CAR_Public/150629.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, June 29, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 128


                            Headlines


200 FIFTH OWNER: New York Suit Fights Disability Discrimination
7-ELEVEN INC: Sued in W.D. Texas for Violating Disabilities Act
7-ELEVEN INC: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in California
A-1 EXPRESS: Faces "Francis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ABR OF VA: Faces "Sigala" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
ALLIED BARTON: Illegally Fired Pregnant Employee, Suit Claims
ALTERA CORP: Faces "Litwin" Suit Over Proposed Intel Merger
ALTERA CORP: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Proposed Intel Merger
APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces "Vladimir" Suit Over OM Group Acquisition

ARS NATIONAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
AWI SECURITY: NY Supreme Court Ruling in "Ansah" Case Upheld
BANK OF AMERICA: CA Revives "Phillips" Suit Over Withdrawals
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Won't Reconsider Decision in "Rose" Case
BANK OF NEW YORK: Accused of Racial and Religious Discrimination

BISTRO MILANO: NY Court Trims Bus Boy's Suit Over Tip Pool
BLOOMBERG LP: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Over Spam Marketing Emails
BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA: "Vasquez" Suit Stays in Federal Court
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Securities Action Proceeding to Discovery
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defending Against "Zamir" Action

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Guzman" Plaintiff to Appeal Cert. Denial
BROTHERS PETROLEUM: Court Extends Limited Stay in "Mejia" Case
CARRIAGE SERVICES: Parties Administer "Leathermon" Case Accord
CHESWICK GENERATING: Court Drops Luppe as Class Suit Plaintiff
CHICAGO HEIGHTS: Ill. Court Upholds Summary Judgment Ruling

CIN-Q AUTOMOBILES: Bids to Bifurcate Trial, File Appeal Denied
CLICKSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Scharf" Suit to C.D. Cal.
CONSOL ENERGY: Sept. 8-10 Hearing in "Hale" Litigation
CONSOL ENERGY: Sept. 8-10 Hearing in "Addison" Litigation
CROSSROADS PROPERTY: Treats Black Workers Differently, Suit Says

CUSTOM MECHANICAL: 10th Cir. Says Insurer Not Liable in TCPA Case
DADE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION: Dismissal of "Gomez" ADA Case Affirmed
DELTA APPAREL: Class Cert. Issue Pending in Wage and Hour Case
DELTA APPAREL: Class Cert. Issue Pending in 2nd Wage & Hour Case
DISH ONE: Accused of Sexually Harassing Female Sales Rep in Ohio

DUKE OF MONTROSE: Fails to Pay Minimum Hourly Wage, Suit Claims
DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ELECTROLUX HOME: "Waters" Class Suit Stays in Federal Court
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Kelly" Suit
EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Ct. Orders Macias Suit Parties to File Report

FREDDIE MAC: 6th Cir. Appeal in OPERS Case Still Pending
FRESNO, CA: Court Issues Protective Order in "Hall" Class Action
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces "Volin" in N.J. Suit Over Defective Ovens
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Wells" Suit Over Brookfield Merger
GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES: Aug. 10 Final Settlement Approval Hearing

GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES: FDCPA Class Members to Get $6 Each
HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Segedie" False Ad Suit
HEART SAVERS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wilens" Suit Claims
HERBALIFE LTD: One Shareholder Dismissed as Lead Plaintiff
HERTZ CORPORATION: Illegally Conducts Background Check, Suit Says

HOUSTON, TX: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Illegal Rain Tax Collection
INDIANA: Court Denies Inmate's Class Cert. Bid & Dismisses Case
INSITE VISION: Sued in California Over QLT Inc. Merger
INTEGRITY ENERGY: Treats Female Worker Differently, Suit Claims
JAS CONSTRUCTION: "Waite" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Erami" Case Transferred to N.D. California
KHOWAJA MERE: Faces "Ontiveros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: "LaCross" Suit Moved From Cal. to Arizona
KOMEGASHI RESTAURANT: Faces "Utomo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

KUNVERSION LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
LIFE TIME FITNESS: Wrongfully Fired Black Employee, Suit Claims
MCCANN EDUCATION: Appeals Court Sends "Weidner" Back Trial Court
MEDICINES COMPANY: Briefing Now Complete on Motion to Dismiss
MEDTRONIC INC: Plaintiff's Suit Against Own Lawyer Dismissed

MICHIGAN: Court Narrows Suit Filed by Female Inmates
NADLER & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
NEW YORK: Education Dept Accused of Race and Age Discrimination
NEW YORK: Education Dept Accused of Bias by Jewish Female Teacher
NEW YORK: S.D.N.Y. Judge Tosses "Cohen" Suit v. DMV

NEW YORK DOLLS: Late Claimants Can't Participate in Settlement
NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
NRG ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wilens" Suit Claims
PASTEUR MEDICAL: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: "Heikkila" Suit Moved From Colo. to Texas

PERFORMANCE FOOD: Removes "Perez" Class Suit to N.D. California
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
PREMIER STAFFING: Faces "Jordan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PRO CAPITAL: Court Denies TRO Bid in "Marasek" Case
PROCERA NETWORKS: Francisco Partners Merger Suit in Early Stages

QUALITY INTEGRATED: "Oates" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
R. SABEE CO: Accused of Discriminating Against Female Employee
REFUGE FAMILY: Faces "McQueen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE: Must Face "Wiley" Suit, Md. Court Says
RESTAURANT.COM INC: 3rd Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Bohus" Case

REVETT MINING: Defendant in Stockholder Class Action
RICHMOND, VA: Faces "Cephas" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
RIGHT CHOICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
S2VERIFY LLC: Sued in Cal. Over Improper Consumer Reporting
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Denies Renewed Class Cert. in Stockwell

SANTA CLARA CTY, CA: Sued in Super. Court Over Sexual Harassment
SEMPRA ENERGY: June 2015 Initial Trial in Odorant Spill Suit
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Blair" Suit Over Sillerman Buyout
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Grove" Suit Over Sillerman Buyout
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Sillerman Buyout

SHADY CANYON: Faces Suit Alleging Discrimination and Retaliation
SKY UNION: Removes "Soto" Suit to Northern District of Illinois
SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE: Motion to Intervene Granted
SONY ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed UHD TVs, "Segura" Suit Claims
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces "Hughes" Suit Alleging Discrimination

STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC: Sued in Wisconsin Over Use of Telephone
STATE FARM: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Folks" Lawsuit
STIENE & ASSOCIATES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
TOKIO MARINE: Faces "Ari" Suit Over HCC Insurance Acquisition
TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Missouri Lawsuit Entered Into MOU

TOWN SPORTS: Class Certification Motion Due in "Labbe" Case
TRANSDEV SERVICES: Stipulation Dismissing "Williams" Case Gets OK
TRI-STAR WINDOW: Faces "Navarro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Anticipates ZF Merger Class Action to Be Resolved
TURFEVOLUTIONS: Faces "Larue" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

UNITED RECOVERY: Faces "Antebi" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Jones" Suit in Florida District Court
VALSPAR CORP: Removes "Egleston" Class Suit to S.D. New York
WALGREEN CO: Removes "Atwood" Suit to Arkansas District Court
WAYPOINT HOMES: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Ollie" Case

WEBER CHEVROLET: Court Dismisses "Gates" TCPA Action
WESTERN ELECTRICITY: Court Denies Motion to Amend Pleadings
WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Koty" Suit Over Defective Clad Windows
WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: "Payala" Class Suit Moved to C.D. California
WOLF APPLIANCE: Faces "Kail" Suit Over Defective Ranges & Ovens

WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Removes "North" Suit to D. South Carolina
XENCOR INC: Defendant in "DePinto" Class Action
YFLP PARTNERS: Faces Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violation
YINGLI GREEN: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports


                            *********


200 FIFTH OWNER: New York Suit Fights Disability Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Gropper v. 200 Fifth Owner LLC and Eataly NY LLC, Case No.
155437/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 1, 2015) opposes alleged
pervasive, ongoing and inexcusable disability discrimination by
the Defendants.

Mr. Gropper is a resident of Nassau County, New York.  He is a
wheelchair user, and suffers from medical conditions that inhibit
walking and restrict body motion range and movement.

200 Fifth Owner LLC owns the property located in New York County,
New York.  Eataly NY LLC operates and leases the Property from 200
Fifth Owner LLC.  The Defendants have a written lease agreement.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glen H. Parker, Esq.
          Adam S. Hanski, Esq.
          Robert G. Hanski, Esq.
          PARKER HANSKI LLC
          40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10013
          Telephone: (212) 248-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 248-5600
          E-mail: ash@parkerhanski.com
                  ghp@parkerhanski.com
                  rgh@parkerhanski.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Sued in W.D. Texas for Violating Disabilities Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Deutsh v. 7-Eleven, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00469 (W.D. Tex.,
June 2, 2015) is brought for declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, costs, and litigation expenses for violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, and its attendant
regulations, the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility
Guidelines, the Texas Accessibility Standards, promulgated under
the Texas Architectural Barriers Act.

Mr. Deutsh is a paraplegic with no use of his legs, and uses a
wheelchair for mobility.

7-Eleven, Inc., is a Texas corporation headquartered in Dallas,
Texas.  The Company operates the 7-Eleven Austin convenience store
located in Austin, Texas.  As a "hardware store, shopping center,
or other sales or rental establishment," the business is a place
of public accommodation and operated by a private entity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Omar W. Rosales, Esq.
          THE ROSALES LAW FIRM, LLC
          PO BOX 6429
          Austin, TX 78762-6429
          Telephone: (512) 520-4919
          Facsimile: (512) 309-5360
          E-mail: talon_eye@yahoo.com


7-ELEVEN INC: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Johnson v. James Herbert Townsend, an individual; 7-
Eleven, Inc., a Texas corporation, d/b/a 7-Eleven Store #14221,
a/k/a 7-Eleven Food Store; William Cates, an individual; Thu T.
Cates, an individual; and Does 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-
02397 (N.D. Cal., May 29, 2015) alleges that the physically
disabled persons, who require the use of a wheelchair or other
mobility device, are unable to access and use the goods, services
and facilities offered at the Defendants' Store on a "full and
equal" basis unless they are brought into compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

Mr. Johnson is a qualified individual with a physical
"disability."  He is unable to independently stand or walk, and
requires the use of a wheelchair at all times for mobility.

The Defendants are owners, operators, lessors or lessees, or
agents of the business, property, buildings, parking lots, and
portions thereof located at 657 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, in Los
Gatos, California, including the Store, the walkways and parking
places serving the Store.  The true names and capacities of the
Doe Defendants are unknown to the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Irene Karbelashvili, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF IRENE KARBELASHVILI
          12 South First Street, Suite 413
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 295-013
          Facsimile: (408) 295-0142
          E-mail: irene@irenelawoffice.com

               - and -

          Kenneth J. Pinto, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH J. PINTO
          12 South First Street, Suite 713
          San Jose, CA 95113
          Telephone: (408) 289-1765
          Facsimile: (408) 289-1754


A-1 EXPRESS: Faces "Francis" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alicia Francis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. A-1 Express Delivery Service, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04684-GHW (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

A-1 Express Delivery Service, Inc. owns and operates a
transportation, distribution and courier service company with
principal offices located in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Bennett Blau, Esq.
      BLAU LEONARD LAW GROUP
      23 Green Street, Suite 303
      Huntington, NY 11711
      Telephone: (631) 458-1010
      Facsimile: (631) 458-1011
      E-mail: sblau@blauleonardlaw.com


ABR OF VA: Faces "Sigala" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cristian Sigala, Juan Jose Flores, and Gabriel Wong, each on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. ABR of VA,
Inc., William Antonio Chavez, and Erica Alvarez, Case No. 8:15-cv-
01779 (D. Md., June 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of restoration of water damaged
buildings in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvaro Augusto Llosa, Esq.
      Roberto N. Allen, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTO ALLEN LLC
      11002 Veirs Mill Rd, Ste 700
      Wheaton, MD 20902
      Telephone: (301) 861-0202
      Facsimile: (301) 861-4354
      E-mail: allosa@robertoallenlaw.com
              rallen@robertoallenlaw.com


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rohit Mahajan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aerohive Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV534294
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

Aerohive Networks, Inc. designs and develops a cloud-managed
mobile networking platform that enables enterprises to deploy a
mobile-center network edge point at which mobile devices may
access the enterprise' network.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      George C. Aguilar, Esq.
      Jay N. Razzouk, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com


ALLIED BARTON: Illegally Fired Pregnant Employee, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Ortiz v. Allied Barton Security Services, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-04223-LGS (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2015) alleges that the
Defendant unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff's employment on the
basis of her pregnancy, in violation of the Civil Rights Act, as
amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the New York City
Human Rights Law, as amended by the New York City Pregnant Workers
Fairness Act.

Allied Barton is a Pennsylvania domestic business corporation and
conducts business in the state of New York.  Allied Barton is a
provider of contract security services, including private security
guards, to businesses of all kinds.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob W. Buchdahl, Esq.
          Megan O'Hara Easley, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
          560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 336-8330
          Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
          E-mail: jbuchdahl@susmangodfrey.com
                  measley@susmangodfrey.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Goldman, Esq.
          Elissa Devins, Esq.
          NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
          7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 613-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 714-7322
          E-mail: goldman@usdoj.gov


ALTERA CORP: Faces "Litwin" Suit Over Proposed Intel Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harold Litwin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. John P. Daane, Blaine Bowman, Elisha W. Finney, Kevin
McGarity, T. Michael Nevens, Krish A. Prabhu, Shane Robison, John
Shoemaker, Thomas Waechter, Altera Corporation, Intel Corporation,
and 615 Corporation, Case No. 11160 (Del. Ch., June 16, 2015), is
brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Altera
Corporation, to enjoin the agreement and plan of sale of Altera to
Intel Corporation for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Altera Corporation supplies programmable solutions for leading-
edge electronic systems, and has been supplying the industry with
access to the latest programmable logic, process technologies, IP
cores and development tools for more than 30 years.

Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation that designs and
builds the essential technologies that serve as the foundation for
the world's computing devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


ALTERA CORP: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Proposed Intel Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Debora Robinson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. John P. Daane, Blaine Bowman, Elisha W. Finney, Kevin
McGarity, T. Michael Nevens, Krish A. Prabhu, Shane Robison, John
Shoemaker, Thomas Waechter, Altera Corporation, Intel Corporation,
and 615 Corporation, Case No. 11165-VCG (Del. Ch., June 17, 2015),
is brought on behalf of the public shareholders of Altera
Corporation, to enjoin the agreement and plan of sale of Altera to
Intel Corporation for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Altera Corporation supplies programmable solutions for leading-
edge electronic systems, and has been supplying the industry with
access to the latest programmable logic, process technologies, IP
cores and development tools for more than 30 years.

Intel Corporation is a Delaware corporation that designs and
builds the essential technologies that serve as the foundation for
the world's computing devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
      Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com


APOLLO GLOBAL: Faces "Vladimir" Suit Over OM Group Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Vladimir Gusinsky Living Trust, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Apollo Global Management, et al.,
Case No. 11167-VCN (Del. Ch., June 17, 2015), is a class action
brought on behalf of the public stockholders of OM Group, Inc. to
enjoin the agreement and plan of merger with Apollo Global
Management, LLC by means of a flawed process and for an inadequate
price.

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

Apollo Global Management, LLC is a Delaware corporation
headquartered at 9 West 57th Street, New York, New York 10019.
Apollo owns and operates an equity firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARS NATIONAL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica K. Thomas, On behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. ARS National Services, Inc. and John Does 1 to 10, Case No.
2:15-cv-03635-ES-JAD (D.N.J., May 29, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2nd Floor
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273-7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


AWI SECURITY: NY Supreme Court Ruling in "Ansah" Case Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, on June 16, 2015, issued an order, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1SLG9iqfrom Leagle.com, unanimously
affirming, without costs, an order of the Supreme Court, New York
County entered April 11, 2014, in SAMUEL ANSAH, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. A.W.I. SECURITY & INVESTIGATION, INC.,
ET AL., Defendants-Appellants, WHITESTONE CONSTRUCTION CORP.,
Defendant, 15448, 151032/12. 2015 NY Slip Op 05129.

The Supreme Court ruling appealed from denied the cross motion of
defendants A.W.I. Security and Investigation, Inc., Adaze W.
Imafidon, and any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
them, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and granted
plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to file a motion for
class certification.

The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court held that the Supreme
Court properly denied the motion for summary judgment as premature
(CPLR 3212[f]), since the merits of plaintiffs' claims cannot be
determined prior to production of the relevant public work
contracts. Moreover, the parties presented conflicting affidavits
concerning the nature of the work performed by plaintiffs, which
would preclude summary judgment.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and others who worked as security guards and fire
safety workers for defendants to recover prevailing wages,
supplemental benefits, and overtime pay in connection with work
they performed on various public construction projects.

David N. Singer & Associates, LLP, New York (David H. Singer --
davidsingeresq@aol.com -- of counsel), for appellants.

Virginia & Ambinder, LLP, New York (LaDonna Lusher --
llusher@vandallp.com -- of counsel), for respondents.


BANK OF AMERICA: CA Revives "Phillips" Suit Over Withdrawals
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed from the trial court's ruling dismissing the
case captioned, JASMINE PHILLIPS, as trustee etc. et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. BANK OF AMERICA, Defendant and
Respondent, Case No. B251836.

Jasmine Phillips aka Jasmine Gonzales (Phillips), as trustee for
Alex Gonzales, and Anesha L. Colemen, as trustee for Jadon I.
Monroe, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated against Bank of America, N.A., a
national bank association, for breach of written contract, breach
of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
conversion, and unlawful and unfair business practices. Plaintiffs
alleged that they were "the parents or guardians of unemancipated
minors who have been paid for performing artistic or creative
services.  From time to time, wages or other monies earned by the
minors for performing artistic services were deposited into
Plaintiffs' Coogan Trust Accounts for the benefit of the minors.
During the four years preceding the filing of the initial
Complaint, defendant had made withdrawals from Plaintiffs' Cogan
Trust Accounts, including but not limited to withdrawals for
monthly service fees, without court approval. Plaintiffs sought as
relief compensatory damages, issuance of a temporary restraining
order and a preliminary and permanent injunction, disgorgement of
all profits resulting, punitive damages, costs of suit, attorney
fees, and such other and further relief as the trial court might
deem just and proper.

The trial court sustained defendant's demurrer to the First
Amended Complaint without leave to amend, finding that the term
withdrawal as used in the Coogan Law did not include the debiting
of an account by a financial institution for service charges. The
trial court thereafter entered a final judgment of dismissal.
Plaintiffs appealed asserting that  defendant, without written
orders of the superior court, debited Coogan Trust Accounts for
account service fees, thereby violating the prohibition against
withdrawals from Coogan Trust Accounts.

Judge Richard M. Mosk of the Court of Appeals for California,
Second District, Division Five, in the Order dated April 27, 2015
available http://is.gd/p9roZqfrom Leagle.com, reversed the
judgment entered by the trial court on a demurrer sustained
without leave to amend, concluding that withdrawals without court
approval was prohibited under the applicable state statute, and
that state law prohibition on a debit by a national bank is not
preempted by federal law. The Court awarded Plaintiffs their costs
on appeal.

Plaintiff is represented by David S. Markun, Esq. --
dmarkun@mzclaw.com, Maria Dub Carlson, Esq. -- dcarlson@mzclaw.com
-- MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE & COMPTON

Defendant is represented by James C. Martin, Esq. --
jcmartin@reedsmith.com -- Marc A. Lackner, Esq. --
malackner@reedsmith.com -- Peter J. Kennedy, Esq. --
pjkennedy@reedsmith.com  -- REED SMITH


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Won't Reconsider Decision in "Rose" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class Counsel filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the case,
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, 5:12-CV-04009-EJD
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Stephanie Rose, Sandra Ramirez, Shannon Johnson, Amin
Makin, Carol Duke, Jack Poster, and Freddericka Bradshaw initiated
the class action lawsuit against Defendants 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 the Defendant engaged in a systematic practice of calling
or texting consumers' cell phones through the use automatic
telephone dialing systems and/or artificial or prerecorded voice
without their prior express consent. On August 29, 2014, the Court
issued its Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of Settlement;
Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Attorney's Fees
and Costs.

In the motion for reconsideration, Class Counsel contended that
the Order was not supported by a fulsome review of the undisputed
material facts relating to five key issues: (1) the nature of the
prospective practice changes required by the settlement; (2) the
amount of the monetary relief achieved by the settlement for each
submitted claim; (3) class counsel's litigation strategy enhancing
efficiency and saving the class millions of dollars; (4) the
number of hours Class Counsel worked on this litigation; and (5)
the risk that Class Counsel would not be paid for their work.
Thus, Class Counsel requested that the Court correct these
undisputed facts, and altered the Judgment to award attorneys'
fees and costs in the amount of $8,020,976, which is 25% of the
common fund created in the settlement agreement.

District Judge Edward J. Davila of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California in the Order dated
May 1, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1cqzcUyfrom Leagle.com,
denied Class Counsel's motion because the Court did not find his
argument persuasive so as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of a
successful Rule 59(e) motion.

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 NEW YORK: Accused of Racial and Religious Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra A. Capek v. Bank of New York Mellon Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-04155 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015) is brought to remedy
alleged discrimination on the basis of race and religion and
retaliation for the Plaintiff's opposition to unlawful practices
in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the New York State
Human Rights Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New
York.

BNY Mellon is a Delaware global financial services corporation
headquartered in New York.  Bank of New York Company, Inc. and
Mellon Financial Corporation merged with and into the Defendant's
present entity, the Bank of New York Mellon Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anne C. Vladeck, Esq.
          VLADECK, WALDMAN, ELIAS & ENGELHARD, P.C.
          1501 Broadway, Suite 800
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 403-7300


BISTRO MILANO: NY Court Trims Bus Boy's Suit Over Tip Pool
----------------------------------------------------------
Rugfrit 1350 LLC d/b/a Bistro Milano, Stefano Frittella
(Frittella) and Frank Tancredi (Tancredi) sought dismissal of the
case captioned, ROBERTO LOZANO, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RUGFRIT 1350 LLC d/b/a BISTRO
MILANO, STEFANO FRITTELLA and FRANK TANCREDI, Defendants, Case No.
159570/2014 (N.Y. Sup.).

In October 2012, plaintiff was employed by defendants to work as a
bus boy in the Bistro Milano restaurant, located in New York, New
York. He was terminated in May 2013. He filed a putative class
action against the Defendants for alleged illegal tip pool because
the employees did not voluntarily participate in it. Plaintiff
sought four causes of action, namely: (1) damages in unpaid
minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime for himself and other class
members; (3) to recover his unpaid call-in premium; and (4)
violation of  the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act. The
Defendants moved to dismiss providing the signes Policy Package
which stated the formula for tip credit as allowed by the federal
law.

Justice Donna M. Mills of the Supreme Court for New York County in
the Order dated April 27, 2015 available at http://is.gd/eARCLM
from Leagle.com, granted Defendants' motion to dismiss with
respect to the first, second and fourth causes of action and
denied with respect with the third cause of action.

A conference was scheduled in the case for June 12, 2015.


BLOOMBERG LP: Faces "Hoffman" Suit Over Spam Marketing Emails
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harold M. Hoffman, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Bloomberg L.P., Case No. L-005672-15 (N.J. Super. Ct.
Ch. Div., June 16, 2015), arises from the Defendant's electronic
marketing of its magazine products and services through electronic
"spam" email, with no ability to opt out or unsubscribe.

Bloomberg L.P. is a Delaware limited partnership with a principal
place of business in New York City, New York. Bloomberg operates a
financial software, data and media company

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raphael M. Rosenblatt, Esq.
      ROSENBLATT LAW PC
      21 Main Street
      Court Plaza South, Suite 305
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (551)444-8100
      Facsimile: (551)497-4665
      E-mail: RAPHAEL@ROSENBLATTLEGAL.COM

         - and -

      Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
      240 Grand Avenue
      Englewood, NJ 07631
      Telephone: (201) 569-0086
      Facsimile: (201) 221-7890
      E-mail: HOFFMAN.ESQ@VERIZON.NET


BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA: "Vasquez" Suit Stays in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Vasquez, et al. v. Blue Cross of California, Case No. CV-
15-2055-MWF (AGRX), filed February 11, 2015, is a putative class
action, originally filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court,
against Defendant for invasion of privacy, negligence, and
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and California's
Data Breach Act. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant failed to
properly secure and protect the information of its current and
past customers, and that as a result, on December 10, 2014 and
February 4, 2015, third parties accessed Defendant's records and
acquired the personal and sensitive information of millions of
California residents. Plaintiffs sought to recover restitution,
injunctive and declaratory relief, statutory and consequential
damages, special and general damages, and attorney's fees.
Defendant removed the action to the federal district court on
March 19, 2015. The Notice of Removal asserted jurisdiction under
the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) wherein original jurisdiction
of any civil action in which the matter in controversy exceeded
the sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
and was a class action in which there was minimal diversity.

On April 6, 2015 by Plaintiffs Vasquez and Bethany Noel filed a
Motion to Remand in the case.  They challenged the amount in
controversy asserted by the Defendant. Plaintiffs suggested that
without providing account premium data or other specific values,
Defendant could not met its burden.

District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California in the Order dated
May 5, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Zr4OWxfrom Leagle.com,
denied the Motion to Remand because Defendant has met its burden
in establishing the jurisdictional requirements under CAFA.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ari Jacob Dybnis, Esq.
     Scott Charles Glovsky, Esq.
     SCOTT C GLOVSKY LAW OFFICES
     100 East Corson Street #200-A
     Pasadena, CA 91103
     Tel: (626)243-5598

Defendant is represented by Craig A. Hoover, Esq. --
craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- and Michael M. Maddigan, Esq. --
michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Securities Action Proceeding to Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the consolidated
securities class action is now proceeding to discovery.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July
6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the
same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012. On July 26, 2012, another
purported securities class action complaint was filed in the same
court by David Stein against the same defendants based upon the
same general set of allegations and class period. The complaints
allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek unspecified monetary relief,
interest, and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013. On
September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to Ashford
University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation process
and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied the motion
to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning Ashford
University's persistence rates. The plaintiff did not file an
amended complaint by the October 31, 2013 deadline and therefore
the case is now proceeding to discovery. On August 6, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted by the Court on January 15, 2015.

The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. At
present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
for this action based on the information available to the Company.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Defending Against "Zamir" Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
facing Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al. class action.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectibility of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30,
2014.

"We have not yet responded to the complaint and anticipate that,
pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
the Court will appoint a lead plaintiff and lead counsel pursuant
to the provisions of that law, and eventually a consolidated
amended complaint will be filed," the Company said.

The Company is evaluating the complaint and intends to vigorously
defend against it. However, because of the many questions of fact
and law that may arise, the outcome of the legal proceeding is
uncertain at this point. Based on information available to the
Company at present, it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
and accordingly has not accrued any liability associated with this
action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: "Guzman" Plaintiff to Appeal Cert. Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the the Plaintiff
in the case, Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., has filed a
petition for permission to appeal the denial of class
certification with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint is entitled Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
et al., and alleges that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to
recruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005 through the present. In March 2011,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
granted by the Court with leave to amend in October 2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In May 2012, the Court
granted University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the
Company and Ashford University. The Court also granted the
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. In August
2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint asserting
similar claims and the same class period. The second amended
complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement of all
profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys' fees. The
defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the second amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part.

On April 30, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which was denied by the Court on March 26, 2015. On
April 9, 2015, the plaintiff filed a petition for permission to
appeal the denial of class certification with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. At
present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
for this action based on the information available to the Company.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action," the Company said.


BROTHERS PETROLEUM: Court Extends Limited Stay in "Mejia" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
In DANIA GISSELL CRUZ MEJIA, et. al., Plaintiffs, v. BROTHERS
PETROLEUM, LLC, et al., SECTION: R(3), Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 12-2842, (E.D. La.), before the Court is defendant Imad Hamdan
and Brothers Petroleum LLC's motion to continue the limited stay
on discovery regarding undocumented employees that the Court
initially imposed on September 3, 2014.

This is a "collective action" seeking damages for alleged
violations of the overtime and minimum wage provisions of the Fair
Labor Standard Act. Defendants employed plaintiffs at various
Brothers Food Mart convenience stores throughout Louisiana and
allegedly failed to compensate plaintiffs adequately during the
period from November 28, 2009 to the present.

Judge Berrigan had ordered defendants to produce a list of "all
potential opt-in plaintiffs' names, last known mailing addresses,
and email addresses." Defendants produced a partial list of
employees but omitted the names and contact information of
undocumented workers. Defendants then moved the Court to stay the
civil proceeding due to the United States Attorney's Office's
criminal investigation of defendant Imad Hamdan's alleged hiring
of undocumented workers. Defendants argued that allowing discovery
to proceed concerning undocumented employees would force Mr.
Hamdan to chose between his right against self-incrimination and
defending against the allegations raised in this civil proceeding.

On September 3, 2014, Judge Berrigan denied defendants' motion to
stay the proceeding in its entirety but issued a limited stay.
Specifically, the Court found that a temporary and limited stay of
the outstanding discovery was appropriate until "the parameters of
any criminal investigation [are] determined." Accordingly, the
Court ordered that "[n]o discovery as to undocumented workers may
proceed for a period of two (2) months from the date of this
order, at which time the Court will consider appropriate motions
including a motion to reopen and/or another motion to stay, if
appropriate." On September 12, 2014, Judge Berrigan recused
herself and this matter was transferred to the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

On November 5, 2014, plaintiffs moved the Court to lift the
limited stay, arguing that there had been no significant
developments in the criminal investigation. The Court denied
plaintiffs' request, concluding that defendant Hamdan's Fifth
Amendment rights would be jeopardized if the Court lifted the
limited stay.

Three months have elapsed and defendants now move the Court to
extend the limited stay, contending that an extension is warranted
because the criminal investigation into Defendant Hamdan's hiring
practices remains active.

District Judge Sarah S. Vance, in her order and reasons entered
June 12, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1JjVjdafrom Leagle.com, grants the defendants'
motion saying defendant Hamdan's Fifth Amendment rights will be
jeopardized if the Court does not extend the stay.

"The limited stay imposed in the Court's September 3, 2014 order
staying the discovery obligations of defendants Imad Hamdan and
Brothers Petroleum, LLC concerning undocumented employees is
hereby continued for a period of three (3) months from the date of
this order, at which time the Court will consider appropriate
motions to lift or continue the stay," Judge Vance concluded.


CARRIAGE SERVICES: Parties Administer "Leathermon" Case Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carriage Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties are
administering the settlement in accordance with its terms in the
case, Leathermon, et al. v. Grandview Memorial Gardens, Inc., et
al., United States District Court, Southern District of Indiana,
Case No. 4:07-cv-137.

"On August 17, 2007, five plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against the current and past owners of Grandview Cemetery in
Madison, Indiana, including our subsidiaries that owned the
cemetery from January 1997 until February 2001, on behalf of all
individuals who purchased cemetery and burial goods and services
at Grandview Cemetery," the Company said. "Plaintiffs are seeking
monetary damages and claim that the cemetery owners performed
burials negligently, breached Plaintiffs' contracts and made
misrepresentations regarding the cemetery. The Plaintiffs also
allege that the claims occurred prior, during and after we owned
the cemetery."

"On October 15, 2007, the case was removed from Jefferson County
Circuit Court, Indiana to the Southern District of Indiana. On
April 24, 2009, shortly before the Defendants had been scheduled
to file their briefs in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, Plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to add
new class representatives and claims, while also seeking to
abandon other claims.

The Company, as well as several other Defendants, opposed
Plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint and add parties.

In April 2009, two Defendants moved to disqualify Plaintiffs'
counsel from further representing Plaintiffs in this action. On
June 30, 2010, the court granted Defendants' motion to disqualify
Plaintiffs' counsel.

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of mandamus
with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals seeking relief from the
trial court's order of disqualification of counsel. On May 19,
2010, the Defendants responded to the petition of mandamus. On
July 8, 2010, the Seventh Circuit denied Plaintiffs' petition for
writ of mandamus. Thus, pursuant to the trial court's order,
Plaintiffs were given 60 days from July 8, 2010 in which to retain
new counsel to prosecute this action on their behalf.

Plaintiffs retained new counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel moved for
leave to amend both the class representatives and the allegations
stated within the complaint. Defendants filed oppositions to such
amendments. The court issued an order permitting the Plaintiffs to
proceed with amending the class representatives and a portion of
their claims; however, certain of Plaintiffs' claims have been
dismissed.

The parties reached a proposed class settlement, and the court
granted its preliminary approval of such settlement by order dated
March 19, 2014. Notice of the class settlement was provided
pursuant to the Preliminary Order Approving Class Action
Settlement, and no settlement class members opted out of the class
nor objected to the terms of the settlement. The court issued its
final approval of the settlement on June 23, 2014. The parties are
administering the settlement in accordance with its terms.


CHESWICK GENERATING: Court Drops Luppe as Class Suit Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cathy Bissoon of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California dismissed Joan Luppe from
the action in the case captioned, KRISTIE BELL and JOAN LUPPE,
Plaintiffs, v. CHESWICK GENERATING STATION, GENON POWER MIDWEST,
L.P., Defendant, Case No. 12-929 (N.D. Cal.).

On April 6, 2015, Attorneys Steven D. Liddle, Nicholas A. Coulson
and James E. Pasquale moved to withdraw as Plaintiff Luppe's
attorneys. Ms. Luppe was one of the two named plaintiffs in the
instant class action. The attorneys noted that they had attempted
to communicate with Plaintiff Luppe through various means on many
occasions, all to no avail. The Court granted that motion.

On April 7, 2015, the Court issued an Order requiring that
Plaintiff Luppe show cause as to why she should not be dismissed
from the instant action for her failure to prosecute. The Show
Cause Order set a response deadline of April 24, 2015. As of April
29, 2015, she had not filed a response with the Court.

Magistrate Judge Bissoon, in the Opinion and Order dated April 28,
2015 available http://is.gd/HGKVhBfrom Leagle.com, dismissed
Plaintiff Luppe from the action for failure to prosecute because
the Plaintiff repeatedly failed to respond to her former
attorneys' efforts to communicate with her, paired with her
failure to comply with a Court Order, her failure to prosecute
hindered her adversaries' ability to meaningfully defend their
case.


CHICAGO HEIGHTS: Ill. Court Upholds Summary Judgment Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs took an appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County's
(i) ruling that the City of Chicago Heights was immune from the
claims of negligence related to the maintenance and operation of
its sewer systems and (ii) subsequent grant of summary judgment in
favor of the City of Chicago Heights.  The appellate case is
captioned, CHARLOTTE NICHOLS, RODGER BOLDEN, RAUL TENIENTE, CARMEN
TENIENTE, JUANITA DIXON, MICHAEL FOSTER, LINCOLN HAMILTON, KAREN
HAMILTON, MICHAEL IFLAND, SUSAN IFLAND and CAMILLE WILLIAMS, on
Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, a Proposed Class Action, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE
CITY OF CHICAGO HEIGHTS, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 1-12-2994.

Plaintiffs Charlotte Nichols, Rodger Bolden, Raul Teniente, Carmen
Teniente, Juanita Dixon, Michael Foster, Lincoln Hamilton, Karen
Hamilton, Michael Ifland, Susan Ifland, and Camille Williams are a
group of individuals  whose homes were damaged in flooding during
a two-day rainstorm in April 2006 wherein the City of Chicago
Heights owned, maintained, and operated a separated sewer system
in which storm water and sanitary wastewater travel in separate
lines and to different end points. Plaintiffs brought suit against
defendant Chicago Heights, arguing that Chicago Heights is
responsible for the damage to their homes. Plaintiffs' second
amended complaint asserted two claims against Chicago Heights: (1)
operational negligence; and (2) negligence under the doctrine of
res ipsa loquitur.  Chicago Heights filed a motion for summary
judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure
(735 ILCS 5/2-1005, arguing it was immune from suit under the
Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Chicago
Heights.

Plaintiffs appealed the trial court's ruling contending that
summary judgment was granted in error because: (1) Chicago Heights
was not entitled to discretionary immunity where the plaintiffs'
claims arose from Chicago Heights' ministerial act of maintaining
its sewer system, rather than from a discretionary act; (2) there
was sufficient evidence to establish genuine issues of material
fact regarding plaintiffs' negligence claim under the theory of
res ipsa loquitur; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying
their motion to strike the so-called Sabo affidavit.

Presiding Judge James Fitzgerald Smith of the Appellate Court for
Illinois in the Opinion dated April 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/hyheU9from Leagle.com, affirmed the ruling of the
the Circuit Court. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the
trial court's denial of plaintiffs' motion to strike.


CIN-Q AUTOMOBILES: Bids to Bifurcate Trial, File Appeal Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CIN-Q AUTOMOBILES, INC., a Florida corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. BUCCANEERS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP and
JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 8:13-CV-1592-T-AEP (M.D.
Fla.), Defendant filed a Motion to Bifurcate and Proceed Directly
to Trial on Liability.  The Plaintiff, meanwhile, filed a Motion
for Reconsideration of Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, to Certify Questions for
Interlocutory Review Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b).

Plaintiff sued the Defendant for unsolicited facsimile
advertisement sent on behalf of a defendant in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). It alleged that the
Defendant created the advertisement, hired a fax broadcaster,
specified the area codes, dates, and times for transmission, paid
for the transmissions, tracked the sales generated by the faxes,
made interim modifications to the content, and exercised authority
to halt and restarted the transmissions.

Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida in the Order dated May 5,
2015 available at http://is.gd/GjDw0Efrom Leagle.com, denied
Defendant's Motion to bifurcate and proceed directly to trial on
liability, and Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration and
Alternative motion to certify questions for interlocutory review.
The Court concluded that granting an appeal at the phase of the
case could risk an undesirable outcome and might delay and
increase the expense of litigation.

The Court ordered that the case should proceed to discovery in aid
of Plaintiff's anticipated motion for class certification under
Rule 23. The Court would further address the parties' Amended
Supplemental Case Management Report and Defendant's Motion to
Consolidate Related Lawsuits during the status conference which
would be issued in a separate notice.

Plaintiffs are represented by Brian J. Wanca, Esq. --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Wallace C. Solberg, Esq. --
WSolberg@andersonwanca.com -- George K. Lang, Esq., Glenn L. Hara,
Esq. -- GHara@andersonwanca.com -- Ross M. Good, Esq. --
RGood@andersonwanca.com -- and Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA,

          - and -

     Michael C. Addison, Esq.
     ADDISON & HOWARD, PA
     400 N Tampa St # 1100
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: (813)223-2000

Defendant is represented by Barry A. Postman, Esq. --
barry.postman@csklegal.com -- David C. Borucke, Esq. --
david.borucke@csklegal.com -- and Justin C. Sorel, Esq. --
justin.sorel@csklegal.com -- COLE, SCOTT & KISSANE, PA


CLICKSOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES: Removes "Scharf" Suit to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nominal Defendant ClickSoftware Technologies Ltd. removes the
class action lawsuit styled Sol Scharf v. Israel Borovich, et al.,
Case No. 30-2015-00790241-CU-SL-CXC, from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Southern
Division - Santa Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:15-cv-00863 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed acquisition of the
publicly owned shares of ClickSoftware by Optimizer TopCo S.a.r.l.
and Optimizer Merger Holdings Ltd. in a transaction valued at
approximately $438 million.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
          Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          369 Lexington Ave., Tenth Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
                  imelamed@faruqilaw.com

ClickSoftware is represented by:

          Bruce G. Vanyo, Esq.
          Yonaton M. Rosenzweig, Esq.
          Paul S. Yong, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: (310) 788-4400
          Facsimile: (310) 788-4471
          E-mail: bruce@kattenlaw.com
                  yoni.rosenzweig@kattenlaw.com
                  paul.yong@kattenlaw.com


CONSOL ENERGY: Sept. 8-10 Hearing in "Hale" Litigation
------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a court has set aside
September 8 through 10, 2015 for a hearing in the Hale Litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on September 23, 2010 in the
U.S. District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative class
consists of forced-pooled unleased gas owners whose ownership of
the coalbed methane (CBM) gas was declared to be in conflict with
rights of others. The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of
ownership of the CBM and damages based on allegations CNX Gas
Company failed to either pay royalties due to conflicting
claimants, or deemed lessors or paid them less than required
because of the alleged practice of improper below market sales
and/or taking alleged improper post-production deductions. On
September 30, 2013, the District Judge entered an Order certifying
the class, and CNX Gas Company appealed the Order to the U.S.
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas
Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the decision. On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Renewed
Motion for Class Certification, seeking to certify a class for
purposes of an accounting of escrowed and suspended royalties. The
Company's opposition to the Renewed Motion is due on June 23,
2015, and the Court has set aside September 8 through 10, 2015 for
a hearing.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy and is included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


CONSOL ENERGY: Sept. 8-10 Hearing in "Addison" Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has set
aside September 8 through 10, 2015 for a hearing in the Addison
Litigation.

This class action lawsuit was filed on April 28, 2010 in the
United States District Court in Abingdon, Virginia. The putative
class consists of gas lessors whose gas ownership is in conflict.
The lawsuit seeks a judicial declaration of ownership of the CBM
and damages based on the allegations that CNX Gas Company failed
to either pay royalties due these conflicting claimant lessors or
paid them less than required because of the alleged practice of
improper below market sales and/or taking alleged improper post-
production deductions. On September 30, 2013, the District Judge
entered an Order certifying the class, and CNX Gas Company
appealed the Order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit.

On August 19, 2014, the Fourth Circuit agreed with CNX Gas
Company, reversed the Order certifying the class and remanded the
case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with
the decision. On April 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their Renewed
Motion for Class Certification, seeking to certify a class for
purposes of an accounting of escrowed and suspended royalties.
The Company's opposition to the Renewed Motion is due on June 23,
2015, and the Court has set aside September 8 through 10, 2015 for
a hearing.

CONSOL Energy continues to believe this action cannot properly
proceed as a class action in any form, believes the case has
meritorious defenses, and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company has established an accrual to cover its estimated
liability for this case. This accrual is immaterial to the overall
financial position of CONSOL Energy and was included in Other
Accrued Liabilities on the Consolidated Balance Sheets.


CROSSROADS PROPERTY: Treats Black Workers Differently, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Blankenship and Deirdre Lee v. Crossroads Property
Management, LLC, Matt Seibert and Alicia Young, Case No. CV-15-
846369 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, June 1, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants treated the Plaintiffs differently than other
similarly-situated white employees based on race (African-
American).

Crossroads Property Management, LLC is an Ohio limited liability
company headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio.  The Individual
Defendants are residents of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, and are
managers, supervisors or employees of Crossroads.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Fred M. Bean, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: Fred.Bean@SpitzLawFirm.com


CUSTOM MECHANICAL: 10th Cir. Says Insurer Not Liable in TCPA Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CE Design Ltd. appealed from the district court ruling that
EMCASCO Insurance Company et al. had no duty to defend Custom
Mechanical Equipment Inc., or to pay the judgment in a class
action lawsuit CE Design launched against Custom.

In April 2008, Custom faxed an unsolicited advertisement for
screening enclosures to CE Design and to at least 2,551 others. CE
Design contended that this unsolicited fax damaged it by costing
it time, paper, and ink toner. Seeking redress, CE Design sued
Custom in Illinois state court and sought to certify a class of
others that had also received the fax or a similar fax from
Custom. CE Design pleaded three claims for relief. First, CE
Design alleged that Custom's fax violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), which provides $500 in damages for each
TCPA violation. 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b)(3). Second, CE Design
alleged common-law conversion based on Custom's faxes using the
recipients' paper, toner, and fax machines, and it sought property
damages for those losses. Third, CE Design alleged that Custom's
fax violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA). Emcasco and Custom agreed to request that
the Illinois state court enter judgment against Custom for
$1,276,000 and Ce design agreed to enforce the judgment only
against Emcasco. In September 2011, the Illinois trial court
approved the settlement agreement and entered judgment.

After agreeing to settle with Custom, CE Design sued Emcasco in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma, seeking a declaratory judgment that Emcasco's insurance
policy legally obligated it to pay CE Design's judgment. In turn,
Emcasco sued CE Design in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, seeking a declaratory judgment that
it was not liable for the judgment. Upon CE Design's motion, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
transferred Emcasco's case to the United States District Court for
the Western District of Oklahoma. In June 2013, both parties moved
for summary judgment which the court granted granted Emcasco's
summary judgment motion and denied CE Design's motion applying the
Oklahoma law to interpret the insurance policies. The Court
concluded that that Emcasco had no duty to defend Custom against
CE Design's three claims and that the statutory-violation
exclusion relieved Emcasco of any duty to defend that claim. The
district court futher concluded that the expected-or-intended-
injury exclusion defeated any duty for Emcasco to defend the
conversion claim and that Emcasco had excluded coverage for the
ICFA claim because, to prevail under that claim, a defendant must
intend for a plaintiff to rely on a deceptive act or unfair
practice. CE design timly appealed.

Circuit Judge Gregory A. Phillips of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in the Order dated May 4, 2015
available at http://bit.ly/1zATswFfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the
district court's ruling in favor of Emcasco releasing it from any
duty to defend Custom ot ro pay the judgment. The Tenth Circuit
found that the statutory-violation exclusion defeated all three of
CE Design's claims and that the policy did not provide coverage
fro Custom's junk faxes to CE Design and the class members.

The appellate case is EMCASCO INSURANCE COMPANY; EMPLOYERS MUTUAL
CASUALTY COMPANY, Plaintiffs Counter Defendants-Appellees, v. CE
DESIGN, LTD, an Illinois corporation, Defendant Counter Plaintiff-
Appellant, and CUSTOM MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT, INC.; CUSTOM
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT OF WISCONSIN; CUSTOM EQUIPMENT, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 5:14-CV-29565 (10th Cir.).

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey A. Berman, Esq. --
JBerman@andersonwanca.com -- David M. Oppenheim, ESq. --
Doppenheim@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON + WANCA, ROLLING MEADOWS,

          - and -

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     BOCK & HATCH, LLC
     134 N. La Salle St., #1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 658-5500

          - and -

     Michael E. Grant, Esq.
     MUSSER, KOURI, BENTWOOD & GRANT
     114 E Sheridan Ave # 102
     Oklahoma City, OK 73104
     Tel: (405) 840-4357

Defendant is represented by Brian A. O'Gallagher, Esq. --
bogallagher@cremerspina.com -- Kristina M. Beck, Esq. --
kbeck@cremerspina.com -- CREMER, SPINA, SHAUGHNESSY, JANSEN &
SIEGERT, LLC, Christopher D. Wolek, Esq. -- cwolek@gabmh.com --
GIBBS, ARMSTRONG, BOROCHOFF, MULLICAN, & HART


DADE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION: Dismissal of "Gomez" ADA Case Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, a resident of Miami, Florida, was legally blind. In
July 2013, Gomez stopped at an automated teller machine (ATM) near
his home, inserted a card and headset, and prepared to do business
using the machine's voice guidance system. Nothing happened.
Instead of giving audible instructions as required by the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the machine spewed only
silence, and Gomez was unable to finish a transaction.

On October 25, 2013, Gomez filed a class action in the Southern
District of Florida. The complaint alleged that the Subject ATM
did not comply with ADA standards. Rather than giving specific
information about the alleged malfunction, however, Gomez reported
only that the voice guidance system failed sometime after the 2010
Standards came into effect. Gomez added that he planned to revisit
the Subject ATM in his effort to find ADA-compliant machines. For
relief, Gomez requested a permanent injunction requiring defendant
to bring its ATMs into compliance, along with costs and attorney's
fees.

Dade County Federal Credit Union moved to dismiss the complaint
for want of jurisdiction on February 13, 2014. Defendant argued
that Gomez lacked standing because he failed to allege a
constitutional injury-in-fact.

The district court dismissed the case, however, and found that
Gomez lacked constitutional standing to bring a claim.

Gomez appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.

The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, United States Court of
International Trade Judge, sitting by designation, in the Order
dated May 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/OYzkpffrom
Leagle.com, affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case,
finding that Plaintiff suffered only an isolated harm. The
Plaintiff failed to satisfy the minimum requirement of
constitutional standing to maintain a claim.

The appellate case is, ANDRES GOMEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DADE
COUNTY FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14-11539
(11th Cir.).


DELTA APPAREL: Class Cert. Issue Pending in Wage and Hour Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the issue of class
certification remains pending in the California Wage and Hour
Litigation.

"We were served with a complaint in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Los Angeles, on or about March 13,
2013, by a former employee of our Delta Activewear business unit
at our Santa Fe Springs, California distribution facility alleging
violations of California wage and hour laws and unfair business
practices with respect to meal and rest periods, compensation and
wage statements, and related claims (the "Complaint"). The
Complaint is brought as a class action and seeks to include all of
our Delta Activewear business unit's current and certain former
employees within California who are or were non-exempt under
applicable wage and hour laws. The Complaint seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, monetary damages and compensation, penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs, and pre-judgment interest. The
discovery process in this matter is ongoing and the issue of class
certification remains pending," the Company said.


DELTA APPAREL: Class Cert. Issue Pending in 2nd Wage & Hour Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Delta Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the issue of class
certification remains pending in the California Wage and Hour
Litigation.

"On or about August 22, 2014, we were served with an additional
complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, by a former employee of Junkfood and two former
employees of Soffe at our Santa Fe Springs, California
distribution facility alleging violations of California wage and
hour laws and unfair business practices the same or substantially
similar to those alleged in the Complaint and seeking the same or
substantially similar relief as sought in the Complaint. This
complaint is brought as a class action and seeks to include all
current and certain former employees of Junkfood, Soffe, our Delta
Activewear business unit, a Soffe independent contractor and an
individual employee of such contractor within California who are
or were non-exempt under applicable wage and hour laws. Delta
Apparel, Inc. and the contractor employee have since been
voluntarily dismissed from the case and the remaining defendants
are Junkfood, Soffe, and the Soffe contractor. The discovery
process in this matter is ongoing and the issue of class
certification remains pending.


DISH ONE: Accused of Sexually Harassing Female Sales Rep in Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Woods v. Dish One Up Satellite, Inc., Moe Hadmi and Abdel
Shendi, Case No. CV-15-846354 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, June 1, 2015)
alleges that throughout her employment, the Plaintiff was
subjected to a sexually harassing hostile work environment by two
of her coworkers -- the Individual Defendants.

Ms. Woods is a former employee of Dish.  She was hired as a sales
representative on March 30, 2014.

Dish One Up Satellite, Inc. is an Ohio corporation with its
principal place of business located in Cuyahoga County in
Cleveland, Ohio.  The Individual Defendants are current or former
employees of Dish.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          Fred M. Bean, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          Email: Brian.Spitz@SpitzLawFirm.com
                 Fred.Bean@SpitzLawFirm.com


DUKE OF MONTROSE: Fails to Pay Minimum Hourly Wage, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wade v. Duke of Montrose, Inc. and Steven Owen, Case No.
155448/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 2, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants willfully paid the Plaintiff for his services and labor
at a rate below the applicable minimum hourly wage, in violation
of New York law and in violation of the New York Minimum Wage Act.

Duke of Montrose, Inc. is a domestic corporation headquartered in
Brooklyn, New York.  Steven Owen is a principal, employee or agent
for Montrose.  The Defendants own and manage a bar, pub, lounge,
restaurant, and liquor business that provides food and beverage
services throughout the New York metropolitan area from their
location in Brooklyn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Fotopoulos, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER FOTOPOULOS, P.C.
          4160 Broadway
          New York, NY 10033
          Telephone: (212) 781-2111
          E-mail: alex@fotolaw.com


DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., a Texas corporation; and
Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., Florida professional
limited liability company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00337-SPC-DNF (M.D.
Fla., June 2, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carmen Dellutri, Esq.
          David W. Fineman, Esq.
          THE DELLUTRI LAW GROUP, PA
          1436 Royal Palm Square Blvd.
          Ft. Myers, FL 33919-1049
          Telephone: (239) 939-0900
          Facsimile: (239) 939-0588
          E-mail: cdellutri@dellutrilawgroup.com
                  dfineman@dellutrilawgroup.com


ELECTROLUX HOME: "Waters" Class Suit Stays in Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denied
Plaintiffs' motion to remand the case, GLORIA WATERS and WILLIAM
HALL, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ELECTROLUX HOME PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:13CV151 (N.D. W.Va.).

Gloria Waters and William Hall filed in the Circuit Court of
Brooke County, West Virginia, a putative class action against
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. claiming that the Defendant's
front-loading washing machines were defective because the machines
accumulated mold and mildew and were unfit for their essential
purpose. The plaintiffs made the following claims and requests for
relief in their complaint: (1) the defendant violated the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act ("WVCCPA"); (2) the
defendant breached an express warranty; (3) the defendant breached
an implied warranty of merchantability; (4) the defendant was
unjustly enriched; (5) declaratory relief, that the defendant
state that its washing machines have the defect complained of; (6)
injunctive relief, that the defendant cease and desist making the
defective washing machines; and (7) attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendant removed the case to the Federal District Court,
arguing that to meet the $5,000,000 threshold required by the
Class Action Fairness Act: (1) it would cost the defendant
$50,000,000 to shut down the factory that makes the front-loading
washers because washers are bought eighty percent of the time with
a companion dryer, thus, ceasing to make the front-loading washers
would also mean ceasing to make the accompanying dryers and make
the factory unprofitable; (2) the defendant sold 4,200 front-
loading washers to retailers and distributors in West Virginia
between 2006 and 2013, which was an accumulated price of over
$3,000,000; and 911 between 2000 and 2005, adding over $600,000,
thus, this would go into the cost of damages because the
plaintiffs have asked that the defendant replace all front-loading
washers of the affected class (a total of $3,800,000); (3) even if
only one out of five consumers purchased their washers in the
surrounding 55-mile radius of West Virginia, that alone would put
the amount in controversy over $5,000,000.00; and (4) attorneys'
fees should be included in the calculation, at 33% of the damages,
because the WVCCPA provides for attorneys' fees for any claim
brought under it for "illegal, fraudulent, or unconscionable
conduct. Thereafter, Defendant moved to dismiss the action.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand arguing that (1) the
defendant had not shown that the plaintiffs' injunctive relief
exceeded CAFA's statutory requirement; (2) the defendant had not
shown that the plaintiffs' claims for monetary damages exceeded
CAFA's statutory requirement; (3) the defendant had used sales
from other states that were speculative because it has not shown
how many of those sales actually went to West Virginia residents;
and (4) attorneys' fees were too speculative to calculate because
the defendant was using its speculative compensatory damages
determination and also had failed to (1) address the fact that the
Aetna factors would be applied and (2) the awarding of attorneys'
fees was discretionary under the WVCCPA.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 27, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/eUADMwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Stamp denied the
motion to remand. The Plaintiffs were directed to file a response
to the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs are represented by Amy E. Keller, Esq. --
aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Edward Wallace, Esq. --
eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Michael H. Bowman, Esq. --
mhb@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP & R. Brent Irby,
McCallum, Esq., at HOAGLUND COOK & IRBY LLP

Defendant is represented by:

     Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, Esq.
     FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH BONASSO, PLLC
     905 Montgomery Hwy # 201
     Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
     Tel: (205)824-7767


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Kelly" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. sought and obtained dismissal of the Amended
Consolidated Complaint in the case captioned, RYAN KELLY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ELECTRONIC ARTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
13-CV-05837-SI (N.D. Cal.).

In late 2013 and early 2014, plaintiffs instituted two actions
against defendants which were consolidated by the Court. On June
9, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The
Court granted defendants' motion on October 20, 2014, finding that
the alleged misstatements were vague statements of corporate
optimism that were inactionable as a matter of law  and granted
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to allege actionable
misstatements.  Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on
November 18, 2014 alleging no new misstatements, but instead
presented additional facts purporting to demonstrate that the
alleged misstatements were in fact actionable.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' Section 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 claim on the basis that the ACC violated the law of the case
by alleging the same misstatements that the Court previously held
inactionable as a matter of law. Additionally, defendants renewed
their argument that plaintiffs failed to state a fraud claim, and
that the ACC failed to plead with particularity both falsity and
scienter.  As to plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim, defendants again
moved to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to
adequately allege a primary violation under Section 10(b) or Rule
10b-5.

District Judge Susan Illston of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California in the Order dated April
30, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1zB41zZfrom Leagle.com,
granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Consolidated
Complaint with prejudice because the Amended Complaint failed to
plead with particularity that defendants made false or misleading
statements about BF4 intentionally or with deliberate recklessness
and to adequately alleged falsity and scienter for the reasons
articulated by defendants.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ekaterini Maria Polychronopoulos,
Esq. -- katerinap@rgrdlaw.com -- Shawn A. Williams, Esq. --
shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Mary K. Blasy, Esq. -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com --
Matthew Seth Melamed, Esq. -- mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com -- Willow E.
Radcliffe, Esq. -- wradcliffe@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP

Defendant is represented by Alexander K. Talarides, Esq. --
atalarides@orrick.com -- James Neil Kramer, Esq. --
jkramer@orrick.com -- Robert P. Varian, Esq. -- rvarian@orrick.com
-- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP


EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE: Ct. Orders Macias Suit Parties to File Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb ordered the parties in RAVINDER
RANGI and MELISSA C. MACIAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EXAMSOFT WORLDWIDE,
INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-01919-WBS-AC, (E.D. Cal.)
to file a joint status report with the Court no later than 45 days
from October 9, 2015, informing the Court as to the status of the
final approval of the class action settlement in West v. ExamSoft
Worldwide, Inc., No. 14-cv-22950-UU.

A copy of Judge Shubb's June 15, 2015 order is available at
http://bit.ly/1QR0Gorfrom Leagle.com.

Ravinder Rangi, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel P. Mensher --
dmensher@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, Gretchen
Freeman Cappio -- gcappio@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback
LLP, Havila C. Unrein -- hunrein@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller
Rohrback, LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko -- lsarko@kellerrohrback.com --
Keller Rohrback LLP & Matthew J. Preusch --
mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback, LLP.

Melissa C. Macias, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel P. Mensher,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Keller Rohrback LLP,
Havila C. Unrein, Keller Rohrback, LLP, Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Keller
Rohrback LLP & Matthew J. Preusch, Keller Rohrback, LLP.

ExamSoft Worldwide, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Ashley E. Littlefield --
ashley.littlefield@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis.


FREDDIE MAC: 6th Cir. Appeal in OPERS Case Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that
plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in the securities class action
lawsuit, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS") vs.
Freddie Mac, Syron, et al.

This putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against
Freddie Mac and certain former officers on January 18, 2008 in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of Freddie Mac stock from
August 1, 2006 through November 20, 2007. FHFA later intervened as
Conservator, and the plaintiff amended its complaint on several
occasions. The plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making false and
misleading statements concerning our business, risk management,
and the procedures we put into place to protect the company from
problems in the mortgage industry. The plaintiff sought
unspecified damages and interest, and reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorney and expert fees.

On October 8, 2013, defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On October 31, 2014, the Court granted defendants'
motions and dismissed the case in its entirety against all
defendants, with prejudice. On November 25, 2014, plaintiff filed
a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit.

"At present, it is not possible for us to predict the probable
outcome of this lawsuit or any potential effect on our business,
financial condition, liquidity, or results of operations. In
addition, we are unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of possible loss in the event of an adverse judgment in
the foregoing matter due to the following factors, among others:
the inherent uncertainty of the appellate process; the inherent
uncertainty of pre-trial litigation in the event the case is
ultimately remanded to the District Court in whole or in part; and
the fact that the District Court has not yet ruled upon motions
for class certification or summary judgment. In particular, absent
resolution of the appellate process, the certification of a class,
the identification of a class period, and the identification of
the alleged statement or statements that survive dispositive
motions, we cannot reasonably estimate any possible loss or range
of possible loss," the Company said.


FRESNO, CA: Court Issues Protective Order in "Hall" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe issued on June 2, 2015, a
protective order in the class action captioned QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN
GONZALES, ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH, and BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF FRESNO Defendant, CASE NO. 1:11-CV-02047-LJO-BAM, (E.D.
Cal.).

The parties, through counsel, agreed that a protective order is
necessary to protect the confidentiality of documents and other
information produced or disclosed in this action.

The parties further agreed that good cause exists for the entry of
this Protective Order because certain records produced or
disclosed in this action contain Protected Health Information
and/or security information of prisoners detained in the Fresno
County Jail.

The Protective Order, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1BOmlqDfrom Leagle.com, provides, among other
things, that all PHI, security information, or proprietary
information produced by the defendant in this action will be
regarded as confidential and subject to the Protective Order.

DONALD SPECTER -- dspecter@prisonlaw.com -- KELLY KNAPP, PRISON
LAW OFFICE, Berkeley, CA MAUREEN P. ALGER -- malger@cooley.com --
COOLEY LLP, Five Palo Alto Square Palo Alto, CA ATTORNEYS FOR
PLAINTIFFS.

MARY KATHRYN KELLEY -- mkkelley@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, San
Diego, CA MELINDA BIRD -- melinda.bird@disabilityrightsca.org --
AGNES WILLIAMS -- agnes.williams@disabilityrightsca.org --
DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA, Los Angeles, CA.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Faces "Volin" in N.J. Suit Over Defective Ovens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Volin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. General Electric Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-04111-KM-
JBC (D.N.J., June 17, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
consumers who purchased GE-branded 30" Free Standing Gas Range
ovens, model number JGB600EEDES, contain surface knob defect that
often fails to properly and timely ignite the released gas.

General Electric Company is one of the largest technology, media,
and financial services companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosalee B. C. Thomas, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      1077 30th St NW, Suite 150
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Telephone: (202) 337-8000
      Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
      E-mail: rbcthomas@finkelsteinthompson.com

         - and -

      Tracy D. Rezvani, Esq.
      REZVANI VOLIN P.C.
      1050 Connecticut Ave N.W. 10th Floor
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 350-4270 x102
      Facsimile: (202) 351-0544
      E-mail: trezvani@rezvanivolin.com


GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Wells" Suit Over Brookfield Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Wells, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Graftech International Ltd., Case No. 11166-VCL (Del.
Ch., June 17, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the holders of
the common stock of GrafTech International Ltd., to enjoin the
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of GrafTech common stock
by Brookfield Asset Management Inc., for an unfair price and
inadequate consideration.

Graftech International Ltd. is a global company that offers
innovative graphite material solutions for its customers in a wide
range of industries and end markets, including steel
manufacturing, advanced energy applications and latest generation
electronics.

Brookfield Asset Management Inc. is a global alternative asset
manager, with over $200 billion in assets under management,
engaged in managing and making investments in property, renewable
energy, infrastructure and private equity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES: Aug. 10 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lloyd D. George of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada granted the Joint Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, the Settlement
Agreement and the attachements to each, in the case, CARLOS J.
HERNANDEZ and, RYAN A. EVANS, on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PAUL D. GUGLIELMO d/b/a GUGLIELMO &
ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 2:09-CV-00830-LDG-GWF (D. Nev.).

Judge George, in the Order dated May 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/vaGjkGfrom Leagle.com, adjudged and decreed that the
Settlement Agreement of the Parties was preliminary approved and
that it substantially fulfilled the purposes and objectives of the
class action, and provided substantial relief to the Class without
the risk, burden, cost, or delay associated with continued
litigation, trial, and/or appeal and it appeared fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Class.  Carlos J.
Hernandez and Ryan A. Evans were designated as Class
Representatives,  O. Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz &
Associates, LTD. and Craig Friedberg were appointed as Class
Counsel and First Class, Inc. as Claims Administrator.

The Court scheduled the Final Approval Hearing on August 10, 2015
at 10 a.m. and the filing of appearance by July 15, 2015 in
accordance with the form and rules set by the Court. Documents
supporting the award of attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses shall
be filed with the Court within 30 days of the Final Order
Approving Class Action Settlement.

Plaintiffs are represented by Craig B. Friedberg, Esq. --
cbfriedberg@justice.com -- LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG,
Craig M. Shapiro, Esq. -- Craig@horwitzlaw.com -- O. Randolph
Bragg, Esq. -- Rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ &
ASSOCIATES

Defendant is represented by Tomio B. Narita, Esq. --
tnarita@snllp.com -- SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP, Joseph P. Garin, Esq.
-- jgarin@lipsonneilson.com - and Shannon D. Nordstrom, Esq.
-- snordstrom@lipsonneilson.com -- LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER
& GARIN, P.C.


GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES: FDCPA Class Members to Get $6 Each
----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos J. Hernandez and Ryan A. Evans brought a class action
lawsuit against Paul D. Guglielmo d/b/a Guglielmo & Associates for
alleged violations of the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA). On May 4, 2015, an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval to Class Action Settlement was entered which, among other
things, conditionally certified a class as defined in the
Complaint for settlement purposes only and directed notice of the
Settlement to the Class.

In a separate Order dated May 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/sTbpYwfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Lloyd D.
George of the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada adopted and incorporated the definition set forth in the
Settlement Agreement, granted final certification to the class for
settlement purposes and found that the requirements of Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Due Process Clause of
the United States Constitution.  Carlos J. Hernandez and Ryan A.
Evans were designated as Class Representatives,  O. Randolph Bragg
of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, LTD. and Craig Friedberg were
appointed as Class Counsel and First Class, Inc. as Claims
Administrator.

The Court ordered the Defendant to pay $14,269.50 to the Class
pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, that is, $6.75
to each of the 2,114 Class Members and to pay for the cost of
class notice, preparation and distribution of checks to the class
members, claims administration.  Named Plaintiffs were each
awarded $3,700 as statutory damages pursuant to the FDCPA and as a
fee for their services as the class representatives.

The Court approves Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, 501(c)(3)
non-profit organizations, as the recipient of the cy pres award
which shall consist of all monies remaining from the checks from
the Settlement Fund which are not cashed within 90 days of the
date of issuance. The cy pres award shall be used for consumer
representation and/or education.

The case is, CARLOS J. HERNANDEZ and, RYAN A. EVANS, on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PAUL D. GUGLIELMO
d/b/a GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES, Defendant, Case No. 2:09-CV-00830-
LDG-GWF (D. Nev.).

Plaintiffs are represented by Craig B. Friedberg, Esq. --
cbfriedberg@justice.com -- LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG B. FRIEDBERG --
Craig M. Shapiro, Esq. -- Craig@horwitzlaw.com -- O. Randolph
Bragg, Esq. -- Rand@horwitzlaw.com -- HORWITZ, HORWITZ &
ASSOCIATES

Defendant is represented by Tomio B. Narita, Esq. --
tnarita@snllp.com -- SIMMONDS & NARITA LLP, Joseph P. Garin, Esq.
-- jgarin@lipsonneilson.com -- and Shannon D. Nordstrom, Esq. --
snordstrom@lipsonneilson.com -- LIPSON, NEILSON, COLE, SELTZER &
GARIN, P.C.


HAIN CELESTIAL: Court Narrows Claims in "Segedie" False Ad Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nelson S. Roman of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted in part Hain
Celestial Group Inc.'s request to dismiss the case captioned, LEAH
SEGEDIE and DMITRIY SHNEYDER, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL
GROUP, INC. and JOHN: DOES #1-99, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-5029
(NSR)(S.D.N.Y.).

Leah Segedie and Dmitriy Shneyder, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, brought a putative class action against
the Hain Celestial Group, Inc. and unnamed co-defendants for
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, fraud,
negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs were alleged purchasers of certain Earth's Best brand
food, body care, and home care products produced and sold by Hain
Celestial. Plaintiffs claimed that these products were all
misleadingly labeled as organic, natural, or all natural, in
violation of various state statutes and common law doctrines.

Hain Celestial moved to dismiss the case, pursuant to Rules 8, 9,
and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the basis
that the claims concerning organic products are preempted by the
Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. Sections 6501-6523
(OFPA).

Judge Roman, in the Opinion and Order dated May 7, 2015 available
http://is.gd/IN0kWxfrom Leagle.com, granted in part Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss as to the claims for breach of implied warranty
of merchantability; deceit and/or misrepresentation, fraudulent
concealment, and constructive fraud in violation of common law and
California Civil Code, negligent misrepresentation under New York
law, unjust enrichment under California law, and all claims based
on products not identified in the Complaint and denied all other
claims.

The Defendants had until June 22 to file responsive pleadings.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     George Volney Granade, Esq.
     Kim Eleazer Richman, Esq.
     Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
     REESE RICHMAN, LLP
     875 Avenue of the Americas #18
     New York, NY 10001
     Tel: 212-643-0500

          - and -

Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq. -- gblankinship@fbfglaw.com --
Shin Young Hahn, Esq. -- shahn@fbfglawlaw.com -- and Todd Seth
Garber, Esq. -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP,
FREI- PEARSON & GARBER, LLP

Defendant, represented by Robert P. Lynn, Jr., Esq. --
rplynn@lgdcllp.com -- LYNN, GARTNER & DUNNE, LLP


HEART SAVERS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wilens" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Wilens, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly v.
Heart Savers, LLC and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 30-
2015-00793986 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 17, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing calls on consumers' cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system or a
prerecorded voice.

Heart Savers, LLC owns and operates a full-service training center
for CPR, First Aid, AED and Bloodborne Pathogen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
      THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
      903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
      San Clemente, CA 92673
      Telephone: (949) 240-8595
      Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
      E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net


HERBALIFE LTD: One Shareholder Dismissed as Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
dismissed one of the shareholders as lead plaintiff in the
purported class action suit, In re Herbalife, Ltd. Securities
Litigation (formerly captioned Awad v. Herbalife Ltd., et al.).

On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made
material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and
business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a
pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class
of investors that had purchased shares of the Company's common
stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014. On July 30, 2014,
the Court approved the appointment of different shareholders as
lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of counsel. On
September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an Amended Class
Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws
against the Company, and certain of its officers. The Amended
Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements that "fundamentally
misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company's
business and operations to consumers and investors alike," and
further alleges that the Company is one of "the most sophisticated
pyramid schemes in history." The lead plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 29,
2014.

On March 16, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
all claims in the Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint and dismissed one of the shareholders as lead plaintiff.
If a plaintiff elects to file an amended complaint again, it was
to do so by May 8, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously defend
this purported class action suit. The Company has not recognized a
loss as it does not believe a loss is probable. Further, the
Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss
or range of loss.


HERTZ CORPORATION: Illegally Conducts Background Check, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Case, individually, on behalf of other similarly situated
individuals, and on behalf of the general public v. The Hertz
Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-02707-NC (N.D. Cal., June 17, 2015),
arises from the Defendant's practice of conducting background
checks without first providing a clear and conspicuous disclosure
to the consumer at any time before the report is procured or
caused to be procured.

Headquartered in Florida, The Hertz Corporation operates a chain
of automobile rental outlets which has retail locations throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
      One Embarcadero Center
      Suite 720
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 277-7235
      Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
      E-mail: helland@nka.com

         - and -

      E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
      Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: drake@nka.com
              jhashmall@nka.com


HOUSTON, TX: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Illegal Rain Tax Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth C. Perez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situates v. Anise D. Parker, City of Houston, and Dale
A. Rudick, Case No. 201534786 (Tex. Dist. Ct., June 17, 2015),
arises from the Defendants' conduct of illegally collecting Rain
Tax Charges for drainage and street improvements and repairs from
Houston taxpayers and landowners.

City of Houston is a metropolis in Texas.

Anise D. Parker is the Mayor of the City of Houston.

Dale A. Rudick is the Houston Director of Public Works and
Engineering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andy Taylor, Esq.
      ANDY TAYLOR & ASSOCIATES, PC
      2668 Highway 36S, #288
      Brenham, TX 77833
      Telephone: (713) 222-1817
      Facsimile: (713) 22201855
      E-mail: ataylor@andytaylorlaw.com


INDIANA: Court Denies Inmate's Class Cert. Bid & Dismisses Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Wrightsman moved for class certification and appointment of
counsel in the case captioned, STEVEN WRIGHTSMAN, Plaintiff, v.
MARION THATCHER, and RON NEAL, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-87-TLS
(N.D. Ind.).

Steven Wrightsman, a pro se prisoner, filed a Complaint under 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983, alleging violation of his federal constitutional
right to Equal Protection because he was denied entry into the
Honor Program at the Indiana State Prison due to his age. The
Plaintiff also filed a motion seeking to certify this case as a
class action on behalf of every inmate at the Indiana State
Prison, along with a Motion for appointment of counsel.

District Judge Therese L. Springmann of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Indiana in the Opinion and
Order dated April 28, 2015 available http://is.gd/HGKVhBfrom
Leagle.com, denied motions for class certification and appointment
of counsel. The Case was dismissed pursuant to 28 U. S. C. Sec.
1915A because the Complaint did not state a valid claim for
relief, the Plaintiff could not fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class pursuant to Federal Revised Civil Procedure
23(a)(4) and  without a valid claim for relief, there was no basis
for appointment of counsel. The Court futher found that the main
issue of the Complaint should be dismissed since the age limit was
a rational requirement which did not violate Equal Protection, and
there was no amendment that could change either the operative
facts or law on which the decision was based.


INSITE VISION: Sued in California Over QLT Inc. Merger
------------------------------------------------------
David Speiser and Robert Rajan, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Insite Vision, Inc., Timothy Ruane,
Brian Levy, Timothy McInerney, Robert O'Halla, Anthony J. Yost,
Craig Tooman, QLT Inc., and Isotope Acquisition Corp., Case No.
RG15774540 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 17, 2015), is brought on behalf
of InSite Vision, Inc. shareholders to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of InSite by QLT Inc. pursuant to an unfair process,
for an unfair price, and lacking material disclosures.

Insite Vision, Inc. develops novel ophthalmic products designed to
treat a growing range of common eye problems, including ocular
infection, pain and inflammation in ocular surgery, and glaucoma.

QLT Inc. develops pharmaceutical products for use in photodynamic
therapy (PDT), using light-activated drugs to treat disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ramzi Abadou, Esq.
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLP
      912 Cole Street #251
      San Francisco, CA 94117
      Telephone: (504) 455-1400
      Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
      E-mail: ramziabadou@kscounsel.com

         - and -

      Kim E. Miller, Esq.
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
      250 Park A venue, Suite 2040
      New York, NY 10177
      Telephone: (212) 696-3730
      Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
      E-mail: Kim.Miller@ksfcounsel.com


INTEGRITY ENERGY: Treats Female Worker Differently, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonett Cawthorn v. Integrity Energy, Ltd. and Robert Staples, Case
No. CV-15-846398 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, June 1, 2015) alleges that the
Defendants treated the Plaintiff differently than other similarly
situated employees based on her gender.

Integrity Energy, Ltd. is an Ohio corporation that operates a call
center in Cleveland, Ohio, and was Cawthorn's employer during
relevant times.  Robert Staples is a resident of Ohio and was
employed in a supervisory position over Ms. Cawthorn.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter C. Mapley, Esq.
          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: peter.mapley@spitzlawfirm.com
                  brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com


JAS CONSTRUCTION: "Waite" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Waite, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. J.A.S. Construction & Renovations, Inc., Docket No.
6:15-cv-00996 (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

J.A.S. Construction & Renovations, Inc. performs construction and
design services to both residential commercial Florida clientele.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Mix, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, Case No. 2:15-cv-01102-MHB (D. Ariz.,
June 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Neal McDevitt, Esq.
      Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 317-2674
      E-mail: dmcdevitt@consumerlawinfo.com
              tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Erami" Case Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
MITRA ERAMI, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMORGAN CHASE
BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, NO. 2:15-CV-0727-MCE-EFB,
(E.D. Cal.) is a wage and hour class action originally filed by
Mitra Erami in the Solano County Superior Court and removed to the
Eastern District of California Court under the provisions of the
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d). Presently before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to
Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California.

According to Plaintiff's counsel, he was under the mistaken belief
that Plaintiff worked in Solano County rather than on Solano
Avenue in Berkeley, California. According to attorney Wynne,
because of that error, he filed in Solano County rather than
Alameda County, where the City of Berkeley is located. Alameda
County is within the Northern District of California.

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a), the Plaintiff
represents that venue in the Northern District is more convenient
both for witnesses and the parties, and that the interests of
justice will accordingly be served by such a transfer.

Accordingly, Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.,
granted the motion in an order entered June 3, 2015, a copy of
which is available at http://bit.ly/1BOoaE7from Leagle.com.

The case is transferred to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California.

Mitra Erami, Plaintiff, represented by Edward Joseph Wynne --
EWynne@wynnelawfirm.com -- Wynne Law Firm.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, Defendant, represented by Carrie Anne Gonell
-- cgonell@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.


KHOWAJA MERE: Faces "Ontiveros" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Castillo Ontiveros, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Jaffer Khowaja and Khowaja Mere Khowaja,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05336 (N.D. Ill., June 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for all hours worked in excess of 40 each week in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a franchisee of Dunkin Donuts
stores in several locations in the Chicago area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: "LaCross" Suit Moved From Cal. to Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Patrick LaCross, et al. v. Knight
Transportation Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-771-JGB, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona (Phoenix Division).  The Arizona District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00990-DKD to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged employment discrimination.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brennan S. Kahn, Esq.
          Ellen R. Serbin, Esq.
          Todd H. Harrison, Esq.
          PERONA LANGER BECK SERBIN & MENDOZA
          300 E San Antonio Dr.
          Long Beach, CA 90807-0948
          Telephone: (562) 426-6155
          Facsimile: (562) 490-9823
          E-mail: brennankahn@plblaw.com
                  ellen@plblaw.com
                  toddharrison@plblaw.com

               - and -

          Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
          Leslie Joyner, Esq.
          Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood St., Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com
                  ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          James M. Trush, Esq.
          TRUSH LAW OFFICES
          695 Town Center Dr., Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, AZ 92626
          Telephone: (714) 384-6390
          Facsimile: (714) 384-6391
          E-mail: jtrush@earthlink.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          James E. Hart, Esq.
          Thomas J. Whiteside, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2050 Main St., Suite 900
          Irvine, CA 92614-7284
          Telephone: (949) 705-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 724-1201
          E-mail: jhart@littler.com
                  twhiteside@littler.com

               - and -

          Richard H. Rahm, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          650 California St., 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: rrahm@littler.com

               - and -

          Carly M. Nese, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park E, 5th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 553-0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553-5583
          E-mail: cnese@littler.com


KOMEGASHI RESTAURANT: Faces "Utomo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willy Utomo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Komegashi Restaurant Group Inc. d/b/a Komegashi Too, and Johnny
Leung, Case No. 2:15-cv-04104-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., June 17, 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 Komegashi Too restaurant located at
99 Town Square Place, Jersey City, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Todd Linzer, Esq.
      FREEMAN LEWIS LLP
      228 East 45th Street, 17th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 230-8543
      E-mail: alinzer@freemanlewis.com


KUNVERSION LLC: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gennaro Marzocco, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Kunversion, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:15-cv-03708-JHR-KMW (D.N.J., June 2, 2015) is brought over
alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy M. Glapion, Esq.
          39 Schindler Court
          Neptune, NJ 07753
          Telephone: (732) 236-0024
          E-mail: jmg@glapionlaw.com


LIFE TIME FITNESS: Wrongfully Fired Black Employee, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Francois D'Anjou v. Life Time Fitness, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04167 (S.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015) alleges that the Defendant treated
the Plaintiff differently -- and indeed much less favorably --
than similarly situated nonprotected class coworkers subject to
the same supervisor, manager, procedures and rules by failing to
properly train him and failing to provide an adequate budget to
comply with New York Labor Laws.

Mr. D'Anjou is a resident of Cliffside, New Jersey.  He was
employed by Life Time from October 1, 2013, until his wrongful
termination on July 1, 2014.  He is an African-American with brown
skin complexion and belongs to this protected class of race.

Life Time Fitness, Inc. is a Minnesota domestic corporation
headquartered in Chanhassen, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Jones, Esq.
          THE JONES LAW FIRM
          523 East Pine Place
          Tulsa, OK 74106-4301
          Telephone: (574) 876-4715
          E-mail: JJ@JeffreyJonesLawFirm.com


MCCANN EDUCATION: Appeals Court Sends "Weidner" Back Trial Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsi Weidner was training to become a laboratory technician at
McCann Education Centers, Inc.'s campus in Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
pursuant to a written enrollment agreement between Appellee and
McCann.  Appellee alleged that representatives of McCann advised
her she would be eligible to sit for a certification examination
upon completion of her training. Appellee alleged she subsequently
learned McCann's program was not nationally accredited and that
she would be ineligible to sit for the certification exam. As a
result, Appellee commenced this class action suit against
Appellants alleging causes of action for breach of contract,
violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law (UTPCPL) and violations of the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Appellants filed
preliminary objections and a petition to compel arbitration,
citing an arbitration clause in the Enrollment Agreement. The
trial court declined to compel arbitration, finding the parties
did not enter a valid agreement to arbitrate.

Appellants appealed from the trial court's March 12, 2014 order
denying their preliminary objection in the form of a petition to
compel arbitration asserting that the trial court erred in finding
no valid agreement to arbitrate existed.

Judge Victor P. Stabile of the Superior Court for Pennsylvania in
the Memorandum dated May 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/rYzWMf
from Leagle.com, adopted and incorporated the definition set forth
in the Settlement Agreement, reversed the trial court's order,
concluding that the trial court only found that an agreement to
arbitrate had not been agreed to between the parties which the
Court disapproved. The Court also found that the Appellee did not
establish procedural unconscionability.  The Court remanded the
action for further proceeding.

The case is, KELSI WEIDNER, Appellee, v. McCANN EDUCATION CENTERS,
INC. AND DELTA CAREER EDUCATION CORPORATION, Appellants, Case No.
529 MDA 2014 (Pa. Super.).


MEDICINES COMPANY: Briefing Now Complete on Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that briefing is now
complete and the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit is under
consideration by the Court.

The Company said, "On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit
was filed against us and certain of our current and former
officers in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey by David Serr on behalf of stockholders who purchased
or otherwise acquired our common stock between February 20, 2013
through February 12, 2014, which we refer to as the class period.
On July 22, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing one of our
stockholders, Warren H. Schuler, the lead plaintiff and Pomerantz
LLP the lead counsel. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
September 17, 2014, which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
including allegations that our stock was artificially inflated
during the class period because we and certain current and former
officers allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper
disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials, which tested
the efficacy and safety of cangrelor. Specifically, the amended
complaint alleges that statements made throughout the class period
about the trials were misleading because they failed to disclose
that cangrelor did not show superiority to the drug clopidogrel,
that the clinical trials were unethically and inappropriately
administered, that clopidogrel was not administered optimally, and
that cangrelor patients exhibited higher bleeding rates. The
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification
of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
expert fees and other costs."

"On November 17, 2014 we and certain of our current and former
officers moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2014 and we
filed a reply brief in further support of the motion on January
16, 2015. Briefing is now complete and the motion is under
consideration by the Court."

"We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in the lawsuit,
will deny liability and intend to defend ourselves vigorously.
There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful. An
adverse resolution of the lawsuit could have a material adverse
effect on our business, financial condition or results of
operations. We are presently unable to predict the outcome of the
lawsuit or to reasonably estimate a range of potential losses, if
any, related to the lawsuit."


MEDTRONIC INC: Plaintiff's Suit Against Own Lawyer Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Donald G. Harden retained the Murray Law Firm to sue Medtronic,
Inc., and Medtronic Sofamor Danek USA, Inc., (collectively
"Medtronic") for damages allegedly caused by a defective infused
bone graft.  The Plaintiff complains that attorneys at the Firm
did not return his calls or give him regular status updates on the
case. He also complains that the Firm turned his case into a class
action lawsuit without his permission. The Plaintiff says the
settlement reached with Medtronic did not adequately redress his
injuries. He believes that the Firm, its attorneys, and its
paralegals violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause
because his injuries were greater than those of the other class
members.

In a memorandum and order dated June 9, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1fEoD1ofrom Leagle.com, District Judge
Audrey G. Fleissig granted the Plaintiff's motion to proceed in
forma pauperis, and also dismissed the action pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B).

"To state a claim under [Section] 1983, a plaintiff must establish
that a person acting under color of state law committed the acts
which form the basis of the complaint. Private actors may incur
section 1983 liability only if they are willing participants in a
joint action with public servants acting under color of state law
. . . Defendants are not governmental officials and, therefore,
did not act under color of law. Plaintiff has not made any
allegations that defendants conspired with a governmental official
to violate his constitutional rights. As a result, plaintiff's
allegations are legally frivolous," Judge Fleissig concluded.

The case is DONALD G. HARDEN, Plaintiff, v. MURRAY LAW FIRM, LLC,
et al., Defendants, NO. 4:15CV870 SPM, (E.D. Mo.).

Donald G. Harden, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


MICHIGAN: Court Narrows Suit Filed by Female Inmates
----------------------------------------------------
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and for summary judgment in
the case captioned, AMIRA SALEM AND KESHUNA ABCUMBY, Plaintiffs,
v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, DANIEL H. HEYNS, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-14567 (E.D. Mich.).

On November 1, 2013, Plaintiffs, on behalf of all female
prisoners, filed a class action complaint against Defendants
Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC), Daniel H. Heyns, Thomas
Finco, Dennis Straub, Randy Treacher, and Millicent Warren for
alleged violations of Plaintiffs' statutory and constitutional
rights. Plaintiffs' complaint also provided that in addition to
costs, expenses, and damages including punitive damages,
Plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against Defendants
prohibiting them from subjecting Plaintiffs to polices and
procedures that violated their constitutional statutory rights,
and common law rights, and remediation of certain prison
conditions namely the prohibition of the chair portion of the
strip search.

Defendants contended that to the extent that Plaintiffs' claims
were brought against the individual defendants in their official
capacities for money damages, those claims were barred pursuant to
the Eleventh Amendment wherein immunity extended to state
officials or employees sued in their official capacities.

District Judge Paul D. Borman of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan in the Opinion and Order
dated May 1, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1GZcH32from
Leagle.com, granted in part Defendants' motion to dismiss and for
summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The Court found that
Plaintiffs' claims insofar as they sought money damages against
the MDOC or against the individual defendants sued in their
official capacity were barred by the Eleventh Amendment but the
Eleventh Amendment did not bar suits against government officials
sued in their official capacities for prospective injunctive
relief.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Racine M. Miller, Esq.
     WE FIGHT THE LAW, PLLC
     17600 Northland Park Ct # 20
     Southfield, MI 48075
     Tel: (248) 4439030

          - and -

     Teresa J. Gorman, Esq.
     TERESA J. GORMAN PLLC
     30150 Telegraph Rd. Ste. 345
     Bingham Farms, MI, 48025
     Tel: (248) 223-9922

          - and -

     Kenneth J. Hardin, II, Esq.
     HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C.
     437 Grant St.,  #1801
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Tel: (412)-315-7195

Defendant is represented by A. Peter Govorchin, Esq., Cori E.
Barkman, Esq. & Michael R. Dean, Esq., MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL


NADLER & ASSOCIATES: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Hawk, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
v. Nadler & Associates PC and Cavalry SPV I LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00094 (M.D. Ga., June 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marques Jamil Carter, Esq.
      PO Box 366373
      Atlanta, GA 30336
      Telephone: (404) 593-7456
      E-mail: mjclawllc@comcast.net


NEW YORK: Education Dept Accused of Race and Age Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Ambrosio v. New York City Department of Education, and Rose
Marie Mills in her individual capacity, Case No. 1:15-cv-04204-AKH
(S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2015) alleges that the Defendants
discriminatorily altered the terms, conditions, and privileges of
the Plaintiff's employment on account of her race, her age, and in
retaliation for opposing that discrimination.

Ms. Ambrosio, a resident of Albany County, New York, was employed
with the Department of Education of the City of New York as
teacher, and then, as a principal.

The City of New York and the Department of Education of the City
of New York are employers and state actors.  Rose Marie Mills, at
all relevant times, served as a Superintendent employed by NYCDOE
and had supervisory purview over the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ambrose Wotor Wotorson, Jr., Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF AMBROSE WOTORSON, P.C.
          26 Court Street, Suite 1811
          New York, NY 11242
          Telephone: (718) 797-4861
          Facsimile: (718) 797-4863
          E-mail: loaww1650@aol.com


NEW YORK: Education Dept Accused of Bias by Jewish Female Teacher
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mavis Shein v. New York City Department of Education, and Patrick
Burns, Individually and in his Official Capacity, Case No. 1:15-
cv-04236-DLC (S.D.N.Y., June 2, 2015) alleges religious
discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the
14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Ms. Shein is a 54-year old female, who is a resident and
domiciliary of Queens County, New York.  She is a Jewish female,
dedicated her entire 30-year professional life to helping children
learn, first as an elementary grades teacher and later as a middle
school English Language Arts teacher in New York.

New York City Department of Education is a municipal corporation
incorporated under the laws of the state of New York, which is in
charge of all public schools in the City of New York.  Patrick
Burns is the Principal of Robert A. Van Wyck Middle School 217 in
District 28, located in Briarwood, New York.  Mr. Burns was the
Plaintiff's direct supervisor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Morelli, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF STEVEN A. MORELLI, P.C.
          1461 Franklin Avenue
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 393-9151
          E-mail: smorelli@smorellilaw.com


NEW YORK: S.D.N.Y. Judge Tosses "Cohen" Suit v. DMV
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul A. Crotty of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss the case, RANDY COHEN, ANDREAS COHRSSEN, NICK GRAY,
ABBY HAYWOOD, SHARON KLIEGMAN, DAN KOHN, HANI MANSOURIAN,
MADELEINE MATSSON, ROBERT RAKOWITZ, BRAEDEN ROGERS, CHRIS
SCARAFILE, SCOTT TRUDEAU, and NOAH WILDMAN, Plaintiffs, v. The
STATE OF NEW YORK, BARBARA FIALA, NEIL SCHOEN, IDA TRASCHEN,
DEBBIE LANGEVIN and "JOHN DOE", Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
796(PAC) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs brought the class action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983, claiming the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) overcharged them between $80 and $88 for bicycling
violations and improperly added three penalty points to their New
York State operator's licenses. The Defendants were the State of
New York, which operated the DMV; Barbara Fiala, the DMV
Commissioner; Neil Schoen and Ida Traschen, DMV lawyers; Debbie
Langevin, the DMV's Director of Ticketing Systems; and "John Doe,"
a supervisor in the DMV's Plea Unit. The individual Defendants
were sued both in their official and personal capacity. Plaintiffs
sought monetary relief in the form of damages, unpaid interest,
and attorney fees and injunctive relief directing Defendants to
(1) cease overcharging and applying penalty points to bicycling
violations, (2) modify the DMV website, and (3) modify the UT-60
traffic ticket.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the suit under Federal
Revised Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) based on sovereignn
immunity, lack of standing, mootness, qualified immunity, and
failure to state a claim.

Judge Crotty, in the Opinion and Order dated April 30, 2015
available at http://bit.ly/1F0tl2Rfrom Leagle.com, granted the
motion to dismiss, saying the defendants were entitiled to both
sovereign immunity and qualified immunity.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steve Vaccaro, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF VACCARO AND WHITE
     17 Battery Place, Suite 204
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 577-3040

Defendant is represented by Eva Lenore Dietz, Esq., OFFICE OF THE
NEW YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL


NEW YORK DOLLS: Late Claimants Can't Participate in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald L. Ellis of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York denied Plaintiffs' request
to allow late claimants to participate in the settlement in the
case, MELODY FLYNN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK DOLLS
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-6530
(RLE)(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs were individuals who were employed as entertainers by
Defendants New York Dolls, Private Eyes, and Flashdancers
Gentlemen's Club. Plaintiffs commenced a class action on September
17, 2015, alleging that they were misclassified as independent
contractors and were deprived of their rights under the Federal
Labor Standards Act. On August 5, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement which the
Court granted on October 6, 2014. Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement on January 26, 2015.
On February 2, 2015, Defendants wrote to oppose Plaintiffs' motion
to the extent that it requested the Court to permit four late
claims made after the December 20, 2014 Claim Bar Date to
participate in the settlement. The Parties argued the issue before
the Court at the Fairness Hearing held on February 9, 2015, and
were permitted to brief their positions.

Plaintiffs argued that the Court should rely upon its equitable
power to include late-filed claims as a part of a settlement to
permit participation by the late claimants. Plaintiffs urged the
Court to consider the four factors articulated in Pioneer
Investment Services: (I) the danger of prejudice; (2) the length
of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, (3)
the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the
reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted
in good faith.

Judge Ellis, in the Order dated April 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/B3BkFRfrom Leagle.com, denied Plaintiffs' request
that the Court permit the late claimants to participate in the
settlement. The Court concluded that the contract terms were
bargained for by the Parties and allowing late claims would
increase the ultimate obligations of the Defendants by
approximately $43,000 and found no basis to go beyond simple
contract principles since the material terms of the Parties'
agreement as to late claimants cannot be rejected on equitable
grounds.

Plaintiffs are represented by Amber Christine Trzinski, Esq.,
Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq. -- jms@outtengolden.com -- Deirdre
Anne Aaron, Esq. -- daaron@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN,
LLP;

          - and -

     Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
     Eric Joshua Gitig, Esq.
     Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER
     475 Park Ave S
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 300-0375

Defendant is represented by Jeffrey A. Kimmel, Esq. --
jak@msf-law.com -- Howard Scott Davis, Esq. -- hd@msf-law.com --
MEISTER SEELIG & FEIN LLP


NORTHLAND GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Molino, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03145-ENV-RLM (E.D.N.Y., May 29, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NRG ENERGY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Wilens" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Wilens, on behalf of himself and all persons similarly
situated v. NRG Energy, Inc., NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC,
and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-00793961 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of placing calls on consumers' cellular telephone using an
automatic telephone dialing system or a prerecorded voice.

The Defendants own and operate an energy company, headquartered in
West Windsor Township, New Jersey, and Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq.
      THE SPENCER LAW FIRM
      903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
      San Clemente, CA 92673
      Telephone: (949) 240-8595
      Facsimile: (949) 240-8515
      E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net


PASTEUR MEDICAL: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cesareo Garcia, and others similarly situated v. Pasteur Medical
Group, LLC, Pasteur Medical Management, LLC, Gerardo A. Necuze,
and Luis A. Perez, Case No. 2015-013566-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June
16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a healthcare facility in South
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PATTERSON-UTI DRILLING: "Heikkila" Suit Moved From Colo. to Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Heikkila, et al. v. Patterson-UTI
Drilling Company LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00500, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).  The
Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01443 to the
proceeding.

The civil action is brought pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988 for the Defendant's alleged
failure to give the required WARN Act written notice to the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals in connection with a
recent Mass Layoff or Plant Closing at the Defendant's single site
of employment relative to its "Rockies Region" drilling
operations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
          BARON BUDD PC
          3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75214
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605
          E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Darren E. Nadel, Esq.
          Michelle L. Rosendahl, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          1900 16th Street, Suite 800
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 629-6200
          Facsimile: (303) 629-0200
          E-mail: dnadel@littler.com
                  mrosendahl@littler.com


PERFORMANCE FOOD: Removes "Perez" Class Suit to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Perez v. Performance Food Group,
Inc., et al., Case No. RG15767109, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-
02390 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit accuses the Defendants of failing to pay overtime at
the correct rate, meal break violations, inaccurate wage
statements, forfeiture of vacation wages, untimely payment of
wages upon separation, unfair business practices, and penalties
also derive from or otherwise relate to Defendants' wage and hour
compliance with respect to their alleged employment of Plaintiff
and the putative class members he seeks to represent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
          Neil Larsen, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP P,C,
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888-7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  tuvia@setarehlaw.com
                  neil@setarehlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew C. Kane, Esq.
          Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
          Sylvia J. Kim, Esq.
          MCGUIREWOODS LLP
          1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 315-8200
          Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
          E-mail: mkane@mcguirewoods.com
                  sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
                  skim@mcguirewoods.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rufino D. Garcia, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
03685-NLH-JS (D.N.J., June 2, 2015) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Alan Venti, Esq.
          WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY LLC
          Woodland Falls Corporate Center
          210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
          Telephone: (856) 667-0500
          E-mail: joeventi@wcblegal.com


PREMIER STAFFING: Faces "Jordan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Latoris Jordan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Premier Staffing Company, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-09456
(Ill. Cir. Ct., June 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

Premier Staffing Company, Inc. is engaged in the business of
providing hotel and hotel management related services at the
Marriott/Fairfield Inn & Suites located at 216 E. Ontario Street
in Chicago, Illinois 60611.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 726-3400


PRO CAPITAL: Court Denies TRO Bid in "Marasek" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Jan and Joan Marasek filed an emergency application for a
temporary restraining order and a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's denial of their bankruptcy appeal in the case
captioned, In re JAN MARASEK and JOAN BYRON MARASEK JAN MARASEK,
et al., Appellants, v. U.S. BANK CUST FOR PRO CAPITAL I, LLC,
Appellee, Bankrupty Action No. 08-30919 (MBK) Civil Action No.
14-5213 (MAS)(D.N.J.).

On April 16, 2015, the Court denied Appellants' bankruptcy appeal
and a related motion, which sought to overturn the decision of the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey
granting U.S. Bank Cust for Pro Capital I LLC's request for relief
from an automatic stay. Appellants requested that the Court
reverse the Bankruptcy Court's decision granting Pro Capital
relief from an automatic stay, so that foreclosure proceedings
commenced with respect to real property owned by them could be
stalled. As set forth more fully in the Court's prior decision,
Pro Capital purchased a tax lien on Appellants' property at a
municipal auction during the pendency of the bankruptcy
proceedings and thus requested relief from the stay in order to
foreclose on the property.

In the motion for reconsideration, Appellants asserted that the
Court erred in denying their appeal, and for injunctive relief.
They contended that the tax lien entitling Pro Capital to
foreclose on their property was procured by fraud and in
connection with an alleged anticompetitive bid-rigging conspiracy
for which several companies and individuals have been criminally
prosecuted and which is the subject of a civil class action before
the Undersigned.

District Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied both Appellants'
motion for reconsideration and application for a temporary
restraining order, and denied entitlement of injunctive relief in
the Memorandum Opinion dated May 5, 2015 available
http://is.gd/p1nVJlfrom Leagle.com.

Defendant is represented by:

     Gary C. Zeitz, Esq.
     Linda S. Fossi, Esq.
     ZEITZ & STEIN, L.L.C.
     1105 Laurel Oak Rd # 136
     Voorhees Township, NJ 08043
     Tel: (856) 857-1222


PROCERA NETWORKS: Francisco Partners Merger Suit in Early Stages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Procera Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that litigation relating to
the Company's pending merger with Francisco Partners are in their
early stages.

Following the announcement that the Company had entered into the
Merger Agreement with KDR Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Parent"), and KDR Acquisition, Inc., a Delaware corporation and
a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Purchaser") on April 21,
2015, eight putative stockholder class action complaints
challenging the Offer, the Merger and the transactions
contemplated thereby were filed on behalf of purported Company
stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
These complaints were: (1) Sverdlov v. Procera Networks, Inc., et
al., Case No.10951, filed on April 28, 2015, (2) Feniello v.
Brear, et al., Case No. 10952, filed on April 28, 2015, (3) Lemmon
v. Brear, et al., Case No. 10961, filed on April 29, 2015, (4)
Clark v. Procera Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 10968, filed on
April 29, 2015, (5) Torpey v. Procera Networks, Inc., et al., Case
No. 10969, filed on April 29, 2015, (6) Schiller v. Procera
Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 10971, filed on April 30, 2015,
(7) Rosenfeld v. Procera Networks, Inc., et al., Case No. 10973,
filed on April 30, 2015, and (8) Stupar v. Procera Networks, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 10975, filed on May 1, 2015 (collectively, the
"Complaints").

The Sverdlov, Torpey, Schiller and Rosenfeld complaints name the
Company, the members of the Board, Francisco Partners, Parent and
Purchaser as defendants. The Clark and Stupar complaints name the
Company, the members of the Board, Parent and Purchaser as
defendants. The Feniello complaint names the members of the Board,
Francisco Partners, Parent and Purchaser as defendants. The Lemmon
complaint names the members of the Board, Francisco Partners,
Francisco Partners Management, L.P., Parent and Purchaser as
defendants.

In general, the Complaints allege that the members of the Board
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders by
taking one or more of the following actions: (i) agreeing to an
unfair and inadequate Offer Price for the Shares, (ii) accepting
unreasonable deal protection measures in the Merger Agreement that
dissuades other potential bidders from making competing offers,
(iii) failing to properly value the Company and take steps to
maximize the value of the Company, (iv) engaging in self-dealing,
and (v) ignoring the conflicts of interest present in the
Company's financial advisor.

The Complaints also allege that one or more of the following
defendants: the Company, Francisco Partners, Francisco Partners
Management, L.P., Parent and Purchaser aided and abetted the
members of the Board in breaching their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders.

In each Complaint, the plaintiffs have requested certification as
a class, injunctive relief, monetary damages, an award of
attorneys' fees, other costs and fees and other equitable relief
that the court may deem just and proper. The Feniello, Lemmon,
Clark, Schiller and Rosenfeld complaints have also requested that
the court rescind and set aside the transactions in the event that
the Offer and the Merger are consummated.

These lawsuits are in their early stages and it is not possible to
determine the potential outcome of any of these lawsuits or to
make any estimate of probable losses at this time. Each of the
Company, the Board, Francisco Partners, Francisco Partners
Management, L.P., Parent and Purchaser believes that these
lawsuits are completely without merit and each intends to
vigorously defend against all allegations that have been asserted.


QUALITY INTEGRATED: "Oates" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Oates, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Quality Integrated Services, Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-01727 (S.D. Tex., June 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Quality Integrated Services, Inc. is a corporation providing third
party services, including inspection, for the construction and
maintenance of oil and natural gas transmission, midstream and
gathering lines, facility construction, meter runs and many other
types of oil and gas construction throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon Jude Carson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net


R. SABEE CO: Accused of Discriminating Against Female Employee
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Igl v. R. Sabee Company, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00657-WCG
(E.D. Wis., May 29, 2015) alleges that the Defendant intentionally
and willfully discriminated against the Plaintiff on the basis of
her sex/gender (female) by compensating her less than her
similarly situated male counterparts within the meaning of the
Equal Pay Act of 1963, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, in reckless indifference to her federally protected
rights.

R. Sabee Company, LLC, is a Wisconsin company with a principal
office address in Appleton, Wisconsin.  The Company is a
manufacturers and custom convertor of consumer disposable pet,
incontinence, and healthcare products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Walcheske, Esq.
          Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
          Kelly L. Temeyer, Esq.
          WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC
          15850 W. Bluemound Road, Suite 304
          Brookfield, WI 53005
          Telephone: (262) 780-1953
          Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
          E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                  sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                  ktemeyer@walcheskeluzi.com


REFUGE FAMILY: Faces "McQueen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric McQueen and Sedrick Neloms, Individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Refuge Family Care PCH, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02154-SCJ (N.D. Ga., June 16, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Refuge Family Care PCH, Inc. owns and operates personal care
homes, community living arrangements and assisted living
facilities in Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lisa T. Millican, Esq.
      GREENFIELD MILLICAN, P.C.
      607 The Grant Building
      44 Broad Street, NW
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 522-1122
      E-mail: lisa.millican@lawofficepc.com


REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE: Must Face "Wiley" Suit, Md. Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Regional Acceptance Corporation filed a Motion to
Dismiss, while Plaintiffs requested for leave to amend the
complaint in the case, JASON WILEY and REESHA WILEY, Plaintiffs.
v. REGIONAL ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. TDC-14-
2709 (D. Md.).

In 2013, RAC repossessed and sold a car purchased by Plaintiffs
Jason and Reesha Wiley (the Wileys) after they defaulted on their
car loan payments. Due to a number of alleged errors in RAC's
notices of repossession and sale, the Wileys, on behalf of
themselves and a prospective class of similarly situated
individuals, brought suit against RAC. They asserted claims for
declaratory and injunctive relief, breach of contract, violations
of the Maryland Credit Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC)
and violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act
(MCDCA).

On September 25, 2015, RAC filed its Motion to Dismiss asserting
that the Wileys failed to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. It claimed that the Complaint did not sufficiently
alleged a violation of the CLEC and that in the absence of a
plausible claim of a CLEC violation, the Wileys' claims for a
declaratory and injunctive relief breach of contract and a
violation of the MCDCA necessarily failed.

District Judge Theodore D. Chuang of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland in the Order dated May 4, 2015
available at http://is.gd/sTbpYwfrom Leagle.com, denied in part
RAC's Motion to Dismiss as to claims arising from the alleged
private sale and RAC's failure to include a full accounting, and
from the alleged failure to conduct the sale in a commercially
reasonable manner and granted as to the remaining claims. The
Court granted Wiley's request for leave to amend.

Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas Joseph Minton, Esq. --
tminton@charmcitylegal.com -- GOLDMAN AND MINTON PC

Defendant is represented by Brian L. Moffet, Esq. --
bmoffet@gfrlaw.com -- GORDON FEINBLATT LLC


RESTAURANT.COM INC: 3rd Cir. Reverses Ruling in "Bohus" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Larissa Shelton and Gregory Bohus appealed from an order of the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
dismissing their putative class action suit against
Restaurant.com.  The appellate case is captioned, GREGORY BOHUS,
ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; LARISSA
SHELTON, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, v.
RESTAURANT.COM, INC., Gregory Bohus; Larissa Shelton Appellants,
Case No. 14-3316.

The Plaintiffs purchased gift certificates from Restaurant.com
that allegedly violated several New Jersey statutes.
Restaurant.com sold gift certificates online that provided a
credit for the holder for purchases of food and beverages at the
restaurant named on the certificate. The amount paid did not
always coincide with the face amount of the certificate with
standard terms and conditions that the certificate expired one (1)
year from date of issue, except in California and where otherwise
provided by law and the certificate was void to the extent
prohibited by law. The Plaintiffs filed a purported class action
against Restaurant.com in New Jersey state court, and the case was
later removed to federal court on the basis of diversity
jurisdiction.  The class has not been certified. The Plaintiffs'
complaint alleged two claims: in Count I, violations of the New
Jersey Gift Certificate Statute and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act and, in Count II, violations of the Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act.

The district court for the District of New Jersey dismissed the
putative class action suit against Restaurant.com for failure to
state a claim. As to the first count, the Court concluded that the
Plaintiffs had failed to allege any ascertainable loss, as was
required under relevant state law.  As to the second count, the
Court concluded that the Plaintiffs were not consumers within the
meaning of the TCCWNA because the gift certificates they purchased
were not money, property or services but provided only a
contingent right to a discount.

A total of five prior opinions have been issued in the case by,
variously, the District Court, the Supreme Court of New Jersey,
and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. See Shelton v.
Restaurant.com (Shelton V), No. CIV.A. 10-824 JAP, 2014 WL 3396505
(D.N.J. July 10, 2014); Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc. (Shelton
IV), 543 F. App'x 168 (3d Cir. 2013); Shelton v. Restaurant.com,
Inc. (Shelton III), 70 A.3d 544 (N.J. 2013); Shelton v.
Restaurant.com, Inc. (Shelton II), No. 10-2980, 2011 WL 10844972
(3d Cir. May 17, 2011); Shelton v. Restaurant.com, Inc. (Shelton
I), No. CIV. A 10-0824 (JAP), 2010 WL 2384923 (D.N.J. June 15,
2010).

In the Third Circuit appeal, the Plaintiffs raised three main
arguments challenging the District Court's retroactivity ruling.
First, they argued that the Supreme Court of New Jersey had
already conducted a retroactivity analysis and determined that its
decision was to apply to the parties in this case. Second, they
argued that the question of retroactivity need not even arise
because the rule announced in Shelton III was not new. Finally,
they argued that even if the rule announced in Shelton III was
new, the District Court should have applied the general rule that
litigants who bring about a change or clarification in the law
were entitled to the benefit of that new rule.

Circuit Judge Kent A. Jordan of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, in the Opinion dated April 30, 2015
available http://is.gd/Ht6RRWfrom Leagle.com, reversed the
district court's ruling and remanded the case solely for entry of
an order giving the two named plaintiffs the benefit of the new
rule of law that their efforts helped to create. The Court
concluded that although the District Court correctly determined
that the new rule announced in Shelton III is not fully
retroactive, it erred by failing to apply the new rule to
Plaintiffs Shelton and Bohus.

Plaintiff are represented by Katrina Carroll, Esq. --
kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE, DEPALMA;

          - and -

     Christopher J. McGinn, Esq.
     Andrew R. Wolf, Esq.
     Henry P. Wolfe, Esq.
     THE WOLF LAW FIRM
     1520 US Highway 130, Suite 101
     North Brunswick, NJ 08902
     Tel: (732)545-7900

Defendant is represented by Michael R. McDonald, Esq. --
mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- Caroline E. Oks, Esq. --
coks@gibbonslaw.com -- Damian V. Santomauro, Esq. --
dsantomauro@gibbonslaw.com -- Jennifer M. Thibodaux, Esq. --
jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS


REVETT MINING: Defendant in Stockholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Revett Mining Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company,
members of its board of directors, Hecla and Hecla's wholly-owned
merger subsidiary, RHL Holdings, Inc. are defendants in three
putative stockholder class action lawsuits in Spokane County,
Washington Superior Court brought by purported stockholders of the
Company in April 2014 following the Company's announcement of its
proposed merger with Hecla.

The plaintiffs generally allege that (i) the members of the
Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
the Company's stockholders by authorizing the merger with Hecla
for what the plaintiffs assert is inadequate consideration arrived
at pursuant to an inadequate process, and (ii) Hecla and RHL
Holdings, Inc. (and the Company in at least one of the lawsuits)
aided and abetted the other defendants' alleged breach of these
fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, to
enjoin the merger, rescind the transaction or obtain rescissory
damages if the merger is consummated, obtain other unspecified
damages, and recover their attorneys' fees and costs.

Although it is not possible to predict the outcome of litigation
matters with certainty, each of the Company, its directors, Hecla
and RHL Holdings, Inc. believe the lawsuits are without merit, and
the parties intend to vigorously defend against all claims
asserted.


RICHMOND, VA: Faces "Cephas" Suit Alleging FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Cephas, Jamie Albert, Solange Cole, Gary Ford, Jennifer
Green, Tamara Hayden, Kiesha Hightower, Aja Morrow, Tamekia
Simmons, Tyia Venable and Paula Missouri, On behalf of themselves
and other similarly situated v. City of Richmond, Virginia, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00332-JAG (E.D. Va., June 2, 2015) alleges violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          CURWOOD LAW FIRM PLC
          530 East Main Street, Suite 710
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 788-0808
          Facsimile: (804) 767-6777
          E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com
                  ccurwood@curwoodlaw.com


RIGHT CHOICE: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages Under FLSA, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Berry v. Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC, Vascor Ltd,
Autoline Transportation, Inc. and Timothy Schultz, Case No. 2:15-
cv-11937-AC-MJH (E.D. Mich., May 29, 2015) arises from the
Defendants' alleged willful failure to compensate the Plaintiff
with overtime pay in violation of the Federal Labor Standard Act
and the Michigan Workforce Opportunity Wage Act.

Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC is a Michigan corporation with
its principal place of business in Taylor, Michigan.  Vascor, Ltd.
is a Delaware Corporation with a registered office in Michigan.
Autoline Transportation, Inc., is a Michigan Corporation with its
principal place of business in Livonia, Michigan, which
corporation was dissolved in February 25, 2014.  Timothy Schultz
is the resident agent, authorized officer, and manager of Right
Choice and Autoline.

The Defendants are in the business of moving automobiles, for
Chrysler Group LLC, from one location to another within the state
of Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas H. Randolph, III, Esq.
          RANDOLPH LAW GROUP, P.C.
          32255 Northwestern Highway, Suite 251
          Farmington Hills, MI 48334
          Telephone: (248) 851-1222
          Facsimile: (248) 254-6534
          E-mail: thomas@randolphlawgroup.com


S2VERIFY LLC: Sued in Cal. Over Improper Consumer Reporting
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regmon L. Hawkins, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
individuals v.  S2Verify, LLC and IPC International Corp., Case
No. RG15774306 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 16, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' improper consumer reporting practices, specifically by
reporting old charges that were dismissed and older than seven
years, failing to use reasonable procedures to assure maximum
possible accuracy of the information concerning the individual,
and failing to use strict procedures to ensure that the public-
record information reported for employment purposes is complete
and up to date.

S2Verify, LLC is a consumer reporting agency that provides
consumer reports to employers, landlords, and creditors.

IPC International Corp. is a firm specializing in providing
security services to various businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
      Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
      Craig C. Marcblando, Esq.
      CADDELL & CHAPMAN
      1331 Lamar, Suite 1070
      Houston TX 77010
      Telephone: (713) 751-0400
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
      E-mail: Mac@caddellchapman.com
              cbc@caddellchapman.com
              ccm@caddellchapman.com


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Court Denies Renewed Class Cert. in Stockwell
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUANITA STOCKWELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN
FRANCISCO, et al., Defendants, Case No. C 08-5180 PJH (N.D. Cal.),
is brought on behalf of a putative class of similarly situated
individuals who worked for the San Francisco Police Department
(SFPD) and who were allegedly denied advancement opportunities
because of their age. The operative second amended class action
complaint (SAC) alleged that each of the plaintiffs was a SFPD
officer with extensive investigative experience, and who took and
passed the test for a Q-35 Assistant Inspector position.
Plaintiffs alleged that starting in 2007 the practice of filling
investigative positions from the Q-50 list had a substantial
adverse impact on officers over the age of forty. plaintiffs have
asserted two causes of action: one under California's Fair
Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), and one under the federal Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). Plaintiffs have sought
class certification on their FEHA claim twice before. The court
denied the first and second class certification motions.

Plaintiffs filed a third motion for class certification.  In their
renewed motion, Plaintiffs sought certification of a FEHA-only
class under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23(b)(3), and did not seek
certification of a class or a collective action with regard to
their ADEA claims. Contained in the renewed motion were
alternative arguments for damages from the 55 individuals "but-
for" promotions should be aggregated and divided pro rata among
the 133 putative class members and that if the City continued to
make promotions from the Q-35 list, it would have filled the 55
positions by promoting the 55 highest-ranked officers on the list.

District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California in the Order dated
May 8, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Ld74gAfrom Leagle.com,
denied Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification finding
that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show predominance
and superiority prongs under Rule 23(b)(3).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Steven Sorgen, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL SORGEN
     240 Stockton St # 900
     San Francisco, CA 94108
     Tel: (415)394-6268

          - and -

Richard A. Hoyer, Esq. -- rhoyer@hoyerlaw.com -- and Ryan L.
Hicks, Esq. -- rhicks@hoyerlaw.com -- HOYER & ASSOCIATES

Defendant is represented by Gina Marie Roccanova, Esq. --
groccanova@coblentzlaw.com -- COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP, and
Jonathan C. Rolnick, Esq. and Jenica Diane Maldonado, Esq., at the
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY


SANTA CLARA CTY, CA: Sued in Super. Court Over Sexual Harassment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Tran; Laura Castillo; Martina Hagspiel; and Marybelle
Quintero v. County of Santa Clara; Benjamin Bilbro; and Does 1-20,
Case No. 1-15-CV-281233 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 29, 2015) alleges
that within the last year, the Defendants harassed the Plaintiffs
on the basis of their sex.

According to the complaint, the Defendants subjected the
Plaintiffs, who are all female, to hostile work environment sexual
harassment, quid pro quo sexual harassment, and widespread sexual
favoritism, through the acts of Mr. Bilbro.

The County of Santa Clara is an employer doing business in the
state of California.  The County is subject to lawsuit under the
California Fair Employment and Housing Act.  The County was the
Plaintiffs' employer during the relevant times herein alleged.
Mr. Bilbro is a male employee of the County and was a de facto
supervisor for the County during the relevant times.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy B. Broderick, Esq.
          Katrina M. Saleen, Esq.
          BRODERICK SALEEN LAW FIRM
          2600 El Camino Real, Suite 506
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-1705
          Telephone: (650) 857-9000
          Facsimile: (650) 857-1100
          E-mail: brodericklaw@brodericklaw.com
                  katrina.telfer@brodericklaw.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: June 2015 Initial Trial in Odorant Spill Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern
California Gas Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that since April 2012, a
total of 11 lawsuits have been filed against Mobile Gas in Mobile
County Circuit Court alleging that in the first half of 2008
Mobile Gas spilled tert-butyl mercaptan, an odorant added to
natural gas for safety reasons, in Eight Mile, Alabama. The
lawsuits include approximately 350 individual plaintiffs and a
putative class action, allege nuisance and negligence causes of
action, and seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages. An
initial trial involving eight plaintiffs was scheduled for trial
in June 2015.


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Blair" Suit Over Sillerman Buyout
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Blair, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SFX Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 11153-VCG
(Del. Ch., June 16, 2015), arises from the proposed acquisition of
SFX by Robert F.X. Sillerman for inadequate consideration in
negotiation and structure, price, and process.

SFX Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates live entertainment venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Grove" Suit Over Sillerman Buyout
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kallyn Grove, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SFX Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 11164-VCG
(Del. Ch., June 17, 2015), arises from the proposed acquisition of
SFX by Robert F.X. Sillerman for inadequate consideration in
negotiation and structure, price, and process.

SFX Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates live entertainment venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Randall J. Baron
      David T. Wissbroecker
      Edward M. Gergosian
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      E-mail: rbaron@rgrdlaw.com
              dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              egergosian@rgrdlaw.com


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Sillerman Buyout
------------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Jacobs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SFX Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 11158-VCG
(Del. Ch., June 16, 2015), arises from the proposed acquisition of
SFX by Robert F.X. Sillerman for inadequate consideration in
negotiation and structure, price, and process.

SFX Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates live entertainment venues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      E-mail: mreich@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Randall J. Baron
      David T. Wissbroecker
      Edward M. Gergosian
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      E-mail: rbaron@rgrdlaw.com
              dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              egergosian@rgrdlaw.com


SHADY CANYON: Faces Suit Alleging Discrimination and Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Martinez-Duran v. Shady Canyon Golf Club, Inc.; and Does I to
50, Case No. 30-2015-00790623 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 1, 2015)
alleges that during his employment with Shady Canyon, the
Defendant created a hostile work environment as a result of the
discrimination and retaliation against the Plaintiff.

Shady Canyon Golf Club, Inc. is a California is a for-profit
corporation with its headquarters in Irvine, California.  The
Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Doe
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis P. Wilson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DENNIS P. WILSON
          3322 W. Victory Boulevard
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (818) 843-1788

               - and -

          Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq.
          THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM, APC
          3320 W. Victory Boulevard
          Burbank, CA 91505
          Telephone: (818) 668-7451
          E-mail: bsweenev@thesweeneylawfirm.com


SKY UNION: Removes "Soto" Suit to Northern District of Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Soto, et al. v. Sky Union, LLC,
Case No. 2015 CH 06069, was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, County Department Chancery Division, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-04768 to the
proceeding.

The Defendant is represented by:

          David S. Almeida, Esq.
          David Mitchell Poell, Esq.
          Mark Stephen Eisen, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP
          70 W. Madison Street, 48th floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 499-6300
          Facsimile: (312) 499-6301
          E-mail: dalmeida@sheppardmullin.com
                  DPoell@sheppardmullin.com
                  meisen@smrh.com


SOCIETY FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE: Motion to Intervene Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted the
request of Chelsey Kimmel and Kristin Wells to intervene as
plaintiffs in order to seek injunctive relief on behalf of an
anticipated subclass of donors who intend to donate again in the
case captioned, LINDSAY KAMAKAHI, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN SOCIETY
FOR REPRODUCTIVE MEDICINE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-
01781-JCS (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs on behalf of women who donated human eggs (or oocytes)
through fertility clinics and donation agencies affiliated with
Defendants, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)
and the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies (SART)
against Defendant challenging the provisions of Defendants'
ethical guidelines that limit "appropriate" donor compensation to
no more than $5,000 without justification, and no more than
$10,000 with justification. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants'
"ethical guidelines" restrict donor compensation and thus restrain
trade in violation of the Sherman Act. The Court previously
granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in part,
certifying a Rule 23(c)(4) issue class to determine whether the
guidelines violate the Sherman Act. The Court declined to certify
the issue of damages and -- significantly for the purpose of the
present motion -- declined to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class for
injunctive relief because neither of the proposed class
representatives had standing to seek an injunction.

In the motion to intervene, Proposed Intervenors asserted that
they were entitled to intervention pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, because their Motion was
timely, they had a direct and substantial interest that might be
impaired if they were not permitted to intervene, and the existing
Plaintiffs might not adequately represented Proposed Intervenors'
interest.

Judge Spero, in the Order dated April 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/93AwR4from Leagle.com, said the Proposed
Intervenors' Motion is sufficiently timely to warrant permissive
intervention.

The Court ordered the parties to prepare to discuss a schedule for
Intervenors' anticipated motion to certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class,
and any associated discovery.  A May 1, 2015 case management
conference was scheduled in the case.

Plaintiffs are represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. --
bclobes@caffertclobes.com -- Ellen Meriwether, Esq. --
emeriwehter@caffertyclobes.com -- Nyran Rose Rasche, Esq. --
nrasche@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY FAUCHER LLP, Mark Punzalan,
Esq., PUNZALAN LAW, P.C., Michael Glenn McLellan, Esq. --
mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com -- and Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
-- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com -- FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP

Defendants are represented by Megan Dixon, Esq. --
megan.dixon@hoganlovells.com -- Benjamin Frederick Holt, --
benjamin.holt@hoganlovells.com -- Esq. Justin Bernick, Esq. --
justin.bernick@hoganlovells.com -- Maren Jessica Clouse, Esq. --
maren.clouse@hoganlovells.com --, Robert F. Leibenluft, Esq. --
robert.leibenluft@hoganlovells.com  -- and William L. Monts, III,
Esq. -- william.monts@hoganlovells.com  -- HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP


SONY ELECTRONICS: Falsely Marketed UHD TVs, "Segura" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
JD Segura, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sony Electronics, Inc., Case No. RG15774571 (Cal.
Super. Ct., June 17, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
consumers who purchase Sony Ultra High Definition Television that
were falsely marked by the Defendants as "4K" television that
displays images 4 times better than standard HD televisions.

The product at issue is not actually 4K as it has a horizontal
resolution of only 3840 pixels and the only way to play true UHD
content on the TV is through the use of a separate Sony Media
Player.

Sony Electronics, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that distributes
and sells consumer electronics throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eduardo G. Roy, Esq.
      R. Michael Mori, Esq.
      John R. Hurley, Esq.
      PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
      220 Montgomery Street Suite 1094
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 527-0255
      E-mail: info@prometheus-law.com


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces "Hughes" Suit Alleging Discrimination
------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Hughes v. Spirit Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04169-CM
(S.D.N.Y., June 1, 2015), is brought under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Family Medical Leave Act.

Spirit Airlines, Inc. is a domestic corporation, incorporated
under the laws of Delaware, headquartered in Miramar, Florida,
employing more than 2,200 employees, and regularly doing business
in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey D. Jones, Esq.
          THE JONES LAW FIRM
          523 East Pine Place
          Tulsa, OK 74106-4301
          Telephone: (574) 876-4715
          E-mail: JJ@JeffreyJonesLawFirm.com


STANDARD HOMEOPATHIC: Sued in Wisconsin Over Use of Telephone
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilder Chiropractic, Inc., A Wisconsin corporation, Individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons
v. Standard Homeopathic Laboratories, Inc. v. Standard Homeopathic
Company, Hyland's Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:15-cv-00336
(W.D. Wis., June 2, 2015) arises over restrictions on use of
telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: buslit@andersonwanca.com

               - and -

          Charles Howard Barr, Esq.
          CHARLES H. BARR, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          9474 North Broadmoor Rd.
          Bayside, WI 53217
          Telephone: (414) 351-0057
          Facsimile: (414) 892-5752
          E-mail: cbarr@cbarrlaw.com


STATE FARM: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Folks" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit tossed an appeal
by Roberta Folks related to her lawsuit against State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company.  Ms. Folks seeks reversal of a
district court order denying class certification and wants the
case remanded for reconsideration of her claim for class-wide
relief.  The appellate case is captioned, ROBERTA FOLKS,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
13-1446 (10th Cir.).

On April 4, 1998, a driver hit pedestrian Roberta Folks with the
side mirror of his vehicle and injured her. State Farm, the
driver's insurer, informed Ms. Folks she could receive basic
personal injury protection ("PIP") benefits under the driver's
policy. She received $104,000 in medical expenses and essential
services.

On July 11, 2002, State Farm told her she had exhausted the
benefits available to her under the policy. In 2004, she joined a
lawsuit seeking additional PIP benefits. Over the course of the
litigation, Ms. Folks unsuccessfully sought to certify a class on
three occasions.

In response to her last attempt in 2011, the district court
determined she failed to satisfy the requirements of
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(2) and denied class
certification. A jury proceeded to hear Ms. Folks's individual
claims and found in her favor in 2012. The district court amended
the judgment in 2013 to correct errors in the calculation of
damages. The court trebled the $40,000 in actual damages because
of State Farm's willful and wanton conduct, and awarded Ms. Folks
a total of $120,000 and determined that Ms. Folks established her
entitlement to benefits when she submitted bills to State Farm on
May 13, 2009, and awarded Ms. Folks pre-judgment interest from
June 12, 2009, which amounted to $23,769.86.

In her appeal, Ms. Folks argues that the district court
miscalculated the treble damages and statutory pre-judgment
interest to which she was entitled and challenges the district
court's denial of class certification.

Tenth Circuit Judge Scott Matheson Jr., in the Order dated April
28, 2015 available http://is.gd/szoi0efrom Leagle.com, affirmed
the district court's ruling, concluding that Ms. Folks forfeited
her class certification arguments on appeal because she relied on
a different basis for certification than she did before the
district court.  In her individual claims, the Tenth Circuit
concluded that the district court properly calculated treble
damages and Ms. Folks was not entitled to additional pre-judgment
interest.

Plaintiff is represented by John M. DeStefano, Esq. --
Johnd@hbsslaw.com -- Robert B. Carey, Esq. -- rob@hbsslaw.com --
Leif Garrison, Esq. -- leifg@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO, LLP

Defendant is represented by Marie E. Williams, Esq. --
marie.williams@FaegreBD.com -- Michael S. McCarthy, Esq. --
michael.mccarthy@FaegreBD.com -- and Jennifer K. Harrison, Esq. --
jennifer.harrison@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP


STIENE & ASSOCIATES: Sued for Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde A. LeGall, Jr., and Elnora LeGall, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Stiene & Associates, P.C.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-03201 (E.D.N.Y., June 2, 2015) alleges violations
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan L. Gentile, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA
          180 West 20th Street, Suite 12b
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


TOKIO MARINE: Faces "Ari" Suit Over HCC Insurance Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Ari, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 11159
(Del. Ch., June 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., to enjoin the plan
to sell the Company to Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. by means of a
flawed process and for an inadequate price.

HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. owns and operates an insurance
company with its principal executive offices located at 13403
Northwest Freeway, Houston, Texas 77040.

Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. is a Japanese corporation with its
headquarters located in Japan. Tokio is an insurance holding
company with a presence in approximately 40 countries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500


TTM TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Missouri Lawsuit Entered Into MOU
--------------------------------------------------------------
TTM Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties to the
Missouri Lawsuit have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with respect to a proposed settlement that will terminate
both Lawsuits upon entry of the final judgment.

Since the public announcement on September 22, 2014 of the
execution of the Merger Agreement, Viasystems, TTM, Merger Sub,
and the members of the Viasystems Board have been named as
defendants in two putative class action complaints challenging the
Merger. The first lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri on September 30, 2014 (the Missouri Lawsuit), and
the second lawsuit, filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware on October 13, 2014 (the Delaware Lawsuit and, together
with the Missouri Lawsuit, the Lawsuits), generally allege that
the Merger fails to properly value Viasystems, that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger
Agreement, and that those breaches were aided and abetted by TTM,
Merger Sub, and Viasystems.

The Delaware Lawsuit specifically alleges, among other
allegations, that (1) the Viasystems Board breached its fiduciary
duties by: (a) agreeing to the Merger for grossly inadequate
consideration, (b) agreeing to lock up the Merger with deal
protection devices that prevent other bidders from making a
successful competing offer for Viasystems, and (c) participating
in a transaction where the loyalties of the Viasystems Board and
management are divided; (2) the voting agreements entered into
between the Company and certain of Viasystems' significant
stockholders prevent Viasystems stockholders from providing a
meaningful vote on the proposal to adopt the Merger; and (3) that
those breaches of fiduciary duties were aided and abetted by TTM,
Merger Sub, and Viasystems. Further, the Missouri Lawsuit
specifically alleges, among other allegations, that (1) the
proposed Merger is unfair and the consideration to be paid in
connection with the Merger is inadequate; (2) the Viasystems Board
and Viasystems' management have a conflict of interest due to the
cash pool bonus and change in control payments to be made to
certain executive officers and key employees if the Merger is
consummated; and (3) the Merger Agreement contains impermissible
deal protection devices.

The Lawsuits seek injunctive relief to enjoin the defendants from
completing the Merger on the agreed-upon terms, rescinding, to the
extent already implemented, the Merger Agreement or any of the
terms therein, costs and disbursements and attorneys' and experts'
fees and costs, as well as other equitable relief as the
respective court deems proper. The Delaware Lawsuit also seeks:
(1) in the event the Merger is consummated prior to the entry of
the court's final judgment, rescissory damages as an alternative
to rescission, and (2) an accounting by all defendants to the
plaintiff and other members of the class for all damages caused by
the defendants and for all profits and any special benefits
obtained as a result of their alleged breaches of their fiduciary
duties.

On January 6, 2015, the parties to the Missouri Lawsuit entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with respect to a
proposed settlement that will terminate both Lawsuits upon entry
of the final judgment. The parties are in the process of
negotiating this settlement agreement. Pursuant to the MOU, the
settlement agreement will provide for payment of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses, and releases of all claims and
relief sought in both Lawsuits.


TOWN SPORTS: Class Certification Motion Due in "Labbe" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
deadline for a class certification motion was June 12, 2015, in
the action filed by James Labbe.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations. The Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery.
The deadline for the completion of pre-class certification
document discovery was December 31, 2014 and the deadline for a
class certification motion is June 12, 2015.

While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an
unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to
contest this case vigorously.


TRANSDEV SERVICES: Stipulation Dismissing "Williams" Case Gets OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup signed on June 2, 2015, a stipulation
dismissing the case captioned SHAUNTAE WILLIAMS, an individual, on
behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated;
Plaintiff v. TRANSDEV SERVICES, INC., a corporation; VEOLIA
TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through
50; Inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 4:15-CV-02180-KAW, (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff Shauntae Williams filed this lawsuit as a putative class
action against the Defendants alleging: (1) unfair competition;
(2) failure to pay overtime wages; and (3) failure to provide
wages when due, Contra Costa Superior Court, Case Number C-15-
00612.

TransDev was served on April 15, 2015 and is the only defendant
served to date.  On May 14, 2015, TransDev removed the case to the
United States District Court, Northern District of California,
Case Number 4:15-cv-02180-WHA.  On May 21, 2015, TransDev filed a
motion to dismiss Plaintiff's three causes of action in her
complaint. The Plaintiff evaluated the issues after reviewing
TransDev's motion and has decided to dismiss her entire case,
without prejudice with a mutual waiver of costs.

The parties filed a stipulation for dismissal without prejudice.

The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1KbWPg8from Leagle.com, provides that the action is
dismissed against all defendants without prejudice pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41.

NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL, ESQ. -- norm@bamlawlj.com -- KYLE R.
NORDREHAUG, ESQ. -- kyle@bamlawlj.com -- APARAJIT BHOWMIK, ESQ. --
aj@bamlawlj.com -- BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK, La Jolla, CA,
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Shauntae Williams.

GLEASON & FAVAROTE, LLP, TOREY J. FAVAROTE --
tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com -- BRANDYN E. STEDFIELD --
bstedfield@gleasonfavarote.com -- JANET S. YAVROUIAN --
jyavrouian@gleasonfavarote.com -- Attorneys for Defendant Transdev
Services, Inc.


TRI-STAR WINDOW: Faces "Navarro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Vicente Moya Navarro Jr., as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tri-Star Window Coverings, Inc., Case
No. BC585528 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 17, 2015),is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Tri-Star Window Coverings, Inc. operates a company that sells and
installs blinds, carpeting, linoleum, and other window and floor
coverings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Kristina R. Sherry, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com
              ksherry@bollaw.com


TRW AUTOMOTIVE: Anticipates ZF Merger Class Action to Be Resolved
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TRW Automotive Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended April 3, 2015, that the Company
anticipates a class action litigation related to the Company's
merger agreement with  ZF Friedrichshafen AG, will be resolved and
will not interfere with or delay the closing, but until court
approval is obtained and the cases are dismissed, some uncertainty
remains.

The Company said, "Following the announcement of the execution of
the Merger Agreement on September 15, 2014, the Company, members
of our board of directors, ZF, Merger Sub and others have been
named as defendants in one or more of the purported class actions
filed by purported stockholders of the Company challenging the
proposed ZF Merger. The actions seek, among other forms of relief,
an order enjoining the ZF Merger, rescinding the Merger Agreement
to the extent it has already been implemented, and awarding
attorneys' fees and costs. On November 12, 2014, plaintiffs, the
Company and other named defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") agreeing in principle to settle all
pending actions in exchange for the Company's agreement to make
certain supplemental disclosures, which were filed on the same
date in a supplement to TRW's October 20, 2014 definitive proxy
statement. Pursuant to the MOU, the parties intend to settle,
subject to court approval, certain claims, while the other pending
litigation will be dismissed. The Company anticipates the
litigation will be resolved and will not interfere with or delay
the closing, but until court approval is obtained and the cases
are dismissed, some uncertainty remains. The settlement
contemplated by the MOU is not, and should not be construed as, an
admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant."


TURFEVOLUTIONS: Faces "Larue" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Larue, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Turfevolutions, and Does 1-50, inclusive, 30-2015-
00793945 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Turfevolutions is in the business of providing, delivering, and
installing artificial grass and synthetic turf throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carolyn Hunt Cottrell, Esq.
      Nicole N. Coon, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
              ncoon@schneiderwallace.com


UNITED RECOVERY: Faces "Antebi" Suit Over FDCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Mira Antebi, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. United Recovery Systems, L.P., Docket No. 1:15-cv-
03524 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 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


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Jones" Suit in Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ilissa M. Jones, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation; United HealthCare Services, Inc., a
Minnesota corporation; United Healthcare, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Neighborhood Partnership, Inc., a Florida
corporation, Case No. 0:15-cv-61144-JAL (S.D. Fla., May 29, 2015)
asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan H. Rolnick, Esq.
          Charles Edward Whorton, Esq.
          Daniel Alvarez Sox, Esq.
          Andres Rivero, Esq.
          RIVERO MESTRE LLP
          2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1000
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 445-2500
          Facsimile: (305) 445-2505
          E-mail: arolnick@riveromestre.com
                  cwhorton@riveromestre.com
                  dsox@riveromestre.com
                  arivero@riveromestre.com


VALSPAR CORP: Removes "Egleston" Class Suit to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Egleston v. The Valspar
Corporation, Case No. 154052-15, was removed from the Supreme
Court State of New York, County of New York, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-04130-DLC to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff's claims, as alleged in the Complaint, arise out of
his purchase of a Guardsman Protection Plan provided by Valspar.
He asserts his claims individually and on behalf of a putative
class, and seeks a refund of the purchase price of his plan, other
compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, statutory
attorney's fees, costs and injunctive relief, including an order
prohibiting Valspar from selling Guardsman Protection Plans in the
future.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles M. Hymowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF CHARLES M. HYMOWITZ, P.C.
          186 Joralemon St., Suite 701
          Brooklyn, NY 11242
          Telephone: (718) 624-9200
          E-mail: CharlesHymowitz@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian J. Neff, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          666 Fifth Ave., 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10103
          Telephone: (212) 753-5000
          Facsimile: (212) 753-5044
          E-mail: bneff@schiffhardin.com


WALGREEN CO: Removes "Atwood" Suit to Arkansas District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Atwood v. Peterson, et al., Case
No. 60CV-15-1901, was removed from the Circuit Court of Pulaski
County, Arkansas, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Arkansas (Little Rock).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00305-JM to the proceeding.

The complaint accuses the Defendants of committing price
discrimination when they charged the Plaintiff and members of the
putative class a higher price for certain products than the price
at which the same products were sold to members of Walgreens'
Balance Rewards program.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gene A. Ludwig, Esq.
          Kale L. Ludwig, Esq.
          Kyle P. Ludwig, Esq.
          Ryan Kent Culpepper, Esq.
          LUDWIG LAW FIRM, PLC
          1 Three Rivers Drive
          Little Rock, AR 72223
          Telephone: (501) 868-7500
          Facsimile: (501) 868-7500
          E-mail: gene@ludwiglawfirm.com
                  kale@ludwiglawfirm.com
                  kyle@ludwiglawfirm.com
                  ryan@ludwiglawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chad W. Pekron, Esq.
          R. Ryan Younger, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS & TULL, PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          Facsimile: (501) 379-1701
          E-mail: cpekron@qgtlaw.com
                  ryounger@qgtlaw.com


WAYPOINT HOMES: Court Grants Summary Judgment Bid in "Ollie" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Waypoint Homes' motion for summary judgment in the case, LATARRA
OLLIE, Plaintiff, v. WAYPOINT HOMES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-
CV-01996-YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Ollie brought this class action under the Equal Credit Opportunity
Act, alleging that the form of adverse action notice she received
from Waypoint upon denial of her rental lease application failed
to comply with the requirements of the ECOA.

Waypoint moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the ECOA
did not apply to residential leases and that plaintiff had failed
to allege any right to relief. The Court had denied the motion to
dismiss, finding that plaintiff had stated a plausible claim in
part because defendant had appeared to concede that its lease
qualified as a "credit transaction" such that it was obligated to
comply with the ECOA. Defendant then moved for reconsideration or,
alternatively, certification for interlocutory appeal which was
denied by the court.

Thereafter, the Defendant sought summary judgment on plaintiff's
sole claim on the grounds that the lease for which plaintiff
applied constituted a typical residential lease and, as such, did
not constitute a "credit transaction" under the ECOA.

District Judge Rogers, in the Order dated April 30, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/zqLbgRfrom Leagle.com, granted Defendant's motion
for summary judgment and adopted the rationale of the Seventh
Circuit holding that the ECOA did not apply to typical residential
leases, and declined plaintiff's invitation to extend Ninth
Circuit authority to include such leases. The Court concluded that
there existed no genuine dispute that the ECOA did not apply to
the residential lease at issue in the complaint.

Plaintiff, represented by:

     Todd Michael Friedman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     8730 Wilshire Blvd #310
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Tel: (323)285-3255

          - and -

     David M. Marco, Esq.
     SMITHMARCO, P.C.
     205 N Michigan Ave # 2940
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312)222-9028

          - and -

John Soumilas, Esq. -- jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com -- FRANCIS
AND MAILMAN, P.C.

Defendant, represented by Ellen A. Cirangle, Esq. --
ecirangle@lubinolson.com -- LUBIN OLSON & NIEWIADOMSKI LLP


WEBER CHEVROLET: Court Dismisses "Gates" TCPA Action
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nancy J. Rosentengel of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois granted Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction in the case captioned,
UNECIA S. GATES, Individually, and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. WEBER CHEVROLET CO., Defendant,
Case No. 14-CV-12941-NJR-PMF (S.D. Ill.).

On November 20, 2014, Unecia S. Gates filed a Class Action
Complaint asserting that Defendant, Weber Chevrolet Co., violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, (TCPA) by transmitting
wireless spam in the form of SMS messages to her cell phone after
she visited Defendant's location in Granite City, Illinois between
July and November 2014.

Defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground that its
settlement offer, made prior to Plaintiff certifying the class,
mooted Plaintiff's claim. In response, Plaintiff asserts that the
settlement offer did not moot her claims because: (1) the offer
was made by Weber Granite City who was not a party to the lawsuit
at the time of the offer; (2) Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification within 14 days of receiving the offer; and (3) the
offer required Plaintiff to agree to confidentiality as a
condition of settlement.

On December 5, 2014, Plaintiff received a settlement letter from
counsel for Weber Granite City Chevrolet Company. Defendant
offered to pay Plaintiff the sum of $1,500 for each and every text
message which Plaintiff received, which was sent by or on behalf
of Defendant. In addition, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff any
costs which she would recover were she to prevail in the
litigation, including the cost of the filing fee and any service
fees which would be taxable as costs. After receiving the
settlement offer, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint naming
Weber Chevrolet Co. and Weber Granite City Chevrolet Company as
Defendants and moved to certify a class.

Judge Rosentengel, in the Memorandum and Order dated May 5, 2015
available at http://is.gd/5BjOevfrom Leagle.com, granted
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the action with prejudice. The Court
found that the Plaintiff did not move to certify the class until
after receiving the settlement order which accordingly mooted
Plaintiff's claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher E. Roberts, Esq. --
croberts@butschroberts.com -- and David T. Butsch, Esq. --
dbutsch@butschroberts.com -- BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES, LLC

Defendants are represented by:

     Jason M. Gourley, Esq.
     Kristine M. Mack, Esq.
     DONOVAN ROSE NESTER PC
     201 S Illinois St
     Belleville, IL 62220
     Tel: (618)212-6500


WESTERN ELECTRICITY: Court Denies Motion to Amend Pleadings
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff moved to amend his pleadings to abandon the class-action
mechanism, add all putative class members (less than 20) as named
plaintiffs, and add a claim under Washington State wage statutes
in the case captioned, MATTHEW CARTIER, on behalf of himself and
all similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. WESTERN ELECTRICITY
COORDINATING COUNCIL, a Utah corporation, Defendant, Case No. 14-
CV-00079-WJM-MJW (D. Colo.).

The case included an "opt in" collective-action claim under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and an "opt out" class-action
claim under Colorado wage statutes. Defendant argued that adding
Colorado opt-in plaintiffs as named plaintiffs would be futile in
light of Defendant's pending motion for summary judgment on the
Colorado state-law claims.

Magistrate Judge Michael J. Watanabe of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, in a Report and Recommendation
dated April 2, 2015 available at http://bit.ly/1QpTQT1from
Leagle.com, recommended that Plaintiff's Motion For Leave to Join
Additional Plaintiffs and Amend Pleadings be denied. The court
concluded that the better course of action would be to wait until
Defendant's motion to decertify, if there is one, is resolved.

Plaintiff Roy Smith is represented by Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
-- Bgonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com -- THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D.
GONZALES

Defendant is represented by Stacy Dian Mueller, Esq. --
stacy.mueller@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., Liesel B. Stevens, Esq. -- lstevens@rqn.com
-- and Michael Eugene Blue, Esq. -- mblue@rqn.com -- RAY QUINNEY &
NEBEKER P.C.


WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Koty" Suit Over Defective Clad Windows
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric L. Koty and Stacy L. Koty, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Windsor Window Company d/b/a Windsor
Windows and Doors and Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
05343 (N.D. Ill., June 17, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
consumers who own structures with aluminum wood clad windows
designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised, distributed, and
sold by the Defendants, that contain latent defects that allow
water and moisture to penetrate through the cladding of the window
and wood preservative, resulting in premature wood rot, leaking,
and other collateral damage to the windows and homes.

The Defendants are in the business of designing, manufacturing,
marketing, and selling wood and wood clad windows.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward Eshoo Jr., Esq.
      Michael W. Duffy, Esq.
      CHILDRESS DUFFY, Ltd.
      500 North Dearborn Street, Suite 1200
      Chicago, IL 60654
      E-mail: eeshoo@childresslawyers.com
              mduffy@childresslawyers.com

         - and -

      Panagiotis "Pete" V. Albanis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      12800 University Drive Suite 600
      Fort Myers, FL 33907
      Telephone: (239) 432-6605
      Facsimile: (239) 433-6836
      E-mail: palbanis@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Frank M. Petosa, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: fpetosa@forthepeople.com


WIPRO TECHNOLOGIES: "Payala" Class Suit Moved to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Suri Payala v. Wipro
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. BC 577184, was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-04063-JAK-JPR to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from job-related disputes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard L. Kellner, Esq.
          KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP
          644 South Figueroa Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 217-5000
          Facsimile: (213) 217-5010
          E-mail: rlk@kbklawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan D. Meer, Esq.
          Joshua A. Rodine, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Telephone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          E-mail: jmeer@seyfarth.com
                  jrodine@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Rocio Herrera, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          333 South Hope Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
          Telephone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          E-mail: rherrera@seyfarth.com


WOLF APPLIANCE: Faces "Kail" Suit Over Defective Ranges & Ovens
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan and Melanie Kail, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Wolf Appliance, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03513
(E.D.N.Y., June 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
purchasers of Wolf's "dual fuel" ranges and E and L Series built-
in single and double ovens with defective cobalt blue porcelain
oven cavity interior that is prone to chipping and cracking
through regular use.

Wolf Appliance, Inc. is a Wisconsin corporation that manufacturers
and markets household cooking appliances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mreich@rgrdlaw.com
              vserra@rgrdlaw.com


WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE: Removes "North" Suit to D. South Carolina
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled North v. Wyndham Worldwide
Operations Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-CP-26-3038, was removed
from the Court of Common Pleas of Horry County, South Carolina, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
(Florence).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-
02212-PMD to the proceeding.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he "brings this
action on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated to
remedy violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938."  The
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully violated the FLSA
by failing to pay overtime wages due for all overtime hours worked
each week, in contravention of the statute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William E. Hopkins, Jr., Esq.
          HOPKINS LAW FIRM
          12019 Ocean Highway
          PO Box 1885
          Pawleys Island, SC 29585
          Telephone: (843) 314-4202
          Facsimile: (843) 314-9365
          E-mail: bill@hopkinsfirm.com

               - and -

          Kristine L. Cato, Esq.
          BLAIR CATO PICKREN CASTERLINE
          700 Huger Street, Suite 102
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 349-4397
          Facsimile: (803) 728-3100
          E-mail: kris@blaircato.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          D. Christopher Lauderdale, Esq.
          T. Chase Samples, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          15 South Main Street, Suite 700
          Greenville, SC 29601
          Telephone: (864) 232-7000
          Facsimile: (864) 235-1381
          E-mail: lauderc@jacksonlewis.com
                  chase.samples@jacksonlewis.com


XENCOR INC: Defendant in "DePinto" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 3, 2015, a
complaint, captioned DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No.
10742, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against certain of the Company's current and former directors on
behalf of certain minority holders of the Company's convertible
preferred stock before its initial public offering ("IPO").  In
general, the complaint alleges that the directors breached their
fiduciary duties to these minority stockholders in connection with
a recapitalization of the Company that took place prior to its
IPO.  The complaint also claims that certain director and
stockholder written consents connected with the recapitalization
are invalid.  The complaint has been brought as a purported class
action and seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief.
The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without
merit and intends to vigorously defend the action. Based on the
preliminary nature of the claim, the Company believes that is it
not possible to estimate a potential loss related to the claim.


YFLP PARTNERS: Faces Suit Alleging Disabilities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Ho, an individual v. YFLP Partners LP, a limited partnership;
and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 1-15-CV-281190 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 28, 2015) seeks damages, injunctive and declaratory relief,
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 and related California statutes against
the Defendants.

Mr. Ho is a T-12 paraplegic and requires use of wheelchair at all
times when traveling in public.  The lawsuit is a civil rights
action for discrimination at the building, structure, facility,
complex, property, land, development, and surrounding business
complex located at 20007 Stevens Creek Blvd., in Cupertino,
California.

YFLP Partners LP is the owner, operator, lessor or lessee of the
Property.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Pamela Tsao, Esq.
          ASCENSION LAW GROUP
          2030 E. Fourth Street, Suite 205
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (714) 783-4220
          Facsimile: (888) 505-1033
          E-mail: Pamela.Tsao@ascensionlawgroup.com


YINGLI GREEN: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Bhimsain Mangla, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited,
Liansheng Miao, and Yiyu Wang, Case No. 2:15-cv-04600-GHK-JPR
(C.D. Cal., June 17, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Yingli Green Energy Holding Company Limited together with its
subsidiaries, designs, develops, manufacture, markets, sells, and
installs photovoltaic, or solar energy, products in the People's
Republic of China.

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  * * *