
alleged sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal
jurisdiction. Judge Smith also found that that the district court
did not abuse its discretion when it determined that the lenders
were not indispensable parties.

Respondents are Daniel C. Bryden, Esq. -- dbryden@nka.com -- E.
Michelle Drake, Esq. -- drake@nka.com -- John G. Albanese, Esq. --
Jalbanese@Nka.Com -- NICHOLS KASTER PLLP, and Mark Heaney, Esq. --
mark@heaneylaw.com -- HEANEY LAW FIRM, LLC

Appellant is represented by Joseph M. Windler, Esq. --
jwindler@winthrop.com -- Christina Rieck Loukas, Esq. --
cloukas@winthrop.com -- WINTHROP & WEINSTINE, P.A.


NEW HAMPSHIRE BORING: Faces "O'Leary" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason P. O'Leary and Richard P. Leonard, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. New Hampshire Boring,
Inc., Thomas A. Garside, and Jayne F. Burne, Case No. 1:15-cv-
12335 (D. Mass., June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violations of the
Massachusetts Wage Act and the Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with a
principal place of business at 1215 West Chestnut Street,
Brockton, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK, P.C.
      100 Trade Center, Suite G-700
      Woburn, MA 01801
      Telephone: (617) 600-7520
      Facsimile: (617) 600-7430
      E-mail: joshua@garicklaw.com


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Violation of FDCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
Pearl Ehrnfeld, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Northstar Location Services, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-03460 (E.D.N.Y., June 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PALISADES COLLECTION: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geraldo Rodriguez, Sr., on behalf of himself individually and all
others similarly situated v. Palisades Collection, LLC., Case No.
1:15-cv-04596 (S.D.N.Y., June 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Novlette Rosemarie Kidd, Esq.
      FAGENSON & PUGLISI
      450 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 268-2128
      Facsimile: (212) 268-2127
      E-mail: nkidd@fagensonpuglisi.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Inmate's Suit v. Allenwood FCI Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Matthew W. Brann dismissed without prejudice an
inmate's complaint in the case captioned, ANTHONY MILLER,
Plaintiff, v. WARDEN SPAULDING, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 4:CV-
15-876 (M.D. Pa.).

Anthony Miller, an inmate at the Allenwood Federal Correctional
Institution, initiated a civil rights action against the Regional
Director John Doe # 1 and Director for Administrative Remedies
John Doe # 2 of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Warden
Spaulding and Trust Fund Supervisor Fogleman. claims that due to a
lack of privacy dividers in his cell and because inmates are not
allowed to cover the windows in their cells while defecating, he
has been placed at risk of sexual assault. He contended that
because of unidentified actions by the Defendants he can only
launder his clothes once a week and must wear soiled linen and
catch Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA), a highly
contagious drug resistant staph infection.  He also requested that
his complaint be certified as a class action.

Judge Brann, in the Memorandum dated May 15, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/LpsZf5from Leagle.com, dismissed without prejudice
Miller's civil rights complaint since it was legally frivolous
pursuant to the screening provision of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915 and
Plaintiff's motion seeking appointment of cousel was dismissed as
moot.


PENNYMAC LOAN: Dismissed from "Schmidt" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Before the court were Defendants PennyMac's and Bank of America's
motions to dismiss in the case captioned, TAMIKA SCHMIDT,
Plaintiff, v. PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, and BANK OF AMERICA,
NA, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-14728 (E.D. Mich.).

Tamika Schmidt brought separate claims against each Defendant,
originally filing the case in the Saginaw County Circuit Court.
She alleged that PennyMac violated Regulation X's continuity of
contact requirements, 12 C.F.R. Section 1024.40, promulgated by
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) under the Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act of 1974, (RESPA) and that Bank of
America committed the state law tort of silent fraud. PennyMac
removed the case to the Court citing the federal question raised
by Schmidt's Regulation X claim and the supplemental jurisdiction
covering the state claim. PennyMac and Bank of America moved to
dimiss the complaint and remad the case to the Saginaw Country
Circuit Court.

Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in a Report and
Recommendation dated May 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6Wd7hR
from Leagle.com, recommended to the Court the granting of
Pennymac's motion to dismiss, denying Bank of America's motion to
dismiss and remanding the remaining claim to Saginaw County
Circuit Court. Judge Morris suggested that Schmidt lacked a
private cause of action to enforce the federal regulation and that
her state law claim should be remanded.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua C. Castmore, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA CASTMORE, PLLC
     24725 W. 12 Mile Rd., Suite 110
     Southfield, MI 48034
     Tel: (313) 608-4511

Appellant is represented by Adam D. Grant, Esq. --
agrant@dickinsonwright.com -- Aimee R. Gibbs, Esq. --
agibbs@dickinsonwright.com -- Amy Sabbota Gottlieb, Esq. --
Agottlieb@dickinsonwright.com -- and Kathryn J. Miller, Esq. --
kmiller@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Pollak" Suit Over Violation of FDCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avrohom Pollak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC and John Does 1-25
Case No. 3:15-cv-04025 (D.N.J., June 15, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PREMIUM RECEIVABLES: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Lattal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Premium Receivables, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02125-ELR-GGB (N.D. Ga., June 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
     Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
     Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
     SKAAR AND FEAGLE
     Suite B, 2374 Main Street
     Tucker, GA 30084
     Telephone: (404) 373-1970
     Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
     E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com
             jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
             krisskaar@aol.com


RAJ PROPERTIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eyob Haile v. Hanumandla Rajender Reddy, Hanumandla Jhansi Reddy,
Raj Properties, and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15773821 (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


REGENCY GP: Faces "Dieckman" Suit Over Energy Partners Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Dieckman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Regency GP LP, et al., Case No. 11130 (Del. Ch., June
10, 2015), is brought on of all the unit-holders of Regency Energy
Partners LP to enjoin the proposed sale of the Partnership to
Energy Transfer Partners L.P., for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Regency Energy Partners, LP is engaged in the gathering and
processing, compression, treatment and transportation of natural
gas, and the transportation, fractionation and storage of natural
gas lines.

Regency GP LP is a Delaware limited liability company organized
and owned indirectly by Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
      James J. Sabella, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
      E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
              jsabella@gelaw.com


RFV ROOFING: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Luis Torres, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. RFV Roofing, Inc. and Ranferi Flores, Case
No. 1:15-cv-05233 (N.D. Ill., June 15, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

RFV Roofing, Inc. is a provider of high-quality roofing and rain
gutter systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RITE AID: Court Narrows Claims in "Moore" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jan E. DuBois granted in part and denied in part Rite Aid
Hdqtrs Corp.'s motion to dismiss a first amended class action
complaint captioned KYRA MOORE, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RITE AID HDQTRS CORP., doing
business as "RITE AID CORPORATION," Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO.
13-1515, (E.D. Penn.).

Judge DuBois held that the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is
granted with respect to the claim of willfulness in Count I of the
Amended Complaint to the extent that Count I is premised on the
argument that plaintiff had insufficient time to contest the
background report and adjudication before an adverse action was
taken against her because she did not have a copy of her VAS on
which LexisNexis relied. To the extent that Count I is premised on
that argument, recovery under Count I of the Amended Complaint is
limited to actual damages, costs, and attorney's fees under 15
U.S.C. Section 1681o.  The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied
in all other respects.

The Court will conduct a telephone conference to schedule further
proceedings in due course. Discovery may proceed in the interim,
wrote Judge DuBois in his May 29, 2015 order, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1N4tJPwfrom Leagle.com.

KYRA MOORE, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Plaintiff, represented by DAVID A. SEARLES --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C., ERIN
AMANDA NOVAK -- enovak@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS & MAILMAN
PC, LEONARD A. BENNETT -- lenbennett@cox.net -- CONSUMER
LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC, IRV ACKELSBERG --
iackelsberg@langergrogan.com -- LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC, JOHN
SOUMILAS, FRANCIS & MAILMAN,P.C., NADIA HEWKA, COMMUNITY LEGAL
SERVICES, SHARON M. DIETRICH, COMMUNITY LEGAL
SERVICES, INC. & JAMES A. FRANCIS -- jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
-- FRANCIS & MAILMAN, PC.

RITE AID HDQTRS CORP., Defendant, represented by JONATHAN D.
WETCHLER -- jwetchler@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP, ALISON
C. MORRIS -- ACMorris@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP,
CAROLINE AUSTIN -- caustin@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP &
SEAN ZABANEH -- SSZabaneh@duanemorris.com -- DUANE MORRIS LLP.


SACRAMENTO: "Dearwester" Can't Proceed as Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Dale a. Drozd issued on June 11, 2015, a report
and recommendations in the case captioned FRANK LEE DEARWESTER,
Plaintiff, v. SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT et al.,
Defendants, NO. 2:13-CV-2064 MCE DAD P., (E.D. Cal.).

The report and recommendations, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1LyX7fJfrom Leagle.com, granted in part and denied
in part the defendant's motion to dismiss the case.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil
rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983.

Mag. Judge Drozd held that the case should proceed solely on
plaintiff's First Amendment claim for damages.  Moreover, he
recommended that:

     a. Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims asserted
on behalf of third parties be granted;

     b. Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's First Amendment
claim for failure to allege an "injury in fact" be denied;

     c. Defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief as having been rendered moot be granted; and

     d. Defendant be directed to file an answer to plaintiff's
First Amendment claim for damages based on the postcard-only mail
policy at the Sacramento County Main Jail within thirty days of
any order adopting these findings and recommendations.

Mag. Judge Drozd also pointed out that in plaintiff's opposition
to defendant's motion to dismiss, he appears to argue that he
could represent other inmates and that the case should proceed as
a class action. To the extent that the plaintiff is requesting to
present his First Amendment claim on behalf other jail inmates who
were subject to the postcard-only mail policy at the main jail or
is requesting class certification, that request must be denied,
Mag. Judge Drozd said.  The Plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding
without counsel, therefore, the plaintiff cannot "fairly and
adequately protect the interests of the class" as required by Rule
23(a)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Accordingly,
plaintiff's request to proceed with this case as a class action is
denied, he concluded.

Frank Lee Dearwester, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, Defendant, represented by
John Robert Whitefleet -- jwhitefleet@porterscott.com -- Porter
Scott, APC & Lauren E. Calnero -- lcalnero@porterscott.com --
Porter Scott.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Top Load Washer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Orenstein, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-04054-WJM-MF (D.N.J., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf
of all the individuals and entities who own or have owned a Top
Load Washer sold by the Defendant, which contain design and
manufacturing defects in the flimsy plastic housing covering the
drain pump which breaks and pulls the poorly connected drain hose
off the machine resulting in the flooding of homes, and causing
electrical malfunctioning.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of Washers and other appliances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Heller Nagel, Esq.
      NAGEL RICE, LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway, Suite 201
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 618-0400
      Facsimile: (973) 618-9194
      E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com

         - and -

      Van Bunch, Esq.
      T. Brent Jordan, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Rd. Ste. 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: vbunch@bffb.com
              bjordan@bffb.com


SOUTHWEST CREDIT: Sued Over Violation of Debt Collection Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Bell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Southwest Credit Systems, L.P. and John Does 1-25Case No. 2:15-
cv-00778-NBF (W.D. Pa., June 12, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
      112 Washington Pl Ste 1-N
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 889-8535
      Facsimile: (800) 997-8192
      E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net


SOUTHWEST FLORIDA: "Pizzuto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Pizzuto, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Southwest Florida Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Naples-Ft.
Myers Greyhound Racing & Poker, Case No. 2:15-cv-00355-JES-DNF
(M.D. Fla., June 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Southwest Florida Enterprises, Inc. operates a car racing track in
Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Whitelock
      WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, PA
      300 SE 13th St
      Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 463-2001
      Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
      E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com


SQUARE TWO: Removed "Lawson" Suit to Eastern District Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Charles E. Lawson, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Square Two
Financial Services Corporation d/b/a Fresh View Solutions, Case
No. 15SL-CC01368, was removed from the St. Louis County Circuit
Court to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St.
Louis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00937
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles E. Lawson
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joshua C. Dickinson, Esq
      SPENCER FANE, LLP
      12925 W. Dodge Rd., Suite 107
      Omaha, NE 68154
      Telephone: (402) 965-8600
      Facsimile: (402) 965-8601
      E-mail: jdickinson@spencerfane.com


SRM BEAUTY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Corporate Funds
------------------------------------------------------------
Sook Yin Loh, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SRM
Beauty Corp., et al., Case No. 706111/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 11,
2015), alleges that the Defendants were engaged in self- dealing,
embezzlement and misappropriation of corporate funds, and failed
to maintained financial books and records as required by the State
and Federal Tax Authorities.

SRM Beauty Corp. owns and operates cosmetic and perfume retail
stores, with its principal place of business in the County of
Queens, State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford S. Nelson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL H. JOSEPH, P.L.L.C.
      203 East Post Road
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 574-8330


SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Denies Motion to Stay "Hofer" Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Catherine D. Perry of the United States District Court for
Eastern District of Missouri denied Defendant's motion to stay the
proceedings in the case captioned, JOSEPH A. HOFER, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONY
BANK, Defendant, Case No. 4:14 CV 1865 CDP (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff Joseph A. Hofer filed this putative class action
complaint against Synchrony Bank under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) alleging that Synchrony Bank called his
cellular telephone in an attempt to collect on credit card debt
purportedly owed by his deceased father. Synchrony filed a motion
to stay the proceedings pending decisions by the Federal
Communications Commission on two issues in several petitions that
it claims are both before the FCC and dispositive of the issues
now before the court. Synchrony relied on the doctrine of primary
jurisdiction in support of its motion. Synchrony also argued in
the alternative that this court should exercise its inherent
authority to stay this case in order to avoid burdening its own
docket and to ensure fairness to the parties.

District Perry in the Memorandum and Order dated May 18, 2015
available at http://is.gd/wEkUNFfrom Leagle.com, denied Synchrony
Bank's motion to stay the action because Synchrony had not
established that the circumstances of the case required a stay and
the interests of consistency and uniformity did not weigh in favor
of staying the case.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander H. Burke, Esq .
     BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
     155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 729-5288

          - and -

     Robert T. Healey, Jr., Esq.
     HEALEY LAW, LLC
     640 Cepi Dr # A
     Chesterfield, MO 63005
     Tel: (636)536-5175

Defendant is represented by Glennon P. Fogarty, Esq. --
glennon.fogarty@huschbalckwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP, Julia
B. Strickland, Esq. -- jstrickland@stroock.com -- Marcos D. Sasso,
Esq. -- msasso@stroock.com -- STROOCK AND STROOCK LLP


TACO TRUCK: "Ladson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jamerson Ladson, Pierre J. Ruthlofsky, and Jovahny Jimenez v. The
Taco Truck, LLC, Jason Scott, and Chris Viola, Case No. 2:15-cv-
04017-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., June 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate food trucks, stores and kiosks
offering Mexican fare throughout New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew I. Glenn, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP PA
      Lawrence Office Park
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: aglenn@jaffeglenn.com


TD BANK: "Kuri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reinaldo Kuri, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TD Bank, N.A. and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-04058-JEI-KMW (D.N.J., June 15, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, and all other appropriate, legal and equitable relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank organized under the laws of
Delaware and maintaining one of two corporate headquarters in
Cherry Hill, County of Camden, State of New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C.
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (856) 727-9700
      E-mail: dmains@costellomains.com


TURNER INDUSTRIES: Court Tosses Motion to Set Aside Sanctions
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SHERIN DARVILLE, v. TURNER INDUSTRIES GROUP, LLC, ET
AL, Case No. 13-625-BAJ-SCR (M.D. La.), pending before the court
are a Motion to Set Aside Sanctions and to Seek Review by District
Judge, a Motion for Designation of Case as Complex Litigation, a
Motion for Continuance of Summary Judgement and Opposition to
Summary Judgment and a Motion for Continuance of Summary Judgment
and Opposition to Summary Judgement filed by Plaintiff Sherin
Darville.

Darville was an African-American female and former employee of
Turner Industries who suffered discrimination in hiring,
discipline, treatment, and termination based on her race and sex
while working for Turner Industries, intermittently and in
different capacities, between April 1996 and May 2011. She severed
her claims from the original lawsuit and proceeded as an
individual plaintiff and proceeded in forma puaperis.

Plaintiff's motions sought to (1) set aside evidentiary and
financial sanctions imposed upon Darville by the Magistrate Judge,
(2) designate Darville's civil action as complex litigation, and
(3) move the Court to defer ruling on Defendant Turner Industries
Group's Motion for Summary Judgment.

Chief District Judge Brian A. Jackson, in the Ruling and Order
dated May 14, 2015, available at http://bit.ly/1EsOOfKfrom
Leagle.com, denied Darville's Motion to Set Aside Sanctions and to
Seek Review by District Judge, Motion for Designation of Case as
Complex Litigation, Motion for Continuance of Summary Judgement
[sic] and Opposition to Summary Judgement and Motion for
Continuance of Summary Judgment and Opposition to Summary
Judgement and granted Turner Industries' Motion for Summary
Judgment.

Plaintiff is represented by Author Rel Hannibal Joiner

Defendants are represented by Phyllis Guin Cancienne, Esq. --
pcancienne@bakerdonelson.com -- Amelia Williams Koch, Esq. --
akoch@bakerdonelson.com -- Christopher G. Morris, Esq. --
cmorris@bakerdonelson.com -- Kathlyn G. Perez, Esq. --
kperez@bakerdonelson.com -- Malcolm Levy Leatherman, Esq. --
mleatherman@bakerdonelson.com -- Steven F. Griffith, Jr., Esq. -
sgriffith@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL
& BERKOWITZ,PC, Elizabeth Harper Emmett, Esq. --
eemmett@frilot.com -- FRILOT LLC


TYMON LLC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Morales" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Morales v. Tymon L.L.C., Manal Elbasheir and Jane Doe
Elbasheir, Case No. 2:15-cv-01087-DGC (D. Ariz., June 15, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Tymon L.L.C. is an Arizona company that specializes in non-
emergency medical transportation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes, III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Howell" Trespassing Suit in Nevada
--------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl A. Howell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00317-LRH-VPC (D. Nev., June 15, 2015), is an action that seeks
to recover to the class of Nevada 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.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Nebraska. Union together with its
subsidiaries provides railroad freight transportation services in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Van Zandt, Esq.
      Nathan A. Metcalf, Esq.
      HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
      425 Market Street, 26th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
      E-mail: nmetcalf@hansonbridgett.com


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Marker" Trespassing Suit in Oregon
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Marker, Bruce Sanchez, Gary Brewer, Phyllis Gilliland,
Fred Banks, and Jill Banks, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case
No. 6:15-cv-01053-MC (D. Or., June 12, 2015), is a class action
that seeks to recover to the class of Oregon 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.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Nebraska. Union together with its
subsidiaries provides railroad freight transportation services in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher R. Best, Esq.
      Ron L. Sayer, Esq.
      GATTI, GATTI, MAIER, SAYER, THAYER, SMITH & ASSOC.
      1781 Liberty Street SE
      Salem, OR 97302
      Telephone: (503) 363-3443
      Facsimile: 503-371-2482
      E-mail: cbest@gattilaw.com
              rsayer@gattilaw.com


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Perez" Trespassing Suit in Texas
------------------------------------------------------
Alfonzo Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 3:15-
cv-00179-PRM (W.D. Tex., June 12, 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.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Nebraska. Union together with its
subsidiaries provides railroad freight transportation services in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
      Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714 7101
      E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              vahle@stuevesiegel.com
              lange@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

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


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Terry" Trespassing Suit in New Mexico
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ernest L. Terry, Hazel Terry, Richard Krol, Helen Krol and Willa
Hancock, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00498-
GBW-SMV (D.N.M., June 12, 2015), is a class action that seeks to
recover to the class of New Mexico 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.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Nebraska. Union together with its
subsidiaries provides railroad freight transportation services in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara Berger, Esq.
      SARA BERGER ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
      625 Silver Ave SW, Suite 320
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 842-5074
      E-mail: sara@sarabergerlaw.com

         - and -

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
      Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714 7101
      E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              vahle@stuevesiegel.com
              lange@stuevesiegel.com

         - and -

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


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Valenzuela" Trespassing Suit in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alonzo Valenzuela, Maria Valenzuela, Scott Hurst, Socorro Munoz,
Brenda Peters, and Betty Hanson v. Union Pacific Railroad Company,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01092-DGC (D. Ariz., June 15, 2015), is
an action that seeks to recover to the class of Arizona 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.

Union Pacific Railroad Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Nebraska. Union together with its
subsidiaries provides railroad freight transportation services in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kathryn Honecker, Esq.
      BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Rd., Ste. 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      Facsimile: (602) 274-1199
      E-mail: khonecker@bffb.com

         - and -

      Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
      Barrett J. Vahle, Esq.
      Ethan M. Lange, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Telephone: (816) 714-7100
      Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
      E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
              vahle@stuevesiegel.com
              lange@stuevesiegel.com

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

         - and -

      Thomas S. Stewart, Esq.
      Elizabeth G. McCulley, Esq.
      STEWART, WALD & MCCULLEY, LLC
      9200 Ward Parkway, Suite 550
      Kansas City, MO 64114
      Telephone: (816) 303-1500
      Facsimile: (816) 527-8068
      E-mail: stewart@swm.legal
              mcculley@swm.legal


UNITY HOSPICE: Faces "Pyle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Pyle, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v.
Unity Hospice Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05228 (N.D. Ill.,
June 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Unity Hospice Management, Inc. owns and operates a hospice care
facility with its headquarters located in Skokie, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence Buehler, Esq.
      TOUHY, TOUHY & BUEHLER, LLP
      55 West Wacker Drive, 14th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 372-2209
      Facsimile: (312) 456-3838
      E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


UNIVERSAL AUTO: Court Affirms Ruling on Document Production
-----------------------------------------------------------
OneCommand Inc. filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Order
with respect to five document requests and moved to stay the
Magistrate Judge's Order pending resolution of its Objections in
the case captioned, ROBERT LEE TAYLOR, SR., individually and of
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNIVERSAL
AUTO GROUP I, INC., a Washington corporation, d/b/a TACOMA DODGE
CHRYSLER JEEP, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-MC-50 (S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Robert Taylor filed a putative class action now pending
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant Universal Auto Group
I, Inc. d/b/a Tacoma Dodge Chrysler Jeep violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), the Washington Automatic
Dialing and Announcing Device statute (WADAD) and the Washington
Consumer Protection Act (WCPA). Specifically, Plaintiff alleged
that he received several pre-recorded telephone calls made by
OneCommand on behalf of Defendant in violation of the TCPA, WADAD,
and WCPA. Plaintiff sought to certify a national class of persons
who received the same calls in violation of the TCPA and a
subclass of persons within Washington who received the calls in
violation of the WADAD and WCPA.

On July 10, 2014, the Washington court denied Plaintiff's motion
to compel production of information related to other persons who
received the same or similar calls because Defendant did not have
control over that information. On July 1, 2014, the Washington
court granted in part and denied in part Defendant's motion for
summary judgment to the extent on Plaintiff's TCPA claim based on
the 2011 and 2012 calls because Defendant established the
affirmative defense of consent  and denied Defendant's motion for
summary judgment with respect to Plaintiff's claims under the
WADAD and WCPA.

On April 17, 2015, the Magistrate Judge granted Plaintiff's motion
to compel and denied OneCommand's motion to quash. The Magistrate
Judge concluded that Plaintiff established that the requested
information was relevant for purposes of identifying the members
of the proposed class and relevant to Defendant's affirmative
defense. Additionally, the Magistrate Judge found that OneCommand
failed to demonstrate that compliance would be unduly burdensome,
provided no support for its argument that contacting proposed
class members was improper, and did not establish that the
documents contained protected commercial information or were
privileged.

On May 1, 2015, OneCommand filed Objections to the Magistrate
Judge's Order with respect to five document requests. OneCommand
represents that it served all documents responsive to the
remaining fourteen requests at issue. OneCommand also filed a
motion to stay the Magistrate Judge's Order pending resolution of
its Objections, which was granted on May 5, 2015.

District Judge Timothy S. Black of the United States District
Court for S. D. Ohio in the Order dated May 20, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/OkqyNifrom Leagle.com, overruled  non-party
OneCommand's Objection and affirmed the Magistrate Judge's Order
because OneCommand failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate Judge
acted contrary to law. The Court directed OneCommand to produce
all documents responsive to Request Nos. 1, 9B, 10, 11, and 16
forthwith.

Taylor is represented by Michael J. Boyle, Jr. Esq. --
mboyle@meyerwilson.com  -- MEYER WILSON, LPA, Beth E. Terrell,
Esq. -- bterrell@tmdwlaw.com -- and Michael D. Daudt, Esq. --
mdaudt@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC

OneCommand is represented by Steven C. Coffaro, Esq. --
steve.coffaro@kmklaw.com -- and Rachael Anne Rowe, Esq. --
rrowe@kmklaw.com  -- KEATING, MUETHING, & KLEKAMP


US DIAGNOSTICS: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lester Madriaga, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. Diagnostics Inc. and Does 1-10,
Inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04477 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose to every
caller its intentional recording of telephone communications.

U.S. Diagnostics Inc. offers a full line of rapid tests for
companies and healthcare facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


US SECURITY ASSOCIATES: Court Grants Motion to Transfer Venue
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Security Associates, Inc. (USSA) asked the District Court for
the Northern District of California to transfer the venue of the
case captioned, ROBERT STONE, Plaintiff, v. U.S. SECURITY
ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-00235-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action for violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Stone was a California resident
who applied for employment with USSA around February 2014.  He
alleged that, as part of the employment application process, he
signed an Applicant Consent Form that did not comply with the
FCRA, and that subsequently USSA procured or caused to be procured
a consumer report concerning him from a credit reporting agency.
Plaintiff Stone alleged that USSA used noncompliant disclosure
forms to procure, or cause to be procured, consumer reports for
employment purposes.

Defendant wants the case transferred to the Northern District of
Georgia.

California District Judge John S. Tigar, in the Order dated May
21, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1cvlGhzfrom Leagle.com,
granted Defendant's motion to transfer venue the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The Court
determined that Defendant has met its burden to show that the
Northern District of Georgia was a more appropriate forum for this
action. The convenience of the parties and witnesses weighed in
favor of transfer. The public interest factors were neutral. Only
Plaintiff's choice of forum weighed against transfer factor merits
only minimal consideration in the analysis.

Defendant is represented by Rod M. Fliegel, Esq. --
rfliegel@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, SF


VENOCO INC: Faces "Reyna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Reyna, an individual v. Venoco, Inc., and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04525 (C.D. Cal., June 15, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Venoco, Inc. owns and operates an oil and gas exploration and
production company that does business and maintains an office in
the County of Santa Barbara, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Clayton Ellison, Esq.
      Michael Anthony Strauss, Esq.
      STRAUSS AND PALAY, APC
      121 N Fir Street Suite F
      Ventura, CA 93001
      Telephone: (805) 641-6600
      Facsimile: (805) 641-6607
      E-mail: andrew@palaylaw.com
              mike@strausspalay.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Armstrong" Suit Over AOL Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
City of Roseville Employees' Retirement System, on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Timothy M. Armstrong,
Alberto Ibarguen, James R. Stengel, Fredric G. Reynolds, Patricia
E. Mitchell, Richard L. Dalzell, Hugh F. Johnston, Dawn G. Lapore,
Eve Burton, Verizon Communications Inc., and Hanks Acquisition
Sub, Inc., Case No. 11136-VCG (Del. Ch., June 11, 2015), is a
stockholder class action on behalf of all other similarly situated
public stockholders of AOL Inc., to enjoin the proposed sale of a
public corporation, AOL to Verizon Communications Inc. and Hanks
Acquisition Sub, Inc., through a flawed process and unfair price.

AOL Inc. is a global media technology company with a substantial
worldwide audience and suite of digital brands, products, and
services.

Verizon Communications Inc. provides communications, information,
and entertainment products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
      Mary S. Thomas, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Kass, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      Facsimile: (302) 622-7100
      E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
              mthomas@gelaw.com
              jkass@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
      Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
      John Vielandi, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas, 38th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      E-mail: mark@blbglaw.com
              jeroen@blbglaw.com
              john@blbglaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Ahmed" Suit Over Loan Application Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mostaque Ahmed, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-03431
(E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to timely notify the Plaintiff whether his loan
application was complete and failed to timely request additional
information so as to render the application complete in violation
of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. operates a national bank with its main
office located in Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd S. Garber, Esq.
      D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Ave., Suite 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3283
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
              gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

         - and -

      Norah Hart, Esq.
      305 Broadway, 9th Floor
      New York. NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 897-5865
      Facsimile: (212) 320-0373
      E-mail: nhart@hart-smart.net


WILLIAM DOUGLAS: CA Affirms Order Denying Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice John Tyson affirmed the trial court's denial for class
certification in the case, AMY PHARR ELAM, ELIZABETH F. BAILEY,
and REID T. DERAMUS, Plaintiffs, v. WILLIAM DOUGLAS MANAGEMENT,
INC. and CHARLOTTE HOUSE ASSOCIATION OF UNIT OWNERS, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. COA14-1377 (N.C. App.).

Plaintiffs are joint owners, by inheritance, of Unit 205 in the
Charlotte House Condominium building ("Charlotte House"), located
in Charlotte, North Carolina. By virtue of their ownership of
property in Charlotte House, Plaintiffs are also mandatory members
under the Declaration of Charlotte House Condominiums. Members are
required to make monthly assessment payments for the upkeep and
maintenance of Charlotte House.

Plaintiffs failed to timely tender several monthly assessment
payments and were charged with a $20 late fee for each late
payment. Plaintiffs filed a complaint on August 8, 2013 in
Mecklenburg County Superior Court and amended it on March 12,
2014. The amended complaint alleged the accounting procedure
employed by Defendants violated: (1) the Consumer Economic
Protection Act and (2) the North Carolina Debt Collection Act and
also sought class certification pursuant to Rule 23 of the North
Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants moved to dismiss
both claims.  The trial court granted dismissal on the first
claim, and denied dismissal on the second claim. On September 16,
2014, the trial court also denied class certification.

Plaintiffs timely filed an appeal, arguing that the trial court
erred by (1) denying their motion for class certification; and (2)
declining to make findings of fact regarding the prerequisites to
class certification under Rule 23 of the North Carolina Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Judge Tyson of the United States Court of Appeals for North
Carolina in the Opinion dated May 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/qz9dVKfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the trial court's
order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification because
the Plaintiffs failed to carry their burden to show the trial
court abused its discretion and that Plaintiffs' interlocutory
appeal affected a sunstantial right.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kenneth T. Davies, Esq.
     2112 E. 7th St., #200
     Charlotte, NC 28204
     Tel: (704) 376-2059

Defendant is represented by M. Aaron Lay, Esq. --
malay@lawhssm.com -- and Erik M. Rosenwood, Esq. --
emrosenwood@lawhssm.com -- HAMILTON MOON STEPHENS STEELE & MARTIN,
PLLC, Lori E. Gilmore, Esq. -- lori.gilmore@mgclaw.com -- and J.D.
Keister, Esq. -- jkeister@mgclaw.com -- MCANGUS, GOUDELOCK &
COURIE, PLLC


WOODMERE REHABILITATION: Sued in N.Y. Over Termination Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Tamacas, et al. v. Woodmere Rehabilitation and Health Care
Center Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03435-JS-AKT (E.D.N.Y., June 12,
2015), is brought on behalf of all the former recreation,
housekeeping, nurse assistant, dietician, and kitchen employees at
the Defendant's extended-stay nursing care facility located in
Woodmere, New York, who were not provided 60 days' advance written
notice of their terminations, as part of or as a result of mass
layoffs or plant closings ordered by the Defendant during
January and February 2015.

Woodmere Rehabilitation and Health Care Center Inc. owns and
operates a geriatric care facility located at 121 Franklin Place,
Woodmere, NY 11598.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      Joanne M. Albertsen, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com
              albertsen@peltonlaw.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Court Approves Settlement in "Chung" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for Approval of Collective
Action Settlement in the case captioned, LEIGHTON CHUNG et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WYNDHAM VACATION RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:14-CV-00490.

The settlement stemmed from a class/collective action lawsuit
filed by the Plaintiffs alleging that Defendant Wyndham Vacation
Resorts, Inc. violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) by mandating that Plaintiff
and other Sales Employees to report 40 or fewer work hours per
week even though these employees actually worked more than 40
hours and that on those workweeks when Plaintiff and other Sales
Employees actually entered more than 40 hours into the company
timekeeping system, Defendant's managers usually would alter the
timekeeping entries to eliminate the overtime work.

The parties agreed that the total settlement amount was $115,000
and tha individual payment ranged from $ 2,457.36 to $3,285.71.
Plaintiff Chung should receive $3,000 as service charge  and
Winebrake & Santillo, LLC should be awarded $65,000 as attorney's
fees.

District Judge Robert D. Mariani of the United States District
Court for Middle District of Pennsylvania in the Opinion and Order
dated June 15, 2015 available at http://is.gd/N4NSfnfrom
Legale.com, approved the settlement as fair and reasonable and
directed the parties to carry out the all the terms of the
Agreement and dismissed with prejudice the class action and denied
as moot Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Untimely Consents.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Rd #211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Tel: (215)884-2491

Defendant is represented by James M. McDonnell, Esq. --
McdonneJ@jacksonlewis.com -- and Stephanie Jill Peet, Esq. --
stephanie.peet@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS LLP


XUNLEI LIMITED: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Keally, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Xunlei Limited, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04524 (C.D.
Cal., June 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities who purchased Xunlei American
Depository Sharess, seeking to recover compensable damages caused
by Defendants' violations of the Securities Act. Specifically by,
making false and misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects in its registration statement and
prospectus issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering on or about June 24, 2014.

Xunlei Limited is a Cayman Islands corporation headquartered in
Shenzhen, People's Republic of China. Xunlei operates an internet
platform for digital media content.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


                            *********

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  * * *