CAR_Public/150630.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, June 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 129


                            Headlines


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: 2nd Cir. Flips Ruling in "Hepler"
ADP DEALER: Performance Chevrolet Suit Sent to N.J. Court
ADT CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action in Florida
ALL ABOUT: "Russell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Class Suit Over Bed Bug Infestation Tossed

ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERICAN CONCRETE: "Carrion" Suit Removed to South Carolina Court
AMERICAN DEBT: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Overcharging Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Wins Final OK of Brake Pads Class Suit Settlement
AMERIMARK DIRECT: Faces "Lambert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

AMETEK INC: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Toxic Plume in San Diego
ANTHEM INC: Faces "Spreter" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
ANTHEM BLUE: Refused to Cover Hep C Drug Cost, "Andre" Suit Says
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
ARCADIA PETROLEUM: Settles Class Action for $16.5 Million

AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Judge Set to Decide on Class Action
AUTOZONE INC: Ellison's Bid to Amend Wage & Hour Complaint Denied
BALTIMORE, MD: Faces Class Action Over Appalling Jail Conditions
BGASC LLC: Faces "Roseman" Class Suit Over Knockoff Silver Coins
BLUE CROSS: Antitrust Class Suits in Alabama in Discovery Phase

BLUE DIAMOND: Faces Class Action Over Almond Milk Advertising
BLUE DIAMOND: "George" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Wytas" Suit Over Avago Merger
CANADA: Judge Allows Day School Class Action to Proceed
CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Two Former Players File Concussion Class Suit

CHC GROUP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action
CITIZENS PROPERTY: Class Action Members Owed $1,640 on Average
CLUB CABARE'T: Peoria Stripper Files Wage Class Action
COAST TO COAST: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Torres" Suit Claims
COMPTON UNIFIED: Sued Over Failure to Address Student Trauma

CONN LAW: SSA to Restore Disability Benefits to 900 People
CONTRA COSTA, CA: Settles Disability Rights Groups' Class Action
CONTROL SYSTEM: "Dodson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Students' Debt Might Be Forgiven, DoED Says
CRGE NEWPARK: Case Management Conference on Thursday

CS GRANITE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CVS PHARMACY: 4 Employees File Racial Discrimination Class Action
DIGNITY HEALTH: Sued for Firing Black Medical Office Assistant
DISH ONE: Faces "Couser" Suit in C.D. Cal. Over TCPA Violation
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Charged Over Special Education Failure

DRILL RIGHT: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Judge Attempts Mediation for Chemical Leak Case
EDISON INT'L: Employees Get Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Suit
ENGLE & SCHUSTER: Distribution of Remaining Funds Okayed
ENTERPRISE DRILLING: Response Date in "Willis" Moved to July 1

ERIE INDEMNITY: Delay Won't Impact $3MM Subscribers' Class Action
ESPN INC: Judge Dismisses Athlete Publicity Rights Class Action
FFP HOLDINGS: Settles Polyurethane Foam Price Fixing Class Action
FIRST NATIONAL: Court Orders Payne to File Amended Complaint
FLOYD MAYWEATHER: Team Member Accused of Threatening Casino Valet

FOXTONS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Maintenance Costs
FRY'S ELECTRONICS: 9th Cir. Upholds "Nathan" Suit Dismissal
GAHANNA, OH: Appeals Ruling in Income Tax Class Action
GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Case
GENERAL MOTORS: Ex-CEO Set for Deposition in Ignition-Switch Suit

GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Villamizar" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
GOLDEN LIVING: Residents Obtain Class Certification
GRILLERS INC: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GRINDR LLC: Faces "Howell" Suit in Cal. Over Illegal Contracts
HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Selling Subscribers' Information

HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: July 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Inflated Fees
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles Autonomy Deal Class Action for $100MM
HILTON HOTELS: Court Tweaks Denial Letters to Unqualified Members
HJ HEINZ: Falsely Marketed Fries & Tater Tots Products, Suit Says

HOLLISTER CO: Class Action Over Voided Gift Cards Can Proceed
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Brake Assembly in Sonata
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Ct. Orders Supplemental Briefing in Reniger Case
IDAHO: DOH Can't Cut Disabled Residents' Benefits, 9th Cir. Rules
IDAHO INSURANCE: 13,000+ Businesses to Get Portion of Settlement

INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE: Sued Over Alleged Plan Mismanagement
IRAN: Compensation Plan for 1979 Revolution US Hostages Advances
ISORAY INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
LA COTE: "Lefevre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LAFARGE CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Drywall Price-Fixing

LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.25 Million
LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Two Class Actions Over Illegal Taxes
MAINE AND ATLANTIC: Faces "Audet" Suit Over Lac-Megantic Accident
MASSAGE ENVY: Aug. 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
MILES INDUSTRIES: Supreme Court Approves Gas Fireplace Settlement

MOLLY GOODHEAD'S: Faces "Graske" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MPW INDUSTRIAL: Illegally Deducts Workers Pay Check, Suit Claims
NABORS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "McCarta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sued Over Alleged Anti-Competitive TV Deal
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Florida

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
NEW JERSEY: High Court Upheld Gov. Christie's Pension Cuts
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Faces Class Action Over Parking Fees
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Guards at Rikers Charged in Inmate's Death
NIPPON CHEMI-CON: Has Lost Bid to Duck Capacitor Antitrust Suit

NY RENAISSANCE: Faces "Bridgelal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
OFS 2 DEAL: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OM GROUP: Being Sold to Duke for Too Little, Shareholders Say
OMNICARE INC: Being Sold for Too Little to CVS, Class Suit Claims
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees

PARNON ENERGY: Plaintiffs Settle Market Manipulation Class Action
PATH: Settles Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
PEPSICO INC: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Carcinogen Claims
PLAINS ALL-AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Refugio Oil Spill
PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Pettit" Wipes Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Still Liable in 2014 Suit Despite Accord
QEP MIDSTREAM: Powers Taylor Files Class Action in Texas
RALPH S. MACRO: Faces "Sexton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RIVERSTONE PROPERTY: Tenants' Class Action Certification Upheld
ROYAL CANADIAN: Hearings Begin in Gender Discrimination Suit

RYLAND HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Fire Sprinklers
SEATTLE, WA: Two Teachers File Class Action Over Pension System
SAC CAPITAL: Seeks Information of Class Action Litigation Funding
SEGA OF AMERICA: Settles "Aliens" Misrepresentation Class Action
SERRA NISSAN: Faces RICO Class Action in Alabama

SHUTTERFLY INC: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Use of Biometric Info
SIRIUS XM: Wins Summary Judgment in Florida Suit by Flo & Eddie
SONY PICTURES: Former Intern Files Wage Class Action
SQUARE INC: 18% Tax & Gratuity Didn't Reach Drivers, Suit Claims
STATE FARM: Delaware Court Tosses Count 1 of "Clark" Lawsuit

SUNWATER: 200 Families Launch Callide Dam Flood Class Action
TAKATA CORP: Faces U.S. Congressional Panel Probe Over Airbags
TASTE OF ITALY: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
TOP RANK: Sheller P.C. Files Consumer Fraud Class Action
TOSHIBA CORP: Accused by Shareholders of Issuing False Statements

TOWNSEND FARMS: Suits Over Hepa A Contamination May Be Joined
TOWNSEND FARMS: Class Cert. Hearing in "Petersen" on July 27
TURN: Consumers Want Verizon Tossed From "Supercookies" Suit
TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Court Won't Review Dismissal of Tea Suit
TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court to Review "Bouaphakeo" Wage Class Suit

UBER TECH: Can't Compel Drivers to Arbitrate Class Claims
UBER TECH: Trial on Way in Driver Misclassification Suits
ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Antitrust Suit Transferred to Nevada
UNILEVER UNITED: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Product Misbranding
UNION PACIFIC: Faces Richard Bagdasarian Trespassing Suit in Cal.

UNION PACIFIC: Faces New Mexico Smelter Trespassing Suit in N.M.
UNITED STATES: Tucson Immigration Jails Called Inhumane, Punitive
UNITED STATES: NSA to Resume Data Collection Amid Class Suit
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Wrongfully Fires Two Employees, Suit Says
US AIRWAYS: Faces Class Action in California Over Ticket Prices

VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: 8th Cir. Revives TCPA Violation Class Suit
VESUVIO LLC: Faces "Drouillard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WASHINGTON: No Bias in Having Female Guards, 9th Cir. Rules
WASHINGTON: DSHS Class Judgment Fund Checks Set for Distribution
WESTMOUNT, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sexual Abuse

WHITING-TURNER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
WILLMARK COMMUNITIES: Renters File Class Action Over Charges
WOODLANDS LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Assistants OT, Suit Claims
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Must Face Securities Class Action
XUNLEI LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm files Securities Class Action

* Class Actions Listed as Top Litigation Issue Globally
* Thailand Civil Procedure Code Amended to Allow Class Actions


                            *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: 2nd Cir. Flips Ruling in "Hepler"
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, vacated the
judgment of the district court in, and remanded the case,
VERONIQUE HEPLER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, DOMINIQUE MARCEAU, HILLARY GIBBS, SHURIKA
ROBERTS-CRAWFORD, REED HOFFMAN, CYNTHIA CHAN, CAITLYN ANGELIDIS,
PATRICK O'CONNELL, HOLLY ADRIAANSEN, KATHERINE BLAU, JENNY SAM,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO., ABERCROMBIE &
FITCH STORES, INC., Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-4113-cv (2nd
Cir.).

Plaintiffs appeal from the judgment of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York (Wexler, J.),
dismissing as moot their claims against Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.

A copy of the Second Circuit's Summary Order dated June 22, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/DROwWkfrom Leagle.com

SETH R. LESSER (Fran L. Rudich, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Rye
Brook, New York, Bradley L. Berger, Berger Attorney P.C., New
York, New York, on the brief), Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP, Rye
Brook, New York, for Appellants.

DAREN S. GARCIA (Mark A. Kneuve, Michael J. Ball & Natalie M.
McLaughlin, on the brief), Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP,
Columbus, Ohio, for Appellees.

The Circuit Judges consist of Dennis Jacobs, Rosemary S. Pooler,
Peter W. Hall.


ADP DEALER: Performance Chevrolet Suit Sent to N.J. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of
California granted ADP Dealer Services, Inc.'s motion to transfer
the lawsuit filed by Performance Chevrolet Inc., to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark
Division.

On November 21, 2014, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the E.D.
California Court, bringing two claims -- breach of contract and
declaratory relief -- arising out of a Master Services Agreement
executed by the parties.  In summary, the Agreement concerned
specialized computer software designed for car dealerships,
equipment, and related support and maintenance services to be
provided to Plaintiff by Defendant.

Defendant argued that the forum-selection clause requires transfer
to the New Jersey District Court, Newark Division as the exclusive
forum for any action against Defendant.

PERFORMANCE CHEVROLET, INC., Plaintiff, v. ADP DEALER SERVICES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:14-cv-02738-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.).  A
copy of the Court's June 22, 2015 Order is available at
http://is.gd/H3FOb7from Leagle.com.


ADT CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation, a provider of security and automation
solutions for homes and businesses, on June 4 disclosed that the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted
the motions made by ADT and the other defendants to dismiss the
consolidated complaint in the securities class action captioned
Phillip Henningsen v. The ADT Corporation.

"We are very pleased with the court's decision," said David
Bleisch, Chief Legal Officer of ADT. Plaintiffs were granted leave
by the Court to file an amended complaint on or before July 1,
2015, failing which the action may be dismissed with prejudice.
ADT will continue to vigorously defend against this action.

                          About ADT

The ADT Corporation -- http://www.adt.com-- is a provider of
security and automation solutions for homes and businesses in the
United States and Canada.  ADT's broad and pioneering set of
products and services, including ADT Pulse(R) interactive home and
business solutions, and health services, meet a range of customer
needs for today's active and increasingly mobile lifestyles.
Headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, ADT helps provide peace of
mind to nearly seven million customers, and it employs
approximately 17,500 people at 200 locations.


ALL ABOUT: "Russell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
McKeeg Russell, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. All About Oil Field Services, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-00054-SPW-CSO (D. Mont., June 18, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

All About Oil Field Services, LLC is a Montana corporation that
provides services to the drilling rig sites throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip L. McGrady, Esq.
      McGRADY LAW FIRM, PLLC
      PO Box 40
      Park City, MT 59063
      Telephone: (406) 322-8647
      E-mail: philip@mcgradylawfirm.com


ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PA: Class Suit Over Bed Bug Infestation Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer barred Leonard T. Williamson
from bringing a pro se complaint against numerous defendants
arising out of a landlord-tenant relationship that has gone awry
due to bed bug infestation.

Williamson sued Lonnie and Rosalia Parker, two private individuals
based in Penn Hills that are the owners of the real property
leased by Nicole Williams, one of the plaintiffs named in
Williamson's complaint.  The property is located in Homewood,
Pennsylvania.  Williams was placed in that residence with the
assistance of Pittsburgh-based non-profit organization Community
Human Services, which has also been named as defendant in the
suit.  Williamson lives with Williams at the apartment but admits
that he is residing there in violation of her lease with the
Parkers and that she was cited for those violations.

At some point, the apartment became infected with "bed bugs" and
the landlord-tenant relationship deteriorated with Williams
refusing to pay rent and the Parkers allegedly not doing enough to
remediate the conditions and/or forcing Williams to destroy and
remove furniture and other items from the property as part of
their allegedly deficient remediation efforts.

Williamson and Williams lodged several complaints with CHS and its
employees, including defendants Valerie Kristen and Autumn Stevens
which were not resolved to their satisfaction.  They then moved on
to complain to Allegheny County and the Allegheny County Health
Department and have sued those municipal entities as well as Karen
A. Hacker, ACHD Director, Louis Conley, ACHD Environmental Health
Specialist, and Colleen Murphy, ACHS-Environmental Health
Specialist II.  Williamson believes that the County has not done
enough to remediate the problem.  Most recently, the Parkers filed
an action for ejectment against William before Magisterial
District Judge Hugh McGough at MJ-05235-LT-0000055-2015 and a
judgment was entered against Williams in the amount of $691.00. It
is unclear if Williams was also ordered to vacate the premises.
But, according to Williamson, she has appealed this decision.

Despite admitting that Williams was not paying rent, Williamson
contends that the Parkers initiated that action in retaliation for
all of their complaints.  Both Williamson and Williams have
remained in the apartment despite the activity before the
Magisterial District Judge.

In a June 19, 2015 Memorandum Order available at
http://is.gd/uE3jLIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Fischer said the
District Court lacks jurisdiction over any claim by Williamson in
his own right arising from this factual scenario and he has
otherwise failed to state any cognizable claims against these
Defendants such that all of his individual claims must be
dismissed.

"As a general matter, landlord-tenant disputes concerning rent due
by the tenant and conditions of the apartment owned by private
individuals subject to County Health Codes do not involve any
federal rights," Judge Fischer said. "In addition, Williamson
clearly lacks standing to pursue any claims Williams may have
against her landlord, CHS, its employees, the County, ACHD, or
ACHD employees arising from those facts including any claims
challenging the actions taken by the Parkers before the
Magisterial District Judge. Further, neither the Parkers, CHS nor
its employees are state actors because they are all private
individuals and a private non-profit corporation and as such,
these parties cannot be sued for civil rights violations under
Sec. 1983 absent a further showing of state involvement that has
not been made here."

The case is, LEONARD T. WILLIAMSON, SR.; NICOLE WILLIAMS; THOSE
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. LONNIE T. PARKER, ROSAILIA G.
PARKER; CHS (Cultivating Health Services); VALERIE KRISTEN-Service
Coordinator for CHS; AUTUMN STEVENS-Program Supervisor for CHS;
ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA; ALLEGHENY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT
(ACHD); KAREN A. HACKER-ACHD Director; LOUSI CONLEY-ACHS
Environmental Health Specialist; COLLEEN MURPHY-ACHS-Environmental
Health Specialist II; Defendant-individually and in their official
capacities. Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-789 (W.D. Pa.).


ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daphne Triplett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v.  Alliedbarton Security Services LLC, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00735-NJ (E.D. Wis., June 18, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Alliedbarton Security Services LLC is in the business of providing
security services for client facilities located within the State
of Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com



AMERICAN CONCRETE: "Carrion" Suit Removed to South Carolina Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Daniel Carrion, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. American Concrete
Service Inc., Case No. 2015-CP-42-00782, was removed from the
Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District
Court District of South Carolina (Spartanburg). The District Court
Clerk assigned 7:15-cv-02447-BHH to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon E. Newlon, Esq.
      MCCRAVY NEWTON AND STURKLE LAW FIRM
      1629 Bypass 72 NE
      Greenwood, SC 29649
      Telephone: (864) 388-9100
      Facsimile: (864) 388-9104
      E-mail: jnewlon@mccravylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Leland Grant Close III, Esq.
      FORD AND HARRISON
      100 Dunbar Street, Suite 300
      Spartanburg, SC 29306
      Telephone: (864) 699-1100
      E-mail: gclose@fordharrison.com


AMERICAN DEBT: Cal. Court Certifies Class in Overcharging Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge on June 9 certified a class that claims debt
servicers conspired to overcharge California consumers and aid and
abet others to do so.

Heather L. Newton sued American Debt Services and three affiliates
in 2011, claiming they agreed to settle her debts for half the
balance owed, then kept far more money than allowed by California
prorating law and kept more fees than allowed, without ever making
"a single payment to a creditor on her behalf."

Newton claimed that after American Debt Services (ADS) contacted
her, she received a "welcome packet" from Quality Support Services
(QSS), and account application and debit instructions from Global
Client Solutions and Rocky Mountain Bank & Trust (RMBT), all of
whom became defendants.

Newton said the companies told her to register for a "special
purpose account" with Rocky Mountain, and to authorize Global
Client Solutions to withdraw three non-refundable fees from her
bank account.

When she learned that none of the defendants had contacted any of
her creditors, including nonparties Chase Bank and Bank of
America, she terminated ADS's services and asked for a refund, she
said.

The debt servicers refunded only $70 of $4,200 she had paid them,
she claimed. She says she paid Bank of America $2,200 from a
special purpose account without help from the defendants, who kept
the $1,900 she had paid them.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen in 2012 denied ADS's motion to
compel arbitration.

After ADS and QSS defaulted, Newton filed a second amended
complaint against RMBT and Global.  She claimed RMBT violated all
three prongs of California's Unfair Competition Law by breaching a
2009 cease-and-desist order from the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation.

Chen partly dismissed that lawsuit in December 2014, finding that
Newton's "unlawful" and "unfairness" prong claims failed because
the FDIC order could not be enforced for lack of jurisdiction, or
"borrowed" to serve as a predicate law violation under the Unfair
Competition Law.

Newton's "fraudulent" prong claim also failed, Chen ruled, because
she did not specifically respond to the defendants' summary
judgment motion.

Newton's lawsuit remained alive, however, as Chen rejected the
defendants' motion on her aiding-and-abetting claims.

"Not only did the court previously find that both Global and RMBT
can be held liable under the UCL for aiding-and-abetting ADS's and
QSS's violations of the Proraters Law, the court further held that
Newton had submitted sufficient evidence to proceed to trial on
these claims," Chen wrote.

On June 9, Chen granted in part Newton's motion for class
certification.  Chen called the defendants' "host of arguments"
against Newton's bid for certification "highly irrelevant" and
"without merit."

The defendants did "make one valid point," Chen said, rejecting
their argument that Newton's original proposed class was too broad
because it was not limited to consumers who actually did business
with ADS, the alleged front for the debt settlement enterprise.

Chen found that Newton's narrowed class met court requirements.

"Tightening the class definition to require that all class members
actually did business with ADS, as Newton did herself, renders the
class potentially certifiable," the 20-page ruling states.

The certified class includes California consumers who paid QSS
directly, or indirectly through ADS, for debt settlement services
during the four years preceding Newton's original complaint, who
opened a special purpose account with RMBT to be administered by
Global, and who did not receive a full refund of all fees and
charges paid to defendants.

Newton's attorneys, William Kennedy and Tavy Dumont with Public
Justice, will represent the class.

"Put simply, the Court is convinced that counsel have the
resources necessary to see this case through for the benefit of
the class members," Chen wrote.

Public Justice, a public interest advocate with offices in
Washington, D.C. and Oakland, Calif. said the defendants "leave
consumers worse off than ever."

"We see a lot of companies out there that offer to help consumers
when they start to get in over their heads with credit card debt,
but these companies often don't have the consumers' best interests
at heart," staff attorney Amy Radon said.  "Instead, the 'help'
they offer turns out to be a scam, and they leave consumers worse
off than ever."

The case is Heather L. Newton v. American Debt Services, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:11-cv-03228-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


AMERICAN HONDA: Wins Final OK of Brake Pads Class Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge has approved
a class-action settlement over claims that the front brake pads on
2008-10 Honda Civics wear out prematurely, after only 7,500 to
15,000 miles.

The case is Stacie Zakskorn, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., Case No. 2:11-cv-02610-KJM-KJN, in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California.


AMERIMARK DIRECT: Faces "Lambert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Lambert, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. AmeriMark Direct, LLC and Gareth L. Geisler, Case No.
1:15-cv-01230 (N.D. Ohio, June 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

AmeriMark Direct, LLC is a catalogue and online seller of health,
cosmetics, apparel, and beauty products with its principal place
of business in Middleburgh Heights, OH.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      17410 Dorchester
      Cleveland, OH 44119
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      E-mail: jfscld@yahoo.com
              rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com


AMETEK INC: Faces "Trujillo" Suit Over Toxic Plume in San Diego
---------------------------------------------------------------
An aircraft manufacturer refuses to clean up groundwater
contamination from one of the largest carcinogenic plumes of
solvents in California history, neighboring families claim in a
class action, reports Reni Anguelova at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiff Danielle Trujillo sued Ametek and Senior Aerospace
Ketema on May 29 in Superior Court, over an industrial site in El
Cajon, east of San Diego.

California Aircraft Products began work at the site in 1954,
changed its name to Straza Industries in 1964 and was purchased by
Ametek in 1968, which made aircraft engine parts there for the
next 20 years, the three plaintiff families say in the complaint.

For 22 years Straza/Ametek dumped up to 7,000 gallons of waste per
month into a sump on the site, the families say.  The waste
included trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene, paint thinners,
spent acid and alkaline solutions, chlorinated industrial solvents
and other harmful chemicals and sludge, according to the
complaint.

The sump was 10 feet deep and 12 feet in diameter, with a concrete
base and walls lined with redwood. Straza/Ametek told the Regional
Water Quality Board in 1963 that this would "prevent filtering
into native soil," the lawsuit states.

The families say the defendants "did not reveal the nature or
design of the sump," which San Diego County discovered only
decades later after the chemicals had penetrated into the soil,
through the fractured granite, and into groundwater.

In 1987, chlorinated solvent concentration in groundwater exceeded
801,000 parts per billion, the families say.  In 2007, it still
exceeded 48,000 parts per billion.

"The goal of this lawsuit is to help people in the area understand
what they have been exposed to and provide them with compensation
for proper testing and medical monitoring," said plaintiff's
attorney John Fiske.

"The Ketema facility is still up and running and the dumping has
ceased, but the plume still exists in the groundwater and moves in
the soil."

The chlorinated solvent plumes are massive, extending 1.3 miles
westward and down-gradient, according to the complaint.  Magnolia
Elementary School shares a property line with the Ametek property,
and the subject plume is directly underneath the school.

Since at least 1985, and most likely before then, students and
teachers at Magnolia have been exposed to toxic vapor from
Ametek's dumping of chlorinated waste into the sump, according to
the complaint.  Students play in the fields and in the soil
containing contaminated vapors.  Teachers and students breathe the
contaminated air, often in unventilated or underventilated rooms,
exposed to toxins, for hours each week, for years during their
educational or professional tenure, the families say.

The state Department of Toxic Substances Control reported that air
quality samples at the site in 2004 and 2005 showed TCE
concentrations exceeding 130 parts per billion by volume and
inside the classroom levels up to 1.6 micrograms per cubic meter.

TCE or, Trichloroethylene, is a volatile organic compound used
primarily as a solvent to remove grease from metal parts, and also
as an ingredient in adhesives and paint.  It is carcinogenic.

Also in the plume, in addition to the chemicals already listed,
are, benzene, toluene, dioxane and vinyl chloride, according to
the complaint.  Exposure to such chemicals can cause cancer, organ
failure, respiratory damage, and central nervous system damage.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control's risk management range
rated the cancers risk for the December 2014 and March 2015 levels
above the "acceptable" range -- at up to 42 times the threshold
guidelines.

Julie Chan, chief of the State Water Board's groundwater
protection branch, said her staff is providing regulatory
oversight of the cleanup, but have not seen the lawsuit and so
could not comment on it.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control recommended in November
2014 that precautionary actions be taken, such as increased
ventilation in classrooms, and continued monitoring.  The Human
and Ecological Risk Office supported the recommendations.

"The school has been shut down for the next year," Fiske said.
"The site is currently under investigation to determine what
chemicals are moving in which locations."
The plaintiffs seek class certification and damages for gross
negligence and public nuisance.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John H. Gomez, Esq.
          John P. Fiske, Esq.
          GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 237-3490
          E-mail: john@thegomezfirm.com
                  Fiske@GomezTrialAttorneys.com

               - and -

          Scott Summy, Esq.
          Carla Burke, Esq.
          BARON & BUDD, P.C.
          3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
          Dallas, TX 75219-4281
          Telephone: (214) 521-3605

The case is Danielle Trujillo, as Guardian Ad Litem for Kaden
Porter, a minor, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated; Lacey Morales, as Guardian Ad Litem for Isabel Morales,
a minor, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated;
Beverly Hoy, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ametek, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Senior Aerospace
Ketema, a business entity form unknown; and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 37-2015-00018465-CU-TT-CTL, in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego.


ANTHEM INC: Faces "Spreter" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Geoffrey Spreter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-02732
(N.D. Cal., June 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide adequate security and protection for its
computer systems containing patient's personally identifiable
information and personal health information from data breach.

Anthem Inc. is an Indiana corporation that owns and operates a
managed health care company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elliot Adler, Esq.
      ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC
      Emerald Plaza Building
      402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 531-8700
      Facsimile: (619) 342-9600
      E-mail: EAdler@TheAdlerFirm.com


ANTHEM BLUE: Refused to Cover Hep C Drug Cost, "Andre" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Pfeifer, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that West
Hollywood woman sued insurer Anthem Blue Cross for refusing to
cover the cost of an expensive drug that she says would cure her
hepatitis C infection.  Shima Andre said in the lawsuit that
Anthem has refused to pay the estimated $99,000 it would cost to
be treated with the controversial drug Harvoni, which has been
shown to destroy the deadly virus in most patients.

In a denial letter, Anthem explained that the drug was "not
medically necessary" because Andre does not have advanced liver
damage, the lawsuit said.  "We may approve Harvoni when the liver
has a certain amount of scarring on a liver biopsy," the insurer
explained. "Records we received do not show that your liver has
this amount of scarring."

Ms. Andre, 42, who was diagnosed with hepatitis C in 2011, said
she was thrilled when the Food and Drug Administration approved
the drug last year.  But she hasn't been able to take it because
Anthem declined to cover the cost.  She said she has postponed
becoming pregnant because she fears she would pass along the virus
to her child.  It's unconscionable, Ms. Andre said, that Anthem
won't pay for the drug, which is manufactured by Gilead Sciences
Inc. of Foster City, near San Francisco.

"I can't believe that they demand that a person get sicker before
they'll pay for a cure," she said.  "If there's a cure for
something and you have health insurance, they should cover it."

Anthem Blue Cross spokesman Darrel Ng declined to comment.

Anthem denied coverage despite the recommendation of Andre's
doctor, who has unsuccessfully lobbied the insurer to cover the
drug, said her lawyer, Ricardo Echeverria.  "How can it not be
medically necessary when your treating doctor recommends it, it's
the standard of care and it will cure the disease?" Mr. Echeverria
said.

The lawsuit, filed on May 15 in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
accuses Anthem of breach of contract, infliction of emotional
distress and unfair business practices.  It seeks certification as
a class-action lawsuit, which would add others denied the drug to
the suit.

Harvoni is a pill taken once a day for eight to 12 weeks that has
been proved in clinical testing to wipe out the virus in more than
90% of patients, without significant side effects.

Gilead Sciences has faced criticism over the high price of Harvoni
and Sovaldi, another of its drugs that is highly effective at
treating hepatitis C.  In December, Philadelphia's transit agency
sued the company, saying its pricing of Sovaldi amounted to "price
gouging."

Mr. Echeverria said the cost of the drug should not prevent
Ms. Andre from receiving coverage.  "That's an issue for the
insurers and the pharmaceutical companies to work out a price that
works for them," the attorney said. "But don't let the patients
hang in the balance."

Hepatitis C is a virus, spread through contact with blood, that
attacks the liver.  The disease is potentially deadly, but people
can live with it for years.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Spiers, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that a
downtown REIT has successfully fended off one of several legal
challenges to a merger last year that led to its current status as
a publicly traded company.

A federal court judge in Richmond dismissed a class-action lawsuit
brought against Apple Hospitality REIT, Apple REIT Cos. founder
Glade Knight and other insiders from the company.

The lawsuit was filed by Dorothy Wenzel, a shareholder of the
former Apple REIT Eight, which was combined with two other funds
to create Apple Hospitality REIT.  Ms. Wenzel's suit alleged the
fund's directors, managers and advisers set the price of shares
for a dividend reinvestment program at an artificially high rate.
She alleged breach of contract, tortious interference, fraud,
negligence and a violation of the Virginia Securities Act.

U.S. District Judge John A. Gibney Jr. dismissed the suit June 1,
nearly a year after it was filed.  In his formal opinion,
Judge Gibney said shareholders were adequately notified of the $11
per-share price for the dividend reinvestment program, or DRIP,
which allowed them to forgo a cash dividend in favor of receiving
more shares in the company.

Attorneys for Wenzel had argued that internal analyses conducted
during that period had suggested the per-share value fell short of
the $11, and that a potential third-party buyer had offered to
purchase shares for as low as $3 per share.

Ultimately, Judge Gibney said the arguments as stated in the suit
did not prove a breach of contract or the other claims made.

"Wenzel may have felt swindled when she realized that the
underlying value of (the fund) did not support an $11 per share
valuation," Judge Gibney's opinion states, "but that comes as a
consequence of knowingly investing in a trust that was not traded
on the open market, not the result of a breach of contract by any
combination of defendants in this case."

In his conclusion, Judge Gibney said the complaint "convinces the
Court that (the fund's) DRIP may have been a bad investment for a
variety of reasons, but it lacks sufficient facts to support the
claims it alleges."

Once combined, Apple Hospitality REIT began trading on the New
York Stock Exchange on May 18 at $18 per share.  The company's
stock, which trades under the symbol APLE, closed at $18.90 on
June 8.

Ms. Wenzel's lawsuit was one of several filed leading up to the
merger that formed Apple Hospitality REIT.  The previous month, a
separate class-action lawsuit was filed by shareholder Susan
Moses, who alleged the prices were artificially inflated and did
not reflect the true value of the shares.

Another suit was filed Jan. 31, 2014, by Apple REIT Nine
shareholders Jack and Loria Battaglia, who sought to undo the
merger.  The most recent filing in that case was May 6 for a
settlement conference.

The day after Judge Gibney's dismissal of Wenzel's suit, Apple
REIT asked a federal court in New York to dismiss the Moses case
on similar grounds.


ARCADIA PETROLEUM: Settles Class Action for $16.5 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that oil traders
have reached a $16.5 million settlement of a U.S. class action
lawsuit accusing Arcadia Petroleum Ltd., its Parnon Energy unit
and two traders of illegally manipulating the price of crude oil
in early 2008.

The preliminary settlement was filed on June 3 in Manhattan
federal court and requires court approval.  It resolves charges
that the companies, Arcadia trader Nicholas Wildgoose and Parnon
trader James Dyer violated federal antitrust and commodities laws
by using futures and options to benefit financially from an
artificial crude oil shortage they created at a key hub in
Cushing, Oklahoma.

None of the defendants admitted wrongdoing.

The settlement came after the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading
Commission last August imposed a $13 million civil fine against
them in a related case, and limited Parnon's ability to trade oil
for three years.

According to a filing in the class action, an expert for the
plaintiffs estimated that up to $1.05 billion of damages could be
proven at trial.

But the plaintiffs' lawyers found "significant risks" to further
litigation, including the need to establish liability and damages,
and the potential difficulty of collecting damages from the
defendants, several of which are foreign.

Christopher Lovell, a partner at Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson
representing the plaintiffs, said the $16.5 million settlement was
"reasonable" in light of such risks.

Arcadia is based in the United Kingdom, and controlled by
John Fredriksen, who is worth $10.4 billion according to Forbes
magazine.  Mr. Wildgoose is also from the United Kingdom, and Dyer
from Australia.

Timothy Carey, a Winston & Strawn partner representing the
defendants, was unavailable for comment.

In the class action, traders said that in early 2008, as oil
prices were nearing $100 a barrel, the defendants amassed huge
crude oil positions to create a sense of tight supply, and then
sold out of contracts to benefit from higher prices.  The
defendants later allegedly entered "short" positions to benefit
from falling prices, and then dumped oil they had amassed back
onto the market, causing prices to crash.

The settlement covers traders in New York Mercantile Exchange and
Intercontinental Exchange light sweet crude oil (WTI) futures and
options from Jan. 1 to May 15, 2008.

Much of the settlement may cover litigation costs. The plaintiffs'
lawyers plan to seek up to $5.5 million for fees, and up to $4.6
million for expenses, a court filing shows.

The case is In re: Crude Oil Commodity Futures Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 11-03600.


AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Judge Set to Decide on Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Andrew Albanese, writing for Publishers Weekly, reports that
federal judge Denise Cote could soon decide whether the ongoing
case against self-publishing service provider Author Solutions
will go forward as a class action.  In the latest round of briefs,
attorneys for the plaintiff authors argue that a common question
sits at the core of the case, and merits class action status: "Did
[Author Solutions] engage in a fraudulent scheme to sell authors
worthless marketing services?"  But in a reply motion, Author
Solutions attorneys claim the case is without merit, and falls
short of the requirements for class certification.

The latest round of briefs details an evolving case, including a
"shifting roster" of author plaintiffs, and a narrowing of the
case from the initial complaint.  First filed in spring of 2013,
the initial suit alleged that Author Solutions misrepresents
itself as an independent publisher, luring authors in, and then
profiting from deceptive and fraudulent practices, including
"delaying publication, publishing manuscripts with errors to
generate fees, failing to pay royalties, and up-selling 'worthless
services' to authors."  The proposed class action case before
Judge Cote now includes three subclasses of plaintiffs and is
limited to iUniverse authors (a division of Author Solutions),
and/or to Author Solutions customers who purchased "standalone
marketing services" from the company.

At the heart of the case is an alleged "deceptive" scheme to lure
authors in with promises of sales and marketing exposure, when the
"primary goal" is not to sell books, the plaintiffs argue, but to
"sell services and books back to authors."  In filings, attorneys
for the authors paint a picture of Author Solutions "consultants"
with little or no publishing experience, selling "worthless"
services to unsuspecting authors.  "[Author Solutions], as part of
a company-wide policy, hides from consumers that it is a
telemarketing operation," plaintiff attorneys argue, "with no
stake in the quality or retail success of its authors' books."

Attorneys for Author Solutions have branded the suit "a misguided
attempt to make a federal class action out of a series of gripes,"
and, in their latest briefs, argue that the authors "have invented
out of whole cloth a purported 'deceptive scheme' in an attempt to
indict [Author Solutions'] entire marketing operation and its
senior management."  Author Solutions attorneys also argue that
the plaintiffs lack sufficient evidence of any such "deceptive"
scheme, and because the argument for class certification is
premised entirely on "an alleged scheme," the court must determine
whether the current evidence suggests such a scheme is plausible
before making a certification decision.

The case comes at a time when self-publishing is growing and
maturing, and the filings vividly recall the dark days of the
vanity press, when authors were wooed by various companies only to
be saddled with expensive fees and garage-loads of books.

There was no timetable for a certification decision, although the
authors have requested an oral argument on the class certification
question.


AUTOZONE INC: Ellison's Bid to Amend Wage & Hour Complaint Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Charles R. Breyer denied plaintiff Jimmy Ellison's
request to file a third amended complaint in the case, In re:
AutoZone, Inc., Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation, No.
3:10-md-02159-CRB (N.D. Cal.).

Ellison sought leave to amend the complaint to allege a separate
cause of action for a representative claim under the California
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).

The Court noted that the Motion for Leave to Amend is the result
of a discovery dispute.  Plaintiffs sought an order compelling
Defendant to designate a Rule 30(b)(6) witness pertaining to meal
break and off-the-clock break practices, which the parties agree
would be relevant to a PAGA claim.  However, the parties could not
agree whether there was a PAGA claim in the case.

A copy of the Court's Order dated June 19, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/H57xCzfrom Leagle.com.


BALTIMORE, MD: Faces Class Action Over Appalling Jail Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Pilkington, writing for The Guardian, reports that appalling
sanitation, vermin, dirt and mold combined with a lack of basic
medical care in Baltimore's only jail possibly caused at least
seven deaths in the last two years and continues to put thousands
of detainees, mostly African American, at risk of serious danger,
a class action alleges.

Lawyers acting for the 2,500 people held by the State of Maryland
in Baltimore City Detention Center (BCDC) say they have uncovered
a shocking litany of problems with the jail that subjects
detainees and prisoners to "serious harm, including death".  They
describe the jail, one of the oldest custodial institutions in the
country that was built in its current form before the civil war,
as a "dank and dangerous place, where detainees are confined in
dirty cells infested with vermin.  The showers are full of drain
flies, black mold, and filth".

A motion filed on behalf of the detainees with the US district
court for the district of Maryland on June 2 accuses the state
officials who run the jail of violating the eighth amendment's
protections against cruel and unusual punishment.  It calls for
the federal courts to impose a binding order that would force the
institution to bring both its physical infrastructure and medical
care services up to basic humane standards.

Baltimore was the location of recent unrest over the death while
under arrest by local police of African American 25-year-old
Freddie Gray.  Though the new legal challenge against BCDC is not
connected to any of those events, and the timing of it is
coincidental, its findings do point to a serious problem in the
way that African Americans are treated in the next stage of their
exposure to the criminal justice system after being arrested --
their detention awaiting trial.

Some 90% of all those locked up at BCDC are awaiting trial.  While
African Americans make up 62% of the city's population, they form
about 80% of the BCDC population and a staggering 95% of all
juveniles who are held there.

The most shocking allegations contained in the motion relate to
allegedly preventable deaths.  A footnote chronicles seven
detainees whose deaths since 2013 may have been preventable, the
motion says, amid evidence that they suffered from an absence of
the most elementary medical treatment.  In a further six deaths,
medical treatment, or the lack of it, may have played some part,
the action claims.

The possibly preventable deaths include a man with a known history
of severe hypertension who died in a hypertensive crisis having
gone into drug withdrawal after being brought to the jail.  He was
offered no monitoring or medication to control his symptoms, the
class action says.  Another man held in the jail for 10 months
died of heart problems -- he reported cardiac complications but
allegedly had his heart medications stopped without explanation
before he died.

A third man died two days after he was admitted to BCDC after an
urgent appeal for heart and blood pressure drugs allegedly went
unanswered.  A fourth died after the nurse in the jail's infirmary
was said to have failed to notify the doctor that the female
detainee was displaying symptoms that required immediate hospital
attention.  And a fifth killed herself after showing signs of
severe mental distress -- she was allegedly only referred to a
psychiatrist and prescribed psychotropic drugs shortly before her
suicide.

The legal motion, which has been filed by the American Civil
Liberties Union, the Public Justice Center and the law offices of
Elizabeth Alexander, chronicles numerous other cases where
detainees have either died or been severely affected by allegedly
inept or non-existent health care.  Studying the jail's medical
records, they said they found cases of people with HIV who had
their antiretroviral drugs discontinued, leading to a rapid
deterioration in their condition; similar interruptions of insulin
drugs for diabetics and psychotropic drugs for mentally ill
detainees; a total lack of health planning or proper medication
record-keeping; and inadequate cells and equipment for disabled
people.

In addition to being one of the oldest correctional facilities in
the country, BCDC is also among the largest and most decrepit.

As the majority of those held at BCDC are awaiting trial, they are
therefore innocent until proven guilty.  Yet according to the
court filing, they are exposed to the most gut-wrenching of
environments.  A unit that housed those with medical or mental
health problems was said to be overrun with mice, cockroaches,
gnats, and spiders.  Investigators acting for the plaintiffs found
that about half of all the mattresses in the jail's cells were in
such disrepair that they could not be sanitized between occupants.

Detainees were regularly exposed to sweltering heat and humidity,
leading to widespread respiratory and other critical health
problems.  Meanwhile, about a quarter of the rooftop fans needed
to circulate the inside air were not working.

Many of the toilets were found to be broken, and the motion notes
that investigators found "an entire tier of detainees who were
left for several days in cells with toilets that did not flush and
sinks that did not work . . . The atmosphere was fetid and
unhealthy because the detainees had no way to dispose of their
bodily wastes except by using the non-functional toilets."

Elizabeth Alexander, the lead counsel in the case, said that when
she inspected the jail most recently, "I was struck by the huge
number of cells that couldn't be occupied because they were not
habitable.  This is a facility that has outlived its physical
life."

Responding to the new motion, the State of Maryland said that it
had invested $58m over the past decade to improve safety and
security of inmates and staff at BCDC.  It said that efforts would
continue to be made to improve operations.

The state's department of public safety and correctional services
pointed out that the June 2 filing was part of a legal action that
was started in 1964 and has been running for years.  The
department's secretary, Stephen Moyer, who took over
responsibilities this year, said in a statement: "I was four years
old when this original case was filed in 1964.  I am 54 and have
only had four months to learn about these perceived issues.  I
have high expectations of my staff to change the way we do
business.  I respectfully asked for time to address these concerns
and was told no by plaintiff's attorneys."


BGASC LLC: Faces "Roseman" Class Suit Over Knockoff Silver Coins
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action claims coin manufacturers advertise and
sell knockoff silver coins without marking them as copies, reports
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Andrew Roseman sued BGASC LLC, Jet Bullion Corp. and Golden State
Mint on June 5 in California Federal Court. BGSAC is based in
Calabasas, Calif., Golden State Mint in Redlands.

Roseman, of New Jersey, does not accuse the defendants of
counterfeiting, but of violating the Hobby Protection Act (15
U.S.C. Sections 2101-2106) by failing to mark their American
Silver Eagle rounds and Walking Liberty half-dollar rounds as
copies.

Roseman claims he bought four silver rounds from BGASC for $82.01,
believing they were actual U.S. coins, but they were copies made
by Jet Bullion and Golden State Mint.  Roseman's lawsuit refers to
the items as both "rounds" and "coins."

A spokesman for BGASC told Courthouse News that the company states
clearly that it sells "rounds," not coins.

The Hobby Protection Act "requires manufacturers of imitation
numismatic items to mark plainly and permanently such items with
the word 'copy,'" the U.S. Mint says on its Web site.  "Failure to
do so may constitute an unfair or deceptive act or practice
pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act."

"It appears the gentleman bought four 1-oz. silver rounds and
mistakenly believed they were 1-oz Silver Eagles made by the U.S.
Mint," the spokesman said.  "However, our website clearly states
that the coins he purchased were privately minted 1-oz. rounds."

In his lawsuit, Roseman says that two of the purchases he made on
April 17 were described on the BGASC Web site as "1 oz. Silver
Rounds Walking Liberty Design by Jet Bullion .999 Fine," and the
other two were described as "1 oz. Silver Rounds Walking Liberty
Design."

American Silver Eagle coins were minted in 1986.  Though their
face value is a dollar, they are worth more because they are 99
percent silver.  BGASC sells them for $20.33 on its Web site,
according to the complaint.

Walking Liberty coins, minted from 1916 to 1947, are 90 percent
silver and 10 percent copper.  Their face value is 50 cents, but
the defendants sell them on their Web site for $7.99 to $1,400,
the complaint states.

Roseman claims the coins "are not marked 'copy' as required by the
Hobby Protection Act," and that the defendants left off the "copy"
mark to trick hobbyists into paying for what they believed was an
authentic coin.  He seeks class certification, an injunction and
damages for violations of the Hobby Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          8730 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 310
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Toll Free: (877) 619-8966
          Telephone: (424) 285-6006
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


BLUE CROSS: Antitrust Class Suits in Alabama in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Springer, writing for Grand Forks Herald, reports that the
Red River is a border the Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in North
Dakota and Minnesota agree not to cross in selling health
insurance to customers.  Those exclusive territorial agreements
form a hallmark of Blue Cross Blue Shield plans nationwide --
which collectively insure one of every three Americans -- and are
at the heart of a pair of federal lawsuits alleging civil
antitrust.

Lawsuits, pending in U.S. District Court in Alabama, have been
brought separately by providers as well as by individual and small
group purchasers of health insurance, and seek class-action
status.  Most of the 37 Blue Cross Blue Shield plans in the United
States limit their operations to a single state, including those
in North Dakota and Minnesota.  The only reason for the self-
imposed geographical marketing restrictions, the providers'
lawsuit contends, is to protect the insurers from competition. The
restrictions are maintained by an illegal "market allocation
conspiracy," the doctors and clinics argue.

Noridian Mutual Insurance Co., which does business as Blue Cross
Blue Shield of North Dakota, commands a statewide market share of
56 percent, according to the providers' lawsuit.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota's market share is 44 percent
statewide, but in certain areas runs higher, including 56 percent
in the Rochester area, 48 percent in the St. Cloud area and 46
percent in the Duluth area, according to figures cited by the
providers' lawsuit.

The North Dakota Blues cover 390,000 people within the state and
the Minnesota Blues cover 2.4 million, according to the lawsuit.
Nationally, Blue Cross Blue Shield's provider network includes 92
percent of physicians and 96 percent of hospitals, according to
the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, also named in the
lawsuits.

The Blues' market clout enables them to unfairly dictate payments
for medical services on "take it or leave it" terms, according to
the suing doctors and clinics.  For consumers, the Blues'
anticompetitive practices, barring fellow Blue Cross Blue Shield
plans from selling in competing markets, result in higher
premiums, the subscribers' lawsuit argues.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Minnesota and Blue Cross Blue Shield of
North Dakota declined to comment on the lawsuits, referring
questions to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, whose
spokesman said its member plans provided improved access to
"affordable, quality health care."

"The plans have served this important role for more than 80 years
and, during that time, the Blue model of service has been
validated and enforced by numerous courts and regulatory
agencies," Blues association spokesman Caleb Weaver said in a
statement.

"The plaintiffs' claims simply have no merit and we are vigorously
defending ourselves in this litigation."

Before creating exclusive "service areas" to allocate markets,
Blues plans did engage in competition, the lawsuits allege.

So far, the judge has rejected motions to dismiss the lawsuits,
which now are in the discovery phase, in which the parties are
gathering information to bolster their cases in preparation for
possible trial.


BLUE DIAMOND: Faces Class Action Over Almond Milk Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that the makers of two almond milk brands
are being sued over the percentage of almond contained in its
milk.  Tracy Albert and Dimitrios Malaxianis filed the lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in New York on May 28 against Blue Diamond
Growers and WhiteWave Operating Co. claiming the companies' almond
milk is only two percent almond when it advertises that the milk
is made primarily from almonds.

Blue Diamond sells its almond milk under the Almond Breeze brand,
and advertises that its milk is made up of mostly almonds.  The
company took in about $709 million in sales in 2009, the lawsuit
said.

WhiteWave sells its organic milk under the Silk brand name.
Together the two companies are the largest producers of almond
milk in the United States, the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit is seeking class status for those that purchased Blue
Diamond and WhiteWave products from May 27, 2009, up until the
present.  The plaintiffs are also seeking more than $5 million in
damages plus court costs.

Messrs. Albert and Malaxianis are represented by James C. Kelly of
the Law Office of James C. Kelly in New York City.

United States District Court for the Southern District New York
case number 1:15-cv-04087


BLUE DIAMOND: "George" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Paul George, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated in Missouri v. Blue
Diamond Growers, Case No. 15cc-cc00850 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis State of MO to the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Missouri (St. Louis). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00962-CEJ to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts product-liability claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
      ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
      8816 Manchester Road
      St. Louis, MO 63144
      Telephone: (314) 258-0212
      E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      James Muehlberger, Esq.
      SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP
      2555 Grand Boulevard
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 474-6550
      Facsimile: (816) 421-5547
      E-mail: jmuehlberger@shb.com


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Wytas" Suit Over Avago Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wytas and Dean Crombie, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case
No. 8:15-cv-00979-JVS-PJW (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2015), is a class
action brought on behalf of the shareholders of Broadcom
Corporation to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Broadcom
Corporation by Avago Technologies Limited for grossly inadequate
consideration and through a flawed sales process.

Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation that makes
semiconductors that are used in smartphones, wireless networks,
streaming video and music and connecting information to the cloud.

Avago Technologies Limited designs, develops and markets
semiconductor devices in four primary product categories: wireless
communications, enterprise storage, wired infrastructure and
industrial.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: dwissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              egergosian@rgrdlaw.com


CANADA: Judge Allows Day School Class Action to Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a federal court judge gave the green light
to two B.C. bands to make their case on behalf of former day
school students across Canada.  Steve Cooper, a lawyer in
Edmonton, says the ruling is an important step, but warns that
students should not expect a quick resolution.

"It's not months or years," Mr. Cooper says.  "We're probably a
decade away."

Mr. Cooper, who has worked on similar cases over the past 20
years, says he's observed "an increasing desire to litigate" in
the federal government.

"They say nice words, but their actions speak much louder than
those words and bottom line is that they are not conciliatory to
First Nations and Inuit people.  It's really deteriorated.

Mr. Cooper says he's worried that many people who could be part of
the suit could be ill or dead before it's resolved.

He cited the lawsuit on behalf of residential school students in
Labrador, which was launched eight years ago and has yet to go to
trial.

Which schools?

The day scholar lawsuit automatically includes any former day
students of the roughly 140 residential schools listed in the
original Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement between
1920 and 1997.

"If they are successful in the action, you're potentially looking
at $10,000 or more per person," Mr. Cooper says.

The judge declined to include descendants of students in the case,
noting that children and grandchildren would be too large a group
to define.

Still, Mr. Cooper estimates the number of former students in the
lawsuit could be as high as 700,000 -- both aboriginal and non-
aboriginal.   That latter category includes himself.

Mr. Cooper's father was a teacher in the North for 25 years.
Steve Cooper went to school in Coral Harbour, Nunavut, and
graduated from day school in Hay River, N.W.T.

"It's a huge class and you can't make racial distinctions," he
says.

While all former day school students are automatically part of the
class-action lawsuit, Mr. Cooper advises former students to get in
touch with a lawyer if they want to opt out, of if they'd like to
receive information as the case progresses.


CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Two Former Players File Concussion Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Westhead, writing for TSN, reports that two former players
have filed a landmark $200-million lawsuit against the Canadian
Football League, former CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon, a leading
brain injury expert and a Toronto neurology clinic, alleging they
knew and withheld information about how repeated brain trauma
leads to long-term cognitive problems.

The lawsuit was filed May 29 in Ontario Superior Court by
Korey Banks and Eric "The Flea" Allen.

Mr. Banks, 35, is a former defensive bank who played for
Mississippi State.  After failing to land a regular-season
contract after tryouts with two NFL teams, Banks played in the CFL
from 2004-13 for Ottawa and B.C.  He signed a contract with
Winnipeg in 2014, but was later released and he now lives in
Georgia.

Mr. Allen, who is 66, played college football at Michigan State
and was drafted by the NFL's Baltimore Colts.  Rather than signing
with the Colts, Mr. Allen agreed to a contract with the Toronto
Argonauts and played for the team from 1972 to 1975. He now lives
in South Carolina.

Both Messrs. Banks and Allen have required hospitalization to deal
with concussion-related medical problems, the lawsuit says.
According to court papers obtained by TSN, the lawsuit seeks class
action status and has been filed on behalf of all retired CFL
players since 1952.

"The defendants and their agents knew or ought to have known that
multiple sub-concussive and concussive blows to the head lead to
long-term brain injury," the lawsuit says.  "The defendants knew
that football players should stop playing football after receiving
their third concussion."

Besides demanding $200 million worth of aggravated and punitive
damages, lawyers are asking a judge to award general and special
damages in trust for expenses for family members of former
players.

The 30-page statement of claim alleges CFL officials have refused
to allow independent medical personnel to monitor and assess
player safety and claims teams have routinely cut medical benefits
to injured players.

"If a non-veteran CFL player was terminated or injured and could
not return to play, the player's medical benefits were terminated
immediately, subject to a brief extension in the event of a
medical emergency," the lawsuit says.

CFL players are excluded from filing for workers' compensation
benefits and those who do not live in Canada are not eligible for
provincial health benefits, Messrs. Banks and Allen allege.

Also named as defendants are Dr. Charles Tator, a leading Toronto
brain injury researcher, and the Krembil Neuroscience Centre,
based in Toronto.

"I have not been served so I have no grounds to make a comment,"
Mr. Cohon wrote in an email.

"To my knowledge we haven't received any notification of this
action.  We have no further comment at this time," said
Paulo Senra, the CFL's director of communications.

Dr. Tator could not be reached.

The lawsuit comes amid a flurry of litigation related to
concussions and long-term brain injuries that are allegedly caused
by playing violent professional sports.

The National Hockey League is battling one lawsuit related to
concussions that involves more than 60 former players, and another
one against an insurance company that doesn't want to cover
potential losses from the litigation.

The National Football League settled a similar concussion lawsuit
filed by more than 4,000 former players, although it, too, could
still end up in a trial, since more than 100 players opted out of
the settlement.

The controversy has even hit the NCAA and amateur sports.  Last
summer, a group of soccer parents and players filed a lawsuit
against FIFA over how it handles concussions.

At about the same time, former CFL All-Star wide receiver
Arland Bruce claimed in a lawsuit filed in Vancouver that the CFL
misled the public and players in a public relations campaign about
concussions.

Allegations in the latest CFL lawsuit have not been proven.  A
lawyer for the league said in court that player health-related
claims don't belong in court, but should instead be decided in
arbitration because the CFL's collective labor agreement with its
players union covers player safety issues.

A judge is expected to rule whether Mr. Bruce's case will go to
trial and the fate of Messrs. Allen and Banks' proposed class
action hinges on that legal decision.

Lawyers for Messrs. Allen and Banks said CFL officials as early as
1952 knew about the harmful effects of multiple concussions,
thanks to research published in medical journals such as The New
England Journal of Medicine.  The lawsuit charges that Mr. Cohon
knew about the long-term harmful effects of multiple sub-
concussions and concussions on players' brains since at least
2007.

"In spite of that knowledge, Commissioner Cohon actively concealed
and/or systemically failed to disseminate those facts to the
plaintiffs and the other class members," the lawsuit says.

In 2011, Mr. Cohon oversaw the distribution of concussion flyers
and posters that advised players about "six simple to follow
steps" when they believed they might have suffered a concussion.
The flyers omitted a warning to players and coaches that a player
should retire after suffering multiple concussive blows to the
head, the lawsuit says.

In Mr. Bruce's case, the former player alleged the CFL should have
ensured that players, especially those who have suffered
concussions, were given Riddell's Revolution IQ HITS football
helmet, a model that sells for about $1,000 -- more than double
the cost of a typical helmet.  That helmet features built-in
sensors that detect the number and severity of hits to the head a
player receives during games.

Mr. Bruce claimed that helmet technology was used by to convince
former Calgary quarterback Dave Dickenson to retire in 2009 after
suffering repeated concussions.

The lawsuit alleges Mr. Cohon and the league, "intentionally
concealed information about the technology available to record and
report the plaintiffs' and the other class members' ongoing and
continuing trauma."

"The concealment was intentional, reprehensible and offended the
ordinary standards of decent conduct in the community and showed
contempt for the general public and the plaintiffs' and other
class members' rights by unnecessarily endangering the plaintiffs'
and other class members' lives."

The lawsuit says Dr. Tator, "claimed to have a cooperative and
working relationship with the NFL and Boston University while
funding and circulating material and studies to players and
coaches that contradicted the research conducted by the NFL and
Boston University."

In the new pleadings, Messrs. Banks and Allen allege Dr. Tator
misled the public when he released a study in 2012 claiming three
of six brains of deceased CFL players they examined showed signs
of the degenerative brain disease chronic traumatic
encephalopathy, or CTE.

Even though three of six donors had CTE, Dr. Tator titled his
research article, "Absence of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in
retired football players with multiple concussions."


CHC GROUP: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Kirby McInerney LLP on May 18 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against CHC Group Ltd (HELI)
("CHC"), certain of its officers, and the underwriting banks in
CHC's January 16, 2014 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), alleging
multiple violations of the 1933 Securities Act in connection CHC's
IPO.  The case is brought on behalf of a putative class consisting
of all investors who acquired CHC common stock pursuant and/or
traceable to the IPO between January 16, 2014 and July 10, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case alleges that CHC, a provider of commercial helicopter
services to the offshore oil and gas industry worldwide, failed to
disclose in connection with its IPO that one of its largest
clients, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A., had stopped making payments on
its contracts with CHC since April 2013.  It was not until a July
10, 2014 earnings call that CHC disclosed the truth, stating that
the company did not expect to recover revenues relating to the
contract, that guidance for future quarters would not reflect any
recovery, and that CHC's revenues for fiscal 2014 would come in at
the bottom of the company's guidance ranges.  On July 10, 2014,
CHC Group Ltd.'s shares declined nearly 12% below their July 9,
2014 closing price, and more than 23% below the IPO price.

If you acquired CHC common stock during this period and you wish
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff for the proposed class,
please be advised that, pursuant to applicable law, applications
for such appointment must be filed with the above-referenced court
no later than 60 days following the date of this notice.  If you
are interested in learning more about this matter and any rights
you might have with respect to these claims, you can contact Anna
Linetskaya at alinetskaya@kmllp.com by telephone at (212) 371-
6600.

Kirby McInerney LLP -- http://www.kmllp.com-- is a New York-based
plaintiffs' law firm concentrating in securities, whistleblower,
antitrust and consumer litigation.  The firm has specialized in
complex litigation, including securities class actions, for
several decades.


CITIZENS PROPERTY: Class Action Members Owed $1,640 on Average
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Louisiana state treasurer is
holding money for more than 4,500 people who participated in a
class action lawsuit against the Citizens Property Insurance Corp.

Treasurer John Kennedy said in a news release on May 18 that most
class action members are owed on average $1,640.  He says there
are 4,588 individuals who are owed money and haven't collected.

Mr. Kennedy's office deposited $7.7 million in settlement proceeds
on May 15. Names have been uploaded into the Unclaimed Property
database, which can be searched online.

The proceeds come from a class action lawsuit filed against
Citizens over the handling of claims after hurricanes Katrina and
Rita.  The proceeds received by the Unclaimed Property division
are for class members who did not collect their payment or never
cashed their checks.


CLUB CABARE'T: Peoria Stripper Files Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Casey Tolan, writing for Fusion, reports that Aleigha Woods, a
Peoria stripper, is suing Club Cabare't, a nude strip club in
Creve Coeur, Ill., just south of Peoria. In the three years she
worked there, she was paid only with tips, Woods claims.

According to Ms. Woods' complaint, filed in federal court, the
club's dancers are not paid any regular wages, and a portion of
their tips are regularly taken by fees imposed by management.
These charges range from a nightly house fee of $55 to $65 to fees
for not performing correctly or "not smiling" while on stage.  The
complaint says that the club has employed more than 100 dancers in
the last three years who would qualify for a class-action lawsuit.
"It is likely that other individuals will . . .  join this action
as opt-in plaintiffs," the complaint reads.

The lawsuit alleges the club violated the Illinois Minimum Wage
Law, which requires employers to pay tipped employees a minimum of
$4.95 an hour, as well as federal Fair Labor standards.  While the
club calls its dancers "independent contractors" to get around
labor laws, it controls what dancers wear, when they can perform,
and when they have to come and go, the complaint says.  The suit,
which was first reported by the Peoria Journal Star, aims to
recover unpaid minimum wages, damages, and attorney fees.

Club Cabare't -- whose website claims to offer "The Food, The Fun,
The Fantasy!" -- declined to comment on June 2.

Two dancers at a vegan Portland strip club sued for similar unpaid
wages earlier this year, and also alleged that they were
inappropriately touched by customers and bouncers.  That case is
currently in pre-trial discovery, according to court records.  Not
paying wages is "a very common practice in the industry,"
Paul Lukas, Woods' lawyer, told Fusion.  As more lawsuits get
filed, "clubs will have to pay these people like the employees
they are."


COAST TO COAST: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Torres" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Nunez Torres, Javier Paez Leal, and all others similarly
situated v. Coast to Coast General Contractors, Inc. and Yanieve
Levi, Case No. 1:15-cv-22305-JAL (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company that
regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMPTON UNIFIED: Sued Over Failure to Address Student Trauma
------------------------------------------------------------
Adolfo Guzman-Lopez, writing for KPCC, reports that public
interest lawyers filed a class-action lawsuit against Compton
Unified in federal court on May 18 alleging school district
administrators failed to address the trauma students face outside
schools that locks them out of an education.

Among the five Compton Unified students listed as plaintiffs are
those "experiencing or witnessing violence, grief and loss, often
the loss of multiple loved ones in a single year," said plaintiffs
lawyer Kathryn Eidmann with the public interest law firm Public
Counsel.

Some are also in the foster system, have lost caregivers through
incarceration or deportation and experience extreme poverty or
socio-economic need, including homelessness. They also experience
"discrimination, racism, or bias particularly involving law
enforcement," she said.

"These students have experienced what are called adverse childhood
experiences," she said.  Their trauma and fear prevent the
students from being ready to learn, she said.

Lawyers for the students are asking the court to require the
school district to implement reasonable accommodations such as
training of teachers and other school employees to help the
students.  The suit also calls for the hiring of counselors who
can address the students' cope with trauma, and a change in the
school district's culture so that punitive actions are replaced
with steps that get to the root causes of why students may act up
in class.

Compton Unified denied that it has failed the students.

"We have not yet seen the lawsuit, but any allegation that the
District does not work hard to deal with consequences of childhood
trauma on a daily basis is completely unfounded," said Compton
Unified School Board President Micah Ali in an email.

"We want to point out that until we were notified of this lawsuit,
no one had come to us to discuss this issue or to express interest
in working with us on it," he wrote.

The attorneys describe what they say are the students' difficulty
lives in California's urban neighborhoods. One student, given the
pseudonym of Peter P., has lived with a drug-addicted mother,
experienced physical and sexual abuse by her boyfriends, entered
the foster care system, and witnessed his best friend shot and
killed in middle school, according to the suit.

He became homeless for two months earlier this year, and Peter P.
began sleeping on the roof of his school, Dominguez High School.
When school administrators found out, the lawsuit alleges, they
suspended him from school and called police to arrest him for
trespassing.

Plaintiff Kimberly Cervantes, an 18 year-old high school senior in
Compton, describes a tough environment on and off campus.  Outside
her home, she said she sees drug dealing on a regular basis.

"I knew that if I shared my stories and told everybody about them
that I can change how schools are.  Especially because I have
three younger brothers and I want things to be better for them
because it was really hard for me," Ms. Cervantes said in an
interview at the Public Counsel offices in Los Angeles.

Compton Unified's response to the students' trauma is at the core
of the lawsuit.

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

Teachers are affected, too, the lawsuit said, and three are also
named as plaintiffs. For some teachers, "the overwhelming energy
it takes to manage a class of students manifesting the
consequences of unaddressed trauma without the appropriate
resources or training leads to burnout."

The plaintiffs' lawyers say they have their sights on local and
national change.  They sued Compton Unified in federal court
alleging that the school district violated the Americans With
Disabilities Act because administrators have failed to address
student trauma as an impairment, effectively denying students an
adequate education.

Lawyers filed the complaint as a class-action lawsuit so students
nationwide who have experienced similar complex trauma that go
unaddressed by schools could join as plaintiffs.

At least one educator said that changing a school's environment
may be more effective than going to court.

"I'm not a big fan of lawsuits," said USC School of Education
Professor Ron Avi Astor.

The lawsuit will only be productive, he said, "if instead of
punishing the schools, it forces university schools of education,
and districts to rethink what teachers need to know."

Mr. Astor said a growing body of scientific research suggests
kids' brains are affected when they witness or suffer trauma,
which hurts their ability to learn.  He said his research from
schools in California and Israel suggests that training teachers
and administrators to create a warm, welcoming environment in
classrooms can act as a sort of vaccine against problems that hurt
students educationally.


CONN LAW: SSA to Restore Disability Benefits to 900 People
----------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Johnson, writing for Herald Dispatch, reports that the
Social Security Administration announced on June 4 its plan to
restore disability benefits to more than 900 people, just a week
after confirming checks would be suspended amid a fraud
investigation involving Kentucky attorney Eric C. Conn and
Huntington's regional office.

The benefits will be reinstated during the agency's ongoing review
of 1,500 cases, all found to include evidence of fraud involving
four doctors used by The Conn Law Firm.

Social Security officials stressed, regardless of the June 4
decision, those reevaluations will continue and the 1,500
claimants must follow through with submitting medical records to
support their original claim.

The announcement followed press releases from U.S. Reps. Evan
Jenkins, R-W.Va., and Hal Rogers, R-Ky., which praised the
agency's decision.

Both lawmakers pushed for such reprieve, just as a federal, class-
action lawsuit filed on behalf of claimants sought an injunction
linking the suspension notices to three apparent suicides.

Mr. Rogers' release said benefits will be restored until those
impacted by the investigation receive a hearing before an
administrative law judge.  That came in response to a June 3
meeting between the lawmakers and senior Social Security
officials.

"The Social Security Administration's decision to reverse this
suspension of benefits gives claimants immediate financial piece
of mind," Mr. Jenkins said in a prepared release.

Mr. Rogers said Social Security's decision allows people pay their
bills and purchase everyday needs, while the hearing process
proceeds.

"I'm elated," stated Mr. Rogers' prepared release.  "We are all
determined to bring fraud to a rapid conclusion and if it exists,
it needs to be handled appropriately.  But, this is the American
way; you are innocent until you are proven guilty."

Social Security also agreed to extend a previously stated, 10-day
window for claimants to submit medical records to support their
original claim.  It now stands at 30 days, per Mr. Rogers'
release.  But Social Security officials stressed for those
affected to contact the office within 10 days of receiving their
notice.  The agency established a special, toll-free phone number
at 1-866-397-4238. It will be staffed from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday.

Social Security initially suspended the disability benefits amid a
review of 1,500 cases, all found to include evidence of fraud
involving four doctors used by The Conn Law Firm.

Lawyers for the more than 900 claimants argued Social Security's
initial move violated their right to due process, striped their
sole source of income and jeopardized the area's economy.

Mr. Jenkins, who supports criminal prosecution where appropriate,
had called the suspensions harsh and devastating.  He agreed with
the claimants' attorneys in arguing Social Security had no
evidence suggesting those who received benefits through Conn's
representation participated in the alleged fraud.

Ned Pillersdorf, one of three attorneys representing the
claimants, did not dispute the government's need to re-evaluate
the 1,500 cases, but said he feared that process would take up to
a year and half.  He believed suspending benefits beforehand
violated his client's right to due process.

The Wall Street Journal first highlighted the relationship between
Conn and former administrative law judge David B. Daugherty in May
2011.

Senate investigators later alleged Conn relied upon medical
experts, including those pinpointed by Social Security's Inspector
General, for false or fraudulent testimony.  Mr. Daugherty then
assigned those cases to himself and awarded benefits to hundreds
without justification.

Also on June 4, a Floyd Circuit Judge in Prestonsburg, Ky., heard
testimony from two former employees of The Conn Law Firm and two
cancer patients impacted by the suspensions, according to a
Facebook post by Mr. Pillersdorf.

The proceeding was part of an effort by claimants to preserve
evidence and freeze Conn's assets.  It recessed with the judge
ordering Conn to appear in person when the hearing resumed June
10, the post stated.

A temporary restraining order remains in place, while lawyers for
two whistleblowers credited with exposing the alleged fraud push
for a similar injunction in federal court.  A similar effort
failed in December 2013 when the whistleblowers amended their
complaint.

Conn's attorney, Kent Wicker of Louisville, has called lawsuits
targeting his client misdirected in pointing to the government as
cutting benefits.  He also maintains Conn's innocence saying years
of investigation have yielded no criminal charges.

Mr. Daugherty also has maintained he committed no wrongdoing.  He
retired amid paid suspension and later voluntarily agreed to have
his state law license annulled last summer.


CONTRA COSTA, CA: Settles Disability Rights Groups' Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Harrington and Matthias Gafni, writing for Contra Costa
Times, report that following a lawsuit alleging Contra Costa
Juvenile Hall inmates were pulled from classes and held in
solitary confinement for extended periods of time, two county
agencies agreed to ban the practice, pay two East Bay disability
rights groups more than $2 million in attorney fees, and hire two
outside monitors to usher in new regulations ensuring the young
prisoners' rights are not violated.

Despite the tentative settlement, which must be OK'd by a judge,
county officials remained defiant, disputing the term "solitary
confinement" for what they said was needed discipline of
disruptive students in order to allow their well-behaved
classmates the chance to learn.  They also called the lawsuit a
money grab by attorneys.

Still, after more than a year of legal wrangling, the Contra Costa
County Office of Education and Contra Costa County Probation
Department announced on May 18 that they settled the August 2013
class action lawsuit.   Without admitting wrongdoing, the office
of education agreed to pay the plaintiff's legal costs of more
than $1.1 million and to hire an outside expert who could
recommend possible policy changes, while the probation department
reached a similar agreement and will pay $1.3 million.

"This is a truly landmark settlement," said Mary-Lee Smith,
managing attorney for Berkeley-based Disability Rights Advocates.
"It calls for a formal ban (on the use) of solitary confinement in
juvenile hall."

The settlement would allow a youth to be placed in his or her cell
for up to four hours for disciplinary reasons, but staff must try
a positive behavioral intervention during those four hours.

"This is the only county in the state that's adopted this . . .
and our hope is it becomes a model," Ms. Smith said.

The lawsuit, originally filed on behalf of three teens and later
expanded to a class action, alleged that Juvenile Hall locked up
youths with disabilities in solitary confinement for up to 23
hours a day, sometimes for months, without providing legally
required schooling.  The students, said Terry Koehne, spokesman
for the county office of education, were pulled out of their
classrooms in the Mt. McKinley school, which is inside Juvenile
Hall, for safety and disciplinary reasons and were essentially
"sent to their rooms."

"This is attorneys padding their pockets at the expense of our
students and it's wrong and it's shameful," Mr. Koehne said.  "The
only true outcome is that we're looking at having further study
(of policies and practices). There's no single pivotal reform
achieved by this case, so it did not need to go on 18 months and
cost over $1 million."

As of May 18, 142 students attended Mt. McKinley and 61 are
special education students, presenting unique challenges, said
Chief Probation Officer Philip Kader.

"There are youths put in their rooms for behavior issues, but the
way it's described in the lawsuit and the length of time is just
an allegation," Mr. Kader said.  "There are some youths that are
very, very difficult to deal with, with some severe mental health
issues."

Mr. Kader said the lawsuit has left a "very sour taste" in his
mouth, saying youths are rarely kept in their cells for extended
periods of time.

"No one's perfect, but we do believe things are different now.
The lawsuit wasn't necessary for us to address these issues," he
said.  "The reason I got into this business is because I care
about these kids.  I'm not here to torture kids."

Mr. Koehne said the taxpayer money the county will spend from its
general fund on attorney fees could have been better spent on
programs or staff that would directly benefit students, such as
counselors, social workers and tutors.

Laura Faer, education rights director with the pro-bono law firm
Public Counsel and co-counsel on the class action suit, said the
county's denials of solitary confinement ring false.

"They are placed in small cells with a window the size of your
arm, with a slab of concrete and a mattress, and they are kept in
those cells without education," Ms. Faer said.  "Instead of
serving them, the defendants placed them in isolation for, in some
cases, hundreds of days."

Last year, the federal Department of Justice and Department of
Education weighed in on the case, saying the county appeared to be
violating teens' rights by locking them in solitary confinement.
A Justice Department filing concluded: "Nowhere is the damaging
impact of incarceration on vulnerable children more obvious than
when it involves solitary confinement," which could lead to
paranoia, anxiety, depression and suicide risk.


CONTROL SYSTEM: "Dodson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Dodson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v.  Control System & Instrumentation Consultants, Ltd., d/b/a CSI
Consultants, Case No. 6:15-cv-00203-WSS (W.D. Tex., June 17,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Control System & Instrumentation Consultants, Ltd. owns and
operates an engineering solution company with its main office
located in Marietta, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza-Ste 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: dsinkule@eeoc.net


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Students' Debt Might Be Forgiven, DoED Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service reports that tens
of thousands of students who attended Corinthian Colleges might be
forgiven their student debt, the Department of Education said June
8, at a potential cost to taxpayers of $3.5 billion.

Corinthian, a profit-seeking chain college that once had 100
campuses across the country and 74,000 students, was accused of
charging exorbitant tuition, falsifying graduate's hiring
statistics, pushing more debt on students than they could afford,
and abusive collection tactics, among other things.

More than 330 lawsuits were filed against it, many of them class
actions, and the General Accountability Office blasted it and
other chain colleges in a scorching 2010 report after a lengthy
investigation.

The company, which also operated schools under the names Everest,
Heald and Wyotech, closed its remaining campuses in April after
being fined $30 million by the Department of Education.  It filed
for bankruptcy in May, listing $19.2 million in assets and $143
million in liabilities.

Until June 8, only the 16,000 students who were attending
Corinthian schools that suddenly closed in April had been eligible
for debt forgiveness.  Education Secretary Arne Duncan said the
new policy will allow other students to seek debt forgiveness if
they believe they were victims of Corinthian's fraudulent
practices.  Any student who attended a Corinthian school that was
closed can apply for a closed school loan discharge or transfer
credits to another institution, if they attended a closed school
any time after June 20, 2014, the day the Department of Education
restricted the company's access to federal aid.  Such a closed
school discharge normally applies only to students who withdrew
without completing their program within 120 days of the school's
closing date or who were attending when the school closed.

"Where students have been harmed by fraudulent practices, I am
fully committed to making sure students receive every penny of
relief they are entitled to under law.  We will make this process
as easy as possible for them," Duncan said.

An estimated 40,000 borrowers at Heald College alone took on more
than $540 million in loans that might qualify for debt relief.
Approximately $3.5 billion in federal loans was handed out to
Corinthian students since 2010.

Duncan said that the department has no way of knowing how many
students will come forward and ask for help.

"It's an unknown quantity at this point," he said.

In the past few months the Education Department has been urged by
nine state attorneys general, students, politicians and consumer
advocacy groups to help former Corinthian students.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris, who sued Corinthian in
2013, claiming it misrepresented graduates' job placement rates
and targeted low-income residents, applauded June 8's
announcement.

"This action has the potential to give students new hope and the
opportunity to achieve their educational goals and rebuild their
lives," Harris said.

Former Corinthian students who apply for loan forgiveness can stop
making payments until the Department of Education resolves their
claim.  To qualify for relief, students must show that the school
they attended violated state law.  A special master will be
charged with developing a system of debt relief and implementing
steps to reduce the burden on borrowers, the Education Department
said.

Debt Collective -- the group that organized a debt strike by
Corinthian students -- said the Education Department is not going
far enough, and should automatically discharge Corinthian
students' debts immediately.  "The legal and most painless
possible process for students is no process -- they deserve an
automatic discharge of their debts," the group said in a
statement.

Instead of "this obvious option, the Department of Education's
'solution' is a bureaucratically tortured process designed to
provide relief only to those who hear about it and can figure out
how to navigate unnecessary red tape," Debt Collective said.

U.S. Senate Education Committee Chairman Lamar Alexander also
disagreed with the debt forgiveness plan, for different reasons.

"Students have been hurt, but the department is establishing a
precedent that puts taxpayers on the hook for what a college may
have done," Alexander, R-Tenn, said.

"This is one more reason it was a bad idea to make the U.S.
Department of Education the banker for students as well as the
regulator of their colleges.  If your car is a lemon, you don't
sue the bank that made the auto loan; you sue the car company."


CRGE NEWPARK: Case Management Conference on Thursday
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton of the Eastern District of
California will hold a Case Management Conference in the case,
NewPARK MALL LLC v. CRGE NEWPARK MALL, LLC et al., Case No. 15-cv-
00817-PJH (N.D. Cal.), on July 2, 2015, at 2:00 p.m., in Courtroom
3, 3rd Floor, Federal Building, 1301 Clay Street, Oakland,
California.  A copy of the Court's Order dated June 24 is
available at http://is.gd/sCkUNVfrom Leagle.com.


CS GRANITE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Thomas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Joshua T. Carpenter, Julie Carpenter, and CS Granite,
LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00105-HLM (N.D. Ga., June 18, 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 selling and installing
countertops that are made of granite, quartz, and marble.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Robert McCown, Esq.
      WARREN & GRIFFIN, P.C.
      Suite 108, 300 W. Emery Street
      Dalton, GA 30721
      Telephone: (706) 419-4878
      Facsimile: (706) 529-3890
      E-mail: johnmccown@gmail.com

         - and -

      Randolph Scott Jackson Jr., Esq.
      R. SCOTT JACKSON, JR., ATTORNEY AT LAW
      Suite 200, 4525 Harding Road
      Nashville, TN 37205
      Telephone: (615) 244-6538
      E-mail: rsjackson@rsjacksonlaw.com


CVS PHARMACY: 4 Employees File Racial Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Lewis, writing for Al Jazeera America, reports that four
former employees of CVS stores in New York City have filed a class
action lawsuit alleging supervisors at the pharmacy chain
regularly told them to target minority shoppers as potential
shoplifters.

"Watch that black guy" or "Follow that black guy" were orders
allegedly received by one former employee and plaintiff,
Kerth Pollack, who worked at CVS for four years under defendant
Anthony Salvatore.

Mr. Salvatore and Abdul Selene, regional loss prevention managers
in Manhattan and Queens respectively, were the "ringleaders of
this racist and offensive approach" the plaintiffs allege in the
lawsuit.  Other plaintiffs included former employees Lacole
Simpson, Delbert Sorhaindo and Sheree Steele.

In New York City, CVS employs a "covert team" of detectives within
its loss prevention department, which is responsible for
preventing theft, according to the lawsuit filed in a New York
City federal court on June 3.

"This team of market investigators functions under racist
directives that intentionally target black and Hispanic shoppers,"
according to the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs said they were fired
after complaining about the discrimination.

Mr. Salvatore allegedly told Mr. Sorhaindo, who worked as a market
investigator for four years, to racially profile customers.  "Lots
of Hispanic people steal there," Mr. Salvatore told Mr. Sorhaindo
according to the lawsuit.

Both Messrs. Salvatore and Selene would often point to black
individuals as they walked into the store and "predict" they would
steal, plaintiffs alleged in the lawsuit.  "Look at that black
guy, he looks like he's going to steal something," Salvatore and
Selene would say, according to plaintiffs.

Their supervisors' conduct was only the "tip of the iceberg,"
plaintiffs alleged, adding that many CVS store managers also
engaged in discriminatory conduct.

One CVS store manager, Natia Doe, allegedly told Pollack, who is
black, "I thought you were a shoplifter when I first saw you."

CVS spokeswoman Carolyn Castel said the company doesn't tolerate
discrimination and is "shocked" by the allegations.


DIGNITY HEALTH: Sued for Firing Black Medical Office Assistant
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that though her exacting standards
gave her a reputation for being annoying, a medical office
assistant says Dignity Health cooked up a lie that she was drunk
on the job to justify scapegoating and firing her because she is
black, the woman claims in the Sacramento County Superior Court.


DISH ONE: Faces "Couser" Suit in C.D. Cal. Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Couser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dish One Satellite, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01194-CBM-
DTB (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
      Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
      245 Fischer Avenue Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
              ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Charged Over Special Education Failure
------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia faces liability for its failures with
regard to preschool children with special needs prior to 2007,
reports Tim Ryan at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

In a series of summary judgments June 10, U.S. District Judge
Royce Lamberth found that Washington's actions did not comply with
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) or with
D.C. law before 2007 and between 2008 and April 2011.

The decision comes nearly two years after Lamberth split the class
into four subsections: those whom the district did not identify,
those it did not evaluate, those whose eligibility it did not
determine and those whom it did not help transition to new
schools.

"Based on evidence presented at trial, the court found that the
district provided special education services to less than 6% of
its total child population, despite statistical projections that
the district should identify and serve at least 12%," that class-
certification order said.  "Of those disabled children who were
identified, the district failed to provide timely evaluations to
25-45% and timely eligibility determinations to 56.75%."

Early intervention as mandated by federal law works miracles,
offering a success rate of around 80 percent of disabled children
who receive special education services, but the class says the
city "has denied this miracle to a large number of disabled
children," according to the ruling.

The class says that D.C. has repeatedly failed to identify kids
with special needs, evaluate them or determine their eligibility
for special education.

Lamberth did side with the city as to whether the city violated
the Rehabilitation Act after March 22, 2010, and if it failed to
adequately evaluate special needs children during the same time
period.  Preserving other claims for trial, Lamberth declined to
issue summary judgment on whether the district ever violated the
Rehabilitation Act or if it violated IDEA and D.C. law after April
2011.  He also rejected the district's challenge of two experts
the families have tapped to testify at trial.

The Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act hinges federal
funding on a school system "policies and procedures to ensure
. . . that free appropriate public education . . . is available to
disabled children."  While the district identified 6 percent of
all the children in its jurisdiction as special needs, the total
should have been twice that, according to the opinion.

In addition, the District of Columbia failed to provide a timely
evaluation to between 25 percent and 45 percent of the students it
did identify.  Though it showed improvement over time in
transitioning children to new schools, the district still fell
short of an acceptable standard, according to the opinion.

"Thus, the court found that the District's failure to institute
adequate Child Find practices resulted in the denial of a [free
appropriate public education] to a substantial number of disabled
children and that the District failed to comply with its legal
duty to provide a smooth and effective transition to a significant
portion of disabled children," Lamberth wrote.

The parties will meet again for a status conference on June 30 to
try to set a date for the next phase of proceedings.

Lauren Seffel, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said her team is
"pleased with the court's decision, especially with respect to the
district's liability prior to 2011."

The case is DL, et al. v. District of Columbia, et al., Case No.
05-1437, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.


DRILL RIGHT: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Adams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Drill Right Technology, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00664
(W.D. Okla., June 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hour worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

Drill Right Technology, Inc. owns and operates an oil and gas
service company specializing in measurement while drilling tools
and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


EASTMAN CHEMICAL: Judge Attempts Mediation for Chemical Leak Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for The Charleston Gazette, reports that a
federal judge on June 5 tried to nudge West Virginia American
Water and Eastman Chemical toward mediation with lawyers for
Kanawha Valley residents in a class-action lawsuit over the
January 2014 Elk River chemical leak that contaminated drinking
water supplies for hundreds of thousands of residents across the
region.

Judge John T. Copenhaver told the attorneys to get together
privately and try to work out a schedule for when they could begin
some sort of court-supervised mediation.  Judge Copenhaver met
with lawyers for both sides during a status conference held in
open court in Charleston.

Kevin Thompson, Van Bunch and Stuart Calwell, lawyers for
residents and businesses, suggested that scheduling mediation soon
would be a good step, given Judge Copenhaver's recent rulings in
which the judge mostly turned down requests from the water company
and Eastman to throw out the case.

"It's a case that affects such a large number of people that we
need to do this as soon as we can," Mr. Bunch told the judge.

Marc Williams, a lawyer for Eastman, said the company would take
part in mediation if ordered by the judge, but that Eastman
doesn't believe the case is ready for such discussions.

"At this point, mediation is not likely to have much chance of
success," Mr. Williams said.

Mr. Williams said that the case is still too large and complex for
mediation.

"The onion needs to be peeled," Mr. Williams said.

Tom Hurney, a lawyer for West Virginia American Water, agreed with
Williams that mediation discussions should not start until later
in the case, at least not until after the plaintiffs file a motion
spelling out why they believe they should be able to litigate the
matter as a class-action case.

The lawyers agreed, though, to discuss a possible schedule for
mediation and report back to the judge, at least before the next
status conference, scheduled for late July.

The class-action suit alleges the water company did not adequately
prepare or respond to the leak, which occurred just 1.5 miles
upstream from its regional water intake.  It alleges Eastman --
which manufactured the chemical MCHM and sold it to Freedom
Industries -- did not properly test the chemical or warn buyers or
the public about potential health impacts.


EDISON INT'L: Employees Get Favorable Ruling in ERISA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Campbell, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of employees who participated
in their company's retirement savings plans and who objected to
the investment decisions made on their behalf, as decisions were
deemed to negatively impact their savings, can move ahead with
their ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) lawsuit.

The lawsuit was brought by employees of Edison International who
argued that the company chose mutual funds with excessive fees.
The unanimous ruling makes it easier for employees to sue over
investment decisions affecting their 401(k) retirement plans.

The Edison lawsuit involves some 40 mutual funds that are managed
at a higher cost and open to public investment.  The employees
allege that Edison could have chosen to invest in the same funds
through a lower cost, institutional investment program.
Therefore, the employees claim that the company did not act in
their best interests by choosing the more expensive funds.

ERISA regulates employee benefit and pension plans, both of which
can be tied into stock options.  Employees and retired employees
can file a lawsuit against a company and/or its officers for
breaching fiduciary responsibilities and putting stock options and
pension plans at risk.


ENGLE & SCHUSTER: Distribution of Remaining Funds Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------
DAVID BUCKLEY, on behalf of himself, the Robert L. McKissick
Irrevocable Trust and the Brenda L. Buckley Revocable Trust, REX
WELDON, on behalf of Nancy Weldon, Robert Clark Weldon and the
Robert Clark Weldon and Nancy Weldon Trust, JILL SCHUNEMAN, on
behalf of herself and the Jill Schuneman Living Trust, and LYLE
BREHM, on behalf of Willard F. Brehm, Gladys M. Brehm, the Willard
F. Brehm Revocable Trust and the Gladys M. Brehm Revocable Trust,
collectively on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. REBECCA ENGLE, BRIAN SCHUSTER, ENGLE &
SCHUSTER FINANCIAL, Inc.; AMERICAN CAPITAL CORP., ROYAL PALM
CAPITAL GROUP, Inc.; GERALD PARKER; and LIANA DOBARGANES
HARRINGTON, in her capacity as sole heir or putative personal
representative of the estate of Patrick Harrington, deceased;
Defendants, NO. 8:07CV254, (D. Neb.) is before the court on the
plaintiff's motion to approve distribution of remaining class
action settlement funds.

The court earlier approved attorneys' fees in the amount of one-
third of the settlement proceeds in connection with partial
settlements with other defendants. For the reasons stated in those
orders, the court finds an additional award of fees is
appropriate.

Lead plaintiffs also seek reimbursement of expenses in the amount
of $5292.85, plus an additional $200.00 for mailings, for a total
of $5,492.85. They have submitted a summary of expenses and costs.
The court has reviewed the submissions and finds that the costs
and expenses incurred, including PACER fees, postage, mileage,
document reproduction, accounting fees, and other expenses, are
fair and reasonable and were necessary to prosecute the claims on
behalf of the class.

Accordingly, Senior District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon ordered
that Attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,293.24 and costs and
expenses in the amount of $5,492.85 are approved and awarded.
Co-lead counsel may withdraw attorneys' fees in the amount of
$5,293.24 and costs and expenses in the amount of $5,492.85 from
the settlement proceeds maintained in Mattson Ricketts' trust
account. Co-lead counsel must distribute the remaining Settlement
Funds to Class members whose Proofs of Claims have been accepted
on a pro rata basis, in accordance with this court's earlier
orders. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the orders and
judgments entered in this action.

"This action is dismissed," Judge Bataillon wrote in his
memorandum and order dated June 12, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1C00ooJfrom Leagle.com.

David Buckley, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Gaba --
davegaba@compasslegal.com -- COMPASS LAW GROUP, David A. Yudelson
-- david.yudelson@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM,
Gregory C. Scaglione -- greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY,
JESSEN LAW FIRM, J.Daniel Weidner --
daniel.weidner@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM & John L.
Spray -- JLS@mattsonricketts.com -- MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.

Rex Weldon, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Gaba, COMPASS LAW
GROUP, David A. Yudelson, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, Gregory C.
Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, J.Daniel Weidner, KOLEY, JESSEN
LAW FIRM & John L. Spray, MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.

Jill Schuneman, Plaintiff, represented by David M. Gaba, COMPASS
LAW GROUP, David A. Yudelson, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, Gregory C.
Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, J.Daniel Weidner, KOLEY, JESSEN
LAW FIRM & John L. Spray, MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.

Lyle Brehm, Plaintiff, represented by David A. Yudelson, KOLEY,
JESSEN LAW FIRM, Gregory C. Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM,
J.Daniel Weidner, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM & John L. Spray, MATTSON,
RICKETTS LAW FIRM.

Rebecca Engle, Defendant, represented by Matthew D. Karnas --
karnas@bellovinkarnas.com -- BELLOVIN, KARNAS LAW FIRM.

Brian Schuster, Defendant, Pro Se.

Gerald Parker, Defendant, Pro Se.

Liana Dobarganes Harrington, deceased, Defendant, Pro Se.

Bonnie Post, Movant, represented by David M. Gaba, COMPASS LAW
GROUP & John L. Spray, MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.

William Sheldon, Movant, represented by David M. Gaba, COMPASS LAW
GROUP & John L. Spray, MATTSON, RICKETTS LAW FIRM.


ENTERPRISE DRILLING: Response Date in "Willis" Moved to July 1
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston for the Eastern District of
California gave her stamp of approval on a Second Stipulation to
Extend Time to Respond to the Complaint, Kenneth Willis, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Enterprise Drilling Fluids, Inc., Berry
Petroleum Company, LLC, Linn Operating, Inc., and DOES 1 through
10, Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00688-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

The Stipulation extends Defendants' deadline to file a first
responsive pleading from June 24, 2015 to July 1, 2015.

"Absolutely no further requests for extensions of time to file the
responsive pleading will be considered," the Stipulation said.

A copy of the June 23, 2015 Stipulation is available at
http://is.gd/FWEviyfrom Leagle.com.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Christian J. Rowley, Kerry M. Friedrichs, San
Francisco, California, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Sophia S. Kwan,
Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendants Berry Petroleum Company,
LLC and Linn Operating, Inc.

THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM, Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., Peter R.
Dion-Kindem, Woodland Hills, California, THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP,
APC, Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Los Angeles, California, HOLMES LAW
GROUP, APC, Jeffrey D. Holmes, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys
for Plaintiff Kenneth Willis


ERIE INDEMNITY: Delay Won't Impact $3MM Subscribers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Packel, writing for Law360, reports that an attorney for Erie
Indemnity Co. on June 8 conceded to the Third Circuit that a delay
in a $300 million putative class action against the insurer
following a federal court dismissal and referral to the
Pennsylvania Insurance Department would not affect the future of
the case.

Responding to an appeal by Erie Insurance Exchange on behalf of
its more than two million subscribers in a fight over fees and
service charges, Steven Feirson of Dechert LLP told the court that
he viewed the case as suspended and believed that it would likely
return to federal district court.

"We're not going to say that the statute of limitations was
running during this dismissal period," Mr. Feirson said.

The suit, which dates to February 2013, accuses the directors of
Erie Indemnity, which operates the exchange, of breaching their
fiduciary duties by letting the company keep fees that the
subscribers were charged if they didn't pay premiums on time and
other service charges.

In February 2014, U.S. District Judge Maurice B Cohill, in
Pennsylvania's Western District, dismissed the case without
prejudice, concluding the claims in the case fell under the
special authority of the Insurance Department.

The plaintiffs appealed, claiming that it had tort and contract
claims in the lawsuit that did not fall under the special
authority of the Insurance Department.  But the June 8 oral
arguments were largely about the Third Circuit's standing to hear
the appeal and whether Judge Cohill's decision was a final order.

Senior Judge Robert Cowen suggested that it was not, noting that
the judge sent the case to the Insurance Department so that it
could resolve the questions in its area of expertise and leave the
tort and contract claims for the district court to resolve.

"Isn't that the quintessential issue?" he asked Erie Insurance
Exchange attorney William Radcliffe of Radcliffe & DeHaas.

Mr. Radcliffe agreed, but shared his concerns that the statute of
limitations on the claims could expire before the case returns to
federal court.  He noted that it had already been one and a half
years since the dismissal.

When it was Mr. Feirson's time to argue before the panel, Judge
Cowen promptly pushed him on this point, extracting his agreement
to not raise the statute of limitations issues in the event that
the matter again wound up in federal court.

And when Radcliffe returned to the podium for his rebuttal, Judge
Cowen returned to the issue, noting that he now had no statute of
limitation problems.

"I don't see what you're being shortchanged on," he said.  "Any
issue you have is still open before the district court."

The argument touched only briefly on the underlying matter.

"We think the issue is: Did you breach your fiduciary duty,"
Radcliffe said at the end of his first turn at the podium.  "We
don't care what you call it: premium, nonpremium or tax."

The plaintiffs are represented by William Radcliffe and William
Martin of Radcliffe & DeHaas LLP.

Erie Indemnity Co. is represented by Steven Feirson, Michael
Kichline and Donald LeGower of Dechert LLP and Ira Podheiser --
ilpodheiser@burnswhite.com -- of Burns White LLC.

The case is Erie Insurance Exchange v. Richard L. Stover et al.,
case number 14-1573, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.


ESPN INC: Judge Dismisses Athlete Publicity Rights Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hollywood Reporter reports that a Tennessee judge rules that
participants in sporting events don't have publicity rights under
state law.  In a major win for ESPN, CBS, Fox, ABC and NBC, a
Tennessee federal judge dismissed a proposed class-action lawsuit
that targeted the billions of dollars reaped over college
athletics.

The lawsuit was brought last October by 10 former athletes on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated and looked to
leverage a California federal judge's decision that the NCAA had
violated antitrust laws by restraining amateur athletes from
licensing their names and images in TV game telecasts and video
games.  In Tennessee, the athletes looked to go the next step by
arguing that their unrestrained rights of publicity under state
law had been infringed by the broadcasters.

On June 4, Judge Kevin Sharp ruled that participants in sporting
events don't have publicity rights under common law in Tennessee
and further concluded that the suing athletes have not adequately
pleaded they've been deprived of any fundamental right.  The judge
also threw out claims that the defendants -- which also included
IMG Worldwide and William Morris Endeavor -- violated the Sherman
Antitrust Act, false endorsement under the Lanham Act and other
causes of action.  Judge Sharp does however acknowledge that
college basketball and football are big business and there's
"cogent arguments" that student athletes should share in the
financial success of the games they play.

"In this case, however, the Court is not called upon to address
the larger picture of whether, as a matter of recognition, equity
or fundamental fairness, Student Athletes should receive 'pay for
play,'" he writes.  "Nor is it the Court's task to pass on the
wisdom of the NCAA's eligibility rules that bar compensation, or
whether those rules capture reality, given the present nature and
environment of college sports.

"Rather, the Court's sole task is to determine whether present
Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts or stated a viable claim
that they are entitled to monetary compensation because they play
in televised games," he continues.  "The Court finds that
Plaintiffs have not done so under any of the theories that they
set forth."

In defending the lawsuit, the broadcasters argued that a ruling in
plaintiff's favor would radically disrupt sports broadcasts and
mean that anybody who considers themselves a "performer," from
cheerleaders to marching band members, could hold games hostage
with compensation demands.  The defendants threw up First
Amendment objections to the prospect that anyone unhappy with a
broadcast message might have the potential to assert publicity
rights.

Judge Sharp is dubious that athletes have a right of publicity
related to sports broadcasts, and if there is such a thing,
whether it survives First Amendment scrutiny.  He points to other
court decisions over the years such as the NFL's courtroom victory
over its former players regarding the use of old game footage.
The California judge who decided the NCAA had violated antitrust
laws is the "sole exception," he notes, but that ruling only goes
so far as to suggest "there might be a right of publicity under
Minnesota law" and the issue in that case was "whether the NCAA
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to restrain
competition in the market for the commercial use of the players'
names, images and likeness."

In looking at Tennessee's law protecting an individual's name,
photograph or likeness, the judge says it's telling that the
statute explicitly addresses advertising and has a fair use clause
for the use of a likeness in connection with news, public affairs
or a sports broadcast.  He also addresses plaintiff's arguments
that the sports broadcasts incorporated product pitching.
"However, they do not plead specific facts which show that any of
their names, images, or likenesses have been used in any
advertisement, nor do they specify which Defendant(s) created and
placed the advertisement, or in what medium it was placed," he
writes.

The judge also adopts the broadcasters' reading of Zacchini v.
Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., the only time that the issue of
publicity rights has been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.  In
that case, a man named Hugo Zacchini, who performed a human
cannonball act, sued a local Ohio TV station, arguing that he'd
have no incentive to perform if TV broadcasters could show his
entire act without consent.  "Unlike the situation here,
Mr. Zacchini was not only a performer, he was also the producer of
his one-man show," writes the judge in a passage that will
probably please Hollywood studios even beyond the college sports
context.  "It is a mistake, the Court believes, to read
Mr. Zacchini as supporting a right of publicity by anyone who
performs in an event produced by someone else."

The decision also addresses the constitutional issues of due
process and equal protection, and Sharp draws the lines very tight
in practically any class action asserting a publicity rights
claim.  "It is difficult to perceive how a facially neutral
statute that creates exemptions for news, public affairs and
sports broadcasts singles out a specific class, and Plaintiffs do
not suggest how that could be so."

If there's anything the broadcasters don't get, it's the judge
stopping short of determining whether the publicity rights claims
are preempted under the Copyright Act -- a wonky and much-debated
area of law.

The ruling also figures to be appealed.  The decision also doesn't
foreclose similar lawsuits in other states where publicity right
statutes are different.  Perhaps those will come from more
seasoned attorneys who won't get flagged by the judge for not
following notice requirements and will have the foresight to ask
for the opportunity to amend their lawsuit to cure deficiencies.
The lawyers representing the athletes in this case fell short and
the judge has granted a motion to dismiss with prejudice.


FFP HOLDINGS: Settles Polyurethane Foam Price Fixing Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Moore, writing for Plastic News, reports that plaintiffs'
attorneys in a class action lawsuit alleging price fixing in the
polyurethane foam industry have filed a motion in Toledo federal
district court for approval of six settlements worth a total of
$275.5 million.

The lead attorneys in the class action -- William Isaacson --
wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- of Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and
Stephen Neuwirth --stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com -- of Quinn,
Emanuel, Urquhart & Sullivan LLP -- filed the settlement documents
May 19 on behalf of the lawsuit's Direct Purchaser Class.

The Direct Purchaser Class comprises producers of polyurethane
foam products -- including manufacturers of furniture, automobile
seats and carpet underlay -- that purchased foam directly from the
manufacturers.

Combined with the previous settlements in the case, the Direct
Purchaser Class now has reached settlements worth a total of $433
million, according to a news release from the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, originally filed in 2010, accuses polyurethane foam
manufacturers of coordinating their price increase announcements
as a way to fix prices.  The alleged price fixing took place
between Jan. 1, 1999 and July 31, 2010, according to the suit.

Since its inception, the case has involved hundreds of attorneys
filing more than 1,700 court documents to date.  In 2014, Judge
Jack Zouhary of the Toledo court certified the suit as a
nationwide class action, according to the plaintiffs.  Later that
year, a federal appeals court rejected the defendant companies'
request to appeal the class certification, and in March 2015 the
U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the defendants' appeal of the
appeals court decision, plaintiffs said.

Plaintiffs and six of the defendants reached agreement on the new
settlements in March 2015, less than two weeks before a jury trial
was scheduled to begin, plaintiffs said.  The companies involved
in the new settlement are FFP Holdings, LLC; Foamex Innovations
Inc.; Future Foam Inc.; Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co.; Mohawk
Industries Inc.; and Woodbridge Foam Corp. with its subsidiaries
Woodbridge Sales & Engineering Inc. and Woodbridge Foam
Fabricating Inc.

Settling with the plaintiffs before the new settlement were
Vitafoam Inc.; Vitafoam Products Canada Ltd.; Domfoam
International Inc.; Valle Foam Industries (1995) Inc.; Leggett &
Platt Inc.; Carpenter Co.; E.R. Carpenter L.P.; and Carpenter
Holdings Inc.

The settlement against Carpenter Co. and its subsidiaries alone
was worth $108 million, plaintiffs said.

The settlements achieved by the class action represent more than
50 percent of the highest damages estimate of the class
plaintiffs' damages expert, according to the plaintiffs.  "Only an
exceptionally few antitrust class action settlements have ever
achieved similar results," they said.

A lawyer representing one of the settling companies declined
comment on the case, on the grounds that the litigation was
ongoing.


FIRST NATIONAL: Court Orders Payne to File Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine D. Perry issued a memorandum and order on
June 11, 2015, in the case captioned ANESSA PAYNE, Plaintiff, v.
FIRST NATIONAL COLLECTION BUREAU, INC., Defendant, CASE NO.
4:15CV909 CDP, (E.D. Mo.).

"It appears the complaint contains typographical errors and
allegations that do not apply to this case. For example, there is
one female plaintiff and one defendant listed in the caption of
the complaint, yet at various times in the complaint counsel
refers to plaintiff as "he" or mentions plural "defendants."
Although there are no class action allegations made in the body of
the complaint and no class-wide relief is sought, the complaint is
titled "Class Action Complaint,"" wrote Judge Perry in his order.

"By filing this complaint, counsel represented to this Court that,
among other things, his factual contentions have evidentiary
support. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3). Here, it appears that
counsel may not have adequately reviewed the complaint before he
filed it, which raises the concern that counsel did not meet his
ethical and Rule 11 obligations with respect to this pleading.
The Court's electronic case filing records indicate that
plaintiff's lawyer has filed more than 170 cases in this court in
the last four years, which is an extremely high volume. Lawyers
are not allowed to ignore the rules of ethics just because they
have high-volume practices and bring the same type of case over
and over again. I will require plaintiff to file an amended
complaint correcting these obvious errors. As it appears that
plaintiff has not yet achieved service on defendant, I will
require that plaintiff's counsel serve defendant with a copy of
this order and a copy of the amended complaint when he serves
defendant with the original complaint and summons," Judge Perry
added.

Accordingly, the Court ordered that plaintiff to file an amended
complaint in compliance with its order no later than June 24,
2015, or the action will be dismissed without prejudice.

"Counsel must include a copy of this order and the amended
complaint along with the summons and complaint to be served on
defendant," Judge Perry said.

A copy of the ruling is available at http://bit.ly/1GUB3enfrom
Leagle.com.

Vanessa Payne, Plaintiff, represented by James W. Eason --
james.w.eason@gmail.com --  EASON LAW FIRM.


FLOYD MAYWEATHER: Team Member Accused of Threatening Casino Valet
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service reports that a member of
Floyd Mayweather's entourage threatened a casino valet over
private ticket sales to the recent championship fight -- one of
them for $60,000 in cash, the valet claims in court.

David Bridges sued Mayweather, "The Money Team," and an alleged
member of the team, David Mack, in Clark County Court on June 10.
The lawsuit describes The Money Team as "a business entity whose
form is unknown," and says that Mack "represented to Bridges that
he was a part of Floyd Mayweather's Money Team" when Mack asked
him to arrange ticket sales to wealthy casino patrons he met
through his job as a valet.

The tickets were for Mayweather's May 2 world championship
welterweight fight with Manny Pacquiao, for one of the richest
purses in history.  In one deal, Bridges says, he sold four
tickets for $15,000 apiece, and gave the $60,000 in cash to Mack
in Mack's 2015 Corvette, for which Mack paid him a $500
commission.  When subsequent deals fell through, Mack began to
"hound and harass" him for "wasting his time and The Money Team's
time," Bridges claims.

The 21-page lawsuit describes other ticket deals, some successful
some not, including one for "four tickets at $2,000 per ticket
from Mack and The Money Team," and a third party's demand for
$4,500 for helping on the $80,000 deal.

Bridges claims that Mack paid that man the $4,500, then claimed
that the $80,000 deal was falling through.  On March 3, he claims,
Mack sent him several threatening texts, including "that Mack is
coming to plaintiff and that Mack wants his $4,500 back," and that
if the $80,000 deal fell apart, "that Mack will come after
plaintiff and plaintiff's family and do them some type of grievous
physical harm."

(Quotations from the lawsuit, not from the alleged March 3 texts.)

Later that day, Bridges says, Mack showed up at Bridges' job,
"forced" him into Mack's car and demanded the $4,500 commission
Mack had paid the third man. When Bridges told him he did not have
the money, it "enraged Mack," who "began to make threats upon
plaintiff and plaintiff's family that put plaintiff in immediate
fear for the well-being of his family and himself," the complaint
states.

Mack says he filed a police report about the threats that day.

Also that day, Bridges says, Mack texted him that he had to put
together three more deals for at least $50,000, and that Bridges
"knew what was at stake," an obvious allusion to the threats
against him and his family.

On March 4, Bridges says, he took his family from their home to
hide them from Mack.

On March 5, Bridges says, Mack recanted his threats and said no
one would hurt him or his family -- but he demanded another
$26,000 for the $80,000 ticket deal.  Bridges claims that that
buyer -- nonparty Terrence Knighton -- paid the $26,000, and
Bridges got $6,000 as a commission -- $1,000 of which he later had
to give back to Mack as a "tax."

On fight day, Bridges says, a fourth man demanded another $60,000
for Knighton's tickets, and it fell to Bridges to tell Knighton
that he would not get the tickets he had paid for, which,
understandably, left Knighton "extremely upset."

By this time, Bridges' family was just as upset as Knighton,
believing that "Bridges was injured or murdered."  Bridges seeks
treble damages for fraud, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, bad
faith, conversion, breach of contract, vicarious liability,
negligent hiring and emotional distress.

Officials with Mayweather Promotions could not be reached for
comment June 11. Bridges' attorney, Philip J. Trenchak, was not
immediately available.

Mayweather won the fight by unanimous decision. After the fight,
allegations that Pacquiao had failed to disclose a shoulder injury
that made it hard for him to land punches led to a raft of class
action lawsuits from fight fans -- at least 15 class actions in
the Courthouse News database, from pay per view fans and others,
most of them alleging fraud.


FOXTONS: Faces Class Action Over Inflated Maintenance Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Ward, writing for The Independent, reports that Foxtons
have been accused of trying to "rip off the wrong guy" after the
estate agent charged a law lecturer GBP616 to change a light
fitting.

Dr. Chris Townley, a lecturer at King's College London, asked the
agency Foxtons to organize the repair of a light fitting at his
property in Forest Hill, London.  Dr. Townley contacted Foxtons to
complain about the quality of work, which had cost GBP616.  In the
course of the discussions, it transpired that the actual cost of
the repair had been GBP412.50 and that Foxtons had increased the
bill twice -- once for a commission and the second time for a
separate fee the agent said it adds to any invoice over GBP500.

The legal team for Mr. Townley is now preparing a class action
suit as a result.  Dr Townley, a law lecturer for 10 years since
leaving the Office of Fair Trading, is seeking GBP14,000 in
compensation for "inflated costs for work" from 2011-13 when he
rented out his property.

"Foxtons were very dismissive when I first went to them saying the
changes were unfair. Being a lawyer has helped.  It meant they
couldn't pull the wool over my eyes," he told the Evening
Standard.

The most -- and least -- affordable UK cities for renting
"Who knows how many people will join the action," he added.

The Guardian reported that Dr. Townley was subsequently informed
by Foxtons that they had taken a total 38 commissions worth around
GBP1,900 on other jobs over the period he was with them.

While Dr. Townley insists that none of the charges were set out in
his invoices, the estate agents claim that the fees are outlined
in its terms and conditions.  He is now working with a team of
solicitors from Leigh Day to seek group legal action to claim back
any money he or other landlords may have lost from Foxtons.  Leigh
Day believes that Foxtons could face a legal bill of GBP42 million
if all of their landlords join the legal action.

A Spokesperson for Foxtons told The Independent: "We are
incredibly disappointed to hear when any customer is dissatisfied
with the service they have received.

"We are satisfied though that our fees are clearly laid out within
our terms and conditions and that approvals are obtained from our
landlords before works commence on their property.

"As part of our managed service to our landlords we arrange for
maintenance works to be carried out on their behalf from a panel
of carefully vetted and trusted contractors."

Leigh Day have been approached by The Independent for comment.


FRY'S ELECTRONICS: 9th Cir. Upholds "Nathan" Suit Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case entitled MICHAEL NATHAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRY'S
ELECTRONICS INC.; et al., Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-55920,
Michael Nathan appealed the district court dismissal of his
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted, pursuant to a motion to dismiss on those grounds filed by
defendants Fry's Electronics, Inc., Vladimir Pleskov, Syed Fahad,
and Nuance Communications, Inc.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in a memorandum
dated June 15, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1KjhHBWfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the ruling.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court correctly
determined that it had jurisdiction over this putative class
action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Nuance
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the total
amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, and
federal jurisdiction exists, it added.

With regards Nathan's appeal of the district court's denial of his
motion for entry of default, the Ninth Circuit held that the
district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied
Nathan's motion.

"The district court docket confirms that the clerk did not act on
the request for entry of default until after Nuance's motion to
dismiss Nathan's complaint had been filed. Nuance's motion to
dismiss Nathan's complaint meant the defendants had not failed to
file and serve a responsive pleading before the request for
default was acted upon. Thus, the district court did not abuse its
discretion by denying Nathan's motion for entry of default," ruled
the Ninth Circuit.


GAHANNA, OH: Appeals Ruling in Income Tax Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Earl Rinehart, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that
Gahanna residents hoping to share up to $11 million won in a
class-action lawsuit over the way the city calculated income-tax
bills might be in for a long wait.

The Franklin County Court of Appeals on May 29 upheld a Common
Pleas Court ruling that the city and the Regional Income Tax
Agency, which collects the tax for the city, did not give a
Gahanna couple enough credit for the income tax they paid to
another city.  Douglas and Karla LaBorde live in Gahanna, which
has a 1.5 percent income tax and work in Columbus, where the tax
is 2.5 percent.

"It's a nice victory," said Todd Neuman, the LaBordes' attorney.

Common Pleas Judge Kimberly Cocroft also ruled that neither the
city nor RITA had immunity against the suit and that the case
could proceed as a class action.  The class could include 12,000
to 13,000 Gahanna residents.

Gahanna City Attorney Shane Ewald said the city plans to appeal,
which could delay resolution of the case for up to three more
years.

Mr. Ewald said Gahanna plans to challenge the appeal court's
immunity and class-action rulings before the Ohio Supreme Court.
Depending on whether the high court takes the case and the outcome
there, the city could then appeal Judge Cocroft's ruling on the
refund.

Mr. Neuman said Judge Cocroft still needs to hold a hearing on
what damages are owed Gahanna taxpayers citywide. He estimated the
figure at between $7 million and $11 million.  In September,
Cocroft agreed with the LaBordes' claim that they were owed $347,
$438 and $473 from 2009 through 2011, respectively.

The LaBordes said they did not receive the full credit they
deserved because of how the city calculated their tax credit.  The
city's credit rate is 83.3 percent.

Using a $100,000 income as an example, a person who pays a higher
tax rate to another city (2.5 percent to Columbus in the LaBordes'
case) would be entitled to a tax credit of $1,500, the lawsuit
said.  That was based on multiplying $100,000 by the city's 1.5
percent tax rate.

However, officials for the city and RITA testified that they would
calculate the credit to be $250 less for a total of $1,250.  That
was based on multiplying the $1,500 again by the suburb's 83.3
percent credit rate.

"It wasn't really overcharging," Mr. Ewald said.  "You simply have
a different interpretation of what the ordinance meant."

Residents hoping for bigger refunds going forward are out of luck.
The city reworked the language of its tax ordinance after the
September ruling.

The city followed the judge's recommendation that the ordinance be
more clearly written so a lay person could understand, Mr. Ewald
said.

The result for the LaBordes would be the same today under the
rewritten ordinance, he said.  "It (the ordinance) was always
intended to capture a quarter-percent."

Mr. Neuman didn't think the ruling would have much effect on other
cities that offer less than a 100 percent credit.

"I think this is unique," he said, because of the way the
Gahanna's ordinance was interpreted.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that class
action lawyers suing General Motors Co. over its fatal ignition-
switch problems have lined up several of the automaker's top
lawyers and ex-lawyers for questioning over the next few months,
including former general counsel Michael Millikin and outside
counsel Anton Valukas.

Texas attorney Bob Hilliard, co-lead attorney in the multidistrict
class action against GM, has prepared a list of 55 people to be
deposed, according to a recent article in the Detroit News.

Sometimes called "Bulldog," Hilliard has a national reputation.
The name partner of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi also
served as liaison counsel for the plaintiffs' steering committee
in litigation against Toyota Motor Corp. for its unintended
acceleration problems two years ago.

Mr. Millikin, who was replaced as GC on March 1 and is set to
retire in July, is scheduled for questioning on Aug. 26.  He has
denied any wrongdoing in the delayed recall of 2.6 million
vehicles with faulty ignition switches that have been blamed for
109 deaths and more than 200 injuries.

A GM internal investigation prepared by outside counsel
Anton Valukas, of Jenner & Block, essentially blamed incompetence
and poor communications for the nearly decadelong delay.
Mr. Valukas is scheduled to be deposed Sept. 24, the News said.

In all, some 15 employees were let go after the Valukas report,
including at least four in-house lawyers, but not Mr. Millikin.
Besides the former GC, the article said Hilliard plans to depose
Frederick Fromm, a vice president and former general counsel of GM
North America from 2009 to 2011. And others could be added to the
list.

In other news related to the faulty ignition switch, the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration on June 5 released two
internal reports that harshly criticized the agency's handling of
GM's switch problems and identified agency reforms.  One report
found that NHTSA didn't follow up on trends in its own data and
investigation, and failed to open a formal probe into the deadly
defect or to demand a timely recall that could have saved lives.
The other called for 380 new employees and nearly $90 million in
new spending, primarily to beef up its office of defects
investigations to make "a much larger and more proactive presence
in the automotive safety arena."  Congress, however, is unlikely
to approve such a budget increase.

"Our obligation to save lives and prevent injuries must include
sober self-examination, and when we find weaknesses, we have to
fix them," NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind said in a statement.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ex-CEO Set for Deposition in Ignition-Switch Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nora Naughton, writing for Automotive News, reports that former
General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner is scheduled to be deposed in
September in a class-action suit filed by consumers against the
automaker over defective ignition switches now linked to at least
109 deaths, Texas lawyer Bob Hilliard's office confirmed.

Lawyers with Mr. Hilliard's firm will question Mr. Wagoner in
Detroit on Sept. 2.

Mr. Wagoner was at the helm when the faulty switches were first
engineered in 2001.  He resigned in 2009 at the request of the
Obama administration.

The faulty switches prompted the recall of 2.6 million vehicles
because they can slip out of the "run" position and cut power to
the engine and power steering.

"We're in the discovery and deposition phase of trial preparation,
and this is all part of the normal process," a GM spokesman said
by e-mail on June 4.  "We're not going to comment on individual
depositions or purely procedural matters."

Mr. Wagoner is among 96 other current and former employees
Hilliard's office has involved in the class action.  Lawyers also
plan to depose Mr. Wagoner's successor Dan Akerson and current CEO
Mary Barra. Barra's deposition is scheduled for Oct. 8.

Also set to be deposed by Hilliard's firm is former GM engineer
Ray DeGiorgio, who is one of 15 GM employees who lost their jobs
after the automaker waited more than a decade to recall the faulty
switches.  Mr. DeGiorgio, a central figure in the scandal, will be
deposed over two days.  His deposition is scheduled for June 18
and June 19.

Mr. Hilliard's office is leading several consolidated class-action
suits against GM. The first case could go to trial as early as
January 2016 and Hilliard's firm is allowed to depose 16 current
or former GM employees a month for six months.

The automaker has set up a victims' compensation fund, headed by
lawyer Kenneth Feinberg.  Through May 29, Mr. Feinberg's office
has approved 109 death claims and 208 injury claims linked to the
faulty ignition switches.


GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Villamizar" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Villamizar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-
04136-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., June 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
      150 Nassau Street #8i
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (201) 873-7675
      E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


GOLDEN LIVING: Residents Obtain Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
Emily Mongan, writing for McKnights.com, reports that claims of
chronic understaffing against 12 Golden Living Centers-operated
Arkansas nursing homes will be tried as a class action lawsuit,
the Arkansas Supreme Court has ruled.

An Arkansas trial court gave the case class certification in 2014,
due to a proposed class including more than 3,400 residents.  The
residents' claims allege that inadequate staffing went against the
facilities' admission contracts, and violated the Arkansas Long-
Term Care Residents' Rights Act and Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act.  They also are seeking damages for issues they say
are linked to understaffing.

Golden Living Centers challenged the initial class certification,
claiming that the common questions didn't predominate over
individual residents' issues.  The Arkansas Supreme Court
disagreed, stating a class action suit would be more efficient
than individual trials, and the issue of a contractual or
statutory liability created by understaffing could be resolved in
a single proceeding.

"Otherwise, there exists a possibility of a multiplicity of suits
across the state with the potential that circuit courts may reach
inconsistent results," the court said in a ruling released on
June 4.

The court also said the fact that 12 nursing home facilities are
involved in the suit wouldn't impact its efficiency.


GRILLERS INC: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Grillers, Inc. and Daniel Velazquez, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00237-WCL-PRC (N.D. Ind., 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 a sandwich shop located at 1240
119th Street, Whiting, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marissa J. McDermott, Esq.
      MCDERMOTT LAW OFFICE
      9013 Indianapolis Blvd
      Highland, IN 46322
      Telephone: (219) 838-9200
      Facsimile: (219) 972-7110
      E-mail: marissa@mcdermottlegal.net


GRINDR LLC: Faces "Howell" Suit in Cal. Over Illegal Contracts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Howell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Grindr LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01337-GPC-NLS (S.D. Cal.,
June 18, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's practice of forcing
California consumers to enter into illegal contracts that required
consumers to waive important protections afforded by the
California Legislature.

Grindr LLC operates an all-male online dating website.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


HEARST COMMUNICATIONS: Sued for Selling Subscribers' Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a major magazine publisher is facing a
class action lawsuit for allegedly selling its subscribers'
information to third party data miners without permission.

Suzanne Boelter filed the lawsuit on May 21 in U.S. District Court
in New York against Hearst Communications, which publishes
magazines such as Cosmopolitan, Esquire, and O, the Oprah
Magazine.  The lawsuit claims Hearst sells subscribers' personal
information in order to supplement sales and advertising revenues.
The information sold includes full names, home addresses, titles
of magazines they are subscribed to, gender, age, political
affiliation and more, the suit says.  Ms. Boelter said Hearst
charges about $192 per thousand subscribers and can break down the
list to very specific demographics.

"For example, anyone could buy from Hearst a customer list with
the names and addresses of all Good Housekeeping subscribers over
age 50, who are devoted Bible-reading Democrats, with three
teenage children and pet cats," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit claims selling this information is a violation of
subscribers' privacy because it doesn't ask its readers for
permission.  The lawsuit seeks class status and more than $5
million in damages plus court costs.

Ms. Boelter is represented by Scott A. Bursor, Joseph I. Marchese
and Philip L. Fraietta of Bursor & Fisher, P.A. in New York City.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case
number 1:15-cv-03934


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: July 22 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Frater v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc., et al.
No. 2:12-CV-07152 WY

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING, AND MOTION FOR AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES
TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. common stock trading under ticker
symbol HEB from March 14, 2012 through and including December 20,
2012, both dates inclusive.

EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ARE DEFENDANTS, THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
OF HEMISPHERX, AND THEIR FAMILIES AND AFFILIATES.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that a hearing
will be held on July 22, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable
William H. Yohn Jr. United States District Judge, at the
courthouse for the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA
19106, to determine, among other things, whether: (1) a Settlement
Class should be certified for purposes of the Settlement and
whether Lead Plaintiff and its counsel have adequately represented
the Class Members; (2) the proposed Settlement of the Class's
claims against the Defendants for $2,750,000.00 should be approved
as fair, reasonable and adequate; (3) the proposed Plan of
Allocation is fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (4) the Court
should permanently enjoin the assertion of any claims that arise
from or relate to the subject matter of the above-captioned class
action; (5) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
the Defendants as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement filed
with the Court; (6) the application by Lead Counsel for an award
of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved; and (7) an
application for reimbursement of reasonable costs and expenses of
Lead Plaintiff Member Marc Verheyen should be granted.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Hemispherx common stock
trading under ticker symbol HEB during the Class Period, your
rights may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.
If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency of Class
Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement Fairness Hearing, and
Motion for Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses and Proof of Claim and Release Form, you may
obtain them free of charge by contacting the Claims Administrator,
by mail at: Hemispherx Securities Settlement Administrator, PO Box
30172 College Station, TX 77842-3172; by telephone at 866-374-
7219; by e-mail at Info@HemispherxSettlement.com or by visiting
the website at: www.HemispherxSettlement.com

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
August 21, 2015 establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no
later than July 8, 2015.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan
of Allocation or attorney's fees and expenses must be filed, in
accordance with the procedures set forth in the Notice, no later
than July 8, 2015.

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

     Joshua B. Silverman, Esq.
     Pomerantz LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Ste. 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone:  312-377-1181

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE
CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
DATED: May 7, 2015, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF PENNSYVLIANIA

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation.


HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Inflated Fees
---------------------------------------------------------
The Madison-St. Clair Record reports that a St. Clair County class
action aims to make a major vehicle renter pay for charging
allegedly inflated fees.  According to a lawsuit filed on May 10
in St. Clair County Circuit Court, Dawn Cooks and Emma Bradley
filed a class action complaint against the Hertz Corp., demanding
a jury trial.  The plaintiffs, and others in the class, claim they
rented cars from Hertz and were required to pay "improper,
deceptive and unethical fees," the lawsuit states.

The class contests two separate types of fees they were required
to pay, including the company's Energy Surcharge charged to
Missouri and Illinois renters and the charge to purportedly
recover the cost of vehicle licensing, registration and other
fees.  The class claims the fees allegedly exceed the actual cost
to the company of recovering these expenses and are more designed
to boost the company's bottom line.

The plaintiff, alleging deceptive, illegal and unfair
profiteering, seeks to have the class legitimized by the court; to
appoint the class's counsel as class counsel; actual damages still
unspecified; pre- and post-judgment interest; punitive damages;
and attorneys' fees and court costs.  The class also asks the
court to issue an injunction to keep the company from imposing
these fees and to make Hertz disclose on its website and at its
outlets the basis for any fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by Richard Cornfeld of St. Louis,
David Bender -- dbender@rgsz.com -- of Rosenblum & Goldenhersh in
St. Louis and Anthony S. Bruning Sr. of Leritz Plunkert & Bruning
in St. Louis.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 15-L-262


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Settles Autonomy Deal Class Action for $100MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Escritt, writing for Reuters, reports that Dutch pension
fund manager PGGM said on June 9 Hewlett-Packard had agreed to pay
$100 million to settle a class-auction lawsuit relating to the
company's 2011 acquisition of Autonomy, a "big data" analysis
company.

PGGM alleged that HP made "false and misleading" statements about
Autonomy's value and the reasons for its "poor performance" after
HP's $11 billion acquisition of the company.  A subsequent $8.8
billion write-down that resulted after Autonomy's "accounting
improprieties and over-valuation" were revealed caused HP's stock
price to plummet, PGGM said, "damaging HP shareholders severely".

PGGM was the lead plaintiff in the class action suit, which was
brought in 2012.  The cash payment will be paid into a settlement
fund to compensate affected shareholders.

"While HP believes the action has no merit, it is desirable and
beneficial to HP and its shareholders to resolve (to) settle the
case as further litigation would be burdensome and protracted," HP
said in a statement.


HILTON HOTELS: Court Tweaks Denial Letters to Unqualified Members
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that in the 17-year-old court-
ordered reform of Hilton's retirement plan, a class action whose
payouts hit the $33 million mark in February, a federal judge made
a small tweak June 4 regarding denial letters members of the class
who do not qualify for benefits receive.

The case is Jamal J. Kifafi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, et
al., Case No. 98-1517 (CKK), in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia.


HJ HEINZ: Falsely Marketed Fries & Tater Tots Products, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Backus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. H. J. Heinz Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-02738 (N.D.
Cal., June 18, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the purchasers
of Ore Ida Extra Crispy Easy Fries and Easy Tater Tots that were
falsely marketed and advertised by Heinz as 0g trans-fat.

The products at issue contain artificial trans-fat know as
partially hydrogenated oil (PHO). PHO is a food additive banned in
many parts of the world due to its toxic carcinogen content.

H. J. Heinz Company is a Pennsylvania corporation with its
principal place of business in Pennsylvania. Heinz is engaged in
manufacturing and marketing a range of food products throughout
the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 798-2006
      Facsimile: (480) 247-4553
      E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com


HOLLISTER CO: Class Action Over Voided Gift Cards Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Goldman, writing for NJ.com, reports that a New Jersey court
will allow a class-action lawsuit filed over millions in gift
cards voided by a clothing store to proceed.

Vincent Daniels alleges he bought $75 in merchandise from a
Hollister store in late 2009 as part of a promotion to receive a
$25 gift card, CourthouseNews.com reported.  When he returned to
the store in 2011, the gift card wasn't accepted, according to the
suit.  The gift card said it had "no expiration date," his suit
says. While other gift cards also made no mention of an expiration
date, Hollister said it hung signs in stores saying the
promotional gift cards expired Jan. 30, 2010.  The store says it
also emailed customers a reminder to use the cards by that date.

Hollister has admitted it canceled about $3 million in $25 gift
cards, according to Courthouse News.

Sitting in Ocean County, Judge Clarkson Fisher Jr. said the suit
will proceed.  "Consumers may very well have purchased more than
$75 of defendant's merchandise because of the lure of a $25 gift
card, and this bargain was arguably snatched away by defendant's
unilateral cancellation of the gift card at a later date," Judge
Fisher Jr. wrote.

The class-action device was created not only to allow compensation
for such small wrongs but also to deter future wrongdoing in the
marketplace."

Abercrombie & Fitch is the parent company of Hollister.


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Brake Assembly in Sonata
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Miller, Richard Kotelly, Kathleen Riordan, Charlene Liddle,
Krista Pierskalla and Rebecca Mccormick, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Hyundai Motor America, Case
No. 7:15-cv-04722 (S.D.N.Y., June 17, 2015), is brought on behalf
of all the citizens who purchased or leased a Hyundai Sonata,
model years 2006 through 2010 with defective rotor, caliper and
brake assembly.

Hyundai Motor America is a foreign corporation, with its principal
place of business and national headquarters located in California.
Hyundai designs, manufactures and sells automobiles and other
vehicles under its Hyundai brand name throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Steven Graifman, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Telephone: (845) 356-2570
      Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
      E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com


HYUNDAI MOTOR: Ct. Orders Supplemental Briefing in Reniger Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
JULIA RENIGER, GREG BATTAGLIA, OREN JAFFE, LUCIA SAITTA, and ANN
MANCUSO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a California
corporation, and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign corporation,
Defendants, CASE NO. 14-3612 SC, (N.D. Cal.) is a putative class
action alleging consumer protection, fraud, and warranty claims
related to alleged low-speed stalling of Hyundai Santa Fe
vehicles.

Before the Court are two motions -- a motion filed by Hyundai to
dismiss four of the five named Plaintiffs for lack of standing
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and a motion to
strike.

"While the motions are fully briefed, the Court finds supplemental
briefing on two issues is necessary prior to ruling on the
motions," District Judge Samuel Conti held in his order dated
June 12, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1SW3MEY from Leagle.com.

Because the parties did not address certain issues in their
briefing on the motion to dismiss, the Court orders the parties to
submit supplemental briefs limited to these and any related
issues:

* Hyundai was to file an opening brief of no more than 10 pages no
later than last Friday, June 26, 2015;

* Plaintiffs must file a responsive brief of no more than 10 pages
no later than Friday, July 3, 2015; and

* Hyundai may file a reply brief of no more than five pages no
later than Friday July 10, 2015.

Julia Reniger, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone --
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lionel
Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Greg Battaglia, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

Oren Jaffe, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP.

Lucia Saitta, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Ann Mancuso, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Hyundai Motor America, a California corporation, Defendant,
represented by Eric Y Kizirian -- kizirian@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith, Kimberly Thanh Chung --
Kimberly.Chung@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and
Smith LLP & Michael K. Grimaldi -- mgrimaldi@lbbslaw.com -- Lewis
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.

Hyundai Motor Company, a foreign corporation, Defendant,
represented by Eric Y Kizirian, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith.


IDAHO: DOH Can't Cut Disabled Residents' Benefits, 9th Cir. Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ninth Circuit affirmed that Idaho cannot cut benefits to
residents with disabilities by more than 50 percent, reports
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service.

The June 5 ruling affirmed an Idaho Federal Court order that
expanded a preliminary injunction preventing Idaho's Department of
Health and Welfare from cutting benefits to residents with
disabilities without adequate notice or explanation.

The Developmental Disabilities Waiver program, administered
through the state's Department of Health and Welfare, provides
Medicaid services for people with home-based care that includes
"residential habitation services, chore services, supported
employment, non-medical transportation, specialized medical
equipment, home delivered meals and skilled nursing."

In 2011, the state agency changed how it determines the benefits,
drastically reducing the benchmark budget of $54,965 to $24,476 -
nearly 55 percent.  The cuts left many adults with developmental
disabilities unable to get the care they needed, and blocked some
from receiving any care at all, according to a 2012 class action
from more than a dozen named plaintiffs.

The March 2014 consolidated complaint claims the defendant Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare sent notices of the budget cuts
without giving recipients adequate time to prepare appeals: time
which is required by state and federal laws.  The class also
claimed the agency refused to disclose a "secret" mathematical
algorithm it used to determine each person's benefits plan and
budget, in violation of the Due Process Clause and the fair
hearing requirement of the Medicaid Act.

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare "informed them that
their Medicaid assistance will be substantially reduced for this
year but do not explain why," the March 25, 2014 consolidated
class action states.

"In fact, the reasons why have been 'secrets' according to IDHW
itself.  The secrets are the methodologies used to calculate the
amount of Medicaid resources the plaintiffs will have available
for the year."

The plaintiffs said their individual benefits were cut by as much
as 42 percent.

After their original lawsuit against the state on Jan. 18, 2012,
the court granted a preliminary injunction, barring the budget
cuts, in March 2012.

U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill ordered the Department of
Health and Welfare to restore and continue the benefits.

The IDHW then sought court approval of a budget notice that
included a general explanation of its budget calculation method
and individual budget calculations.  But the court found that
notice "inadequate" because the state failed to "explain why
participants' individual budgets had changed" in the first place.

Before the court could rule on the plaintiffs' May 17, 2013 motion
to extend the preliminary injunction, the IDHW filed a motion to
approve a new budget notice, which the court rejected.

The state's appeal of the March 25, 2014 ruling extending the
preliminary injunction was argued before the Ninth Circuit on Nov.
18, 2014. The three-judge panel affirmed the order on
June 5, extending the injunction.

Judge Milan Smith, writing for the panel, found that it was
"reasonable for the district court to conclude that, as a
practical matter, calculating a lower budget decreases a
participant's Medicaid services, thereby triggering the notice
requirements of the Medicaid regulations," and that "plaintiffs
were likely to show that the 2011 budget notices did not comply
with the notice requirements of the Medicaid regulations."

He added: "The district court did not abuse its discretion in
holding that the 2011 budget notices were inadequate under the Due
Process Clause.  'Due process requires notice that gives an
agency's reason for its action in sufficient detail that the
affected party can prepare a responsive defense.'  The 2011 budget
notices were inadequate because they did not specify why
participants' budgets had decreased."

Finally, the panel found that it lacked jurisdiction to review the
district court order "denying the department's motion to approve a
proposed revised budget notice to the class because this order was
not inextricably intertwined with whether the district court
abused its discretion in expanding the preliminary injunction."

Ninth Circuit Judge Richard Clifton, dissenting in part, wrote
that the appeals court does have jurisdiction "because if the
revised notices were adequate, then the plaintiffs would not have
established an ongoing violation, and there would have been no
good reason to extend the preliminary injunction."

Judge Andrew Hurwitz completed the panel.

                        Follow the Money

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare gets about 70 percent
of its funding from the federal government, through Medicaid, with
the remaining 30 percent coming from the state.

Class co-counsel James Piotrowski said the benefit cuts stemmed in
part from a growing population of disabled people.

"The problem is that the population is growing and the budget is
not," Piotrowski, with Herzfeld & Piotrowski in Boise, told
Courthouse News.

"It mainly affects a subset of the larger population, mostly
adults with developmental disabilities, but the Legislature
doesn't increase the budget."

That subset includes adults with epilepsy, muscular dystrophy,
Down syndrome, schizophrenia and other developmental disabilities
of differing severities, according to the amended complaint.

Piotrowski said he was uncertain whether the state cut benefits
for the disabled to fund other budget items, where the state's
presumed savings at the expense of the disabled are going, and
whether the calculation algorithm was used to squeeze more money
out of the disability program.

"Health and Welfare claims it's just a matter of a mathematical
tool," Piotrowski said.  "As far as we know, the budgetary process
goes about it in a way that effectively obscures the reasons
behind it.  Until we filed the lawsuit, they literally refused to
show the formula to anyone."

Piotrowski said the new calculation method affects more than half
of Idaho's disabled people, and means most of them are likely to
be denied individualized care.

But he said the state will pay in one way or another, because
decreased care can lead to legal problems, and even to sentences
in state prisons.

"If they don't get the care they need, they have a greater chance
of having run-ins with law enforcement and can end up in jail or
state prison, which of course is absolutely the wrong environment
for people who are developmentally disabled.  They are vulnerable
to various types of abuse," the attorney said.

Decreased care could cost the state in others ways, too.

"They could be institutionalized, and that can happen in a couple
of different ways.  They can be put in intermediate care
facilities, similar to a nursing home, which is very expensive, or
the other option is the state school and hospital, which is even
more expensive."

Lead counsel for the class is:

          Richard Alan Eppink, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF IDAHO FOUNDATION
          P.O. Box 1897
          Boise, ID 83701
          Telephone: (208) 344-9750
          Facsimile: (208) 344-7201
          E-mail: reppink@acluidaho.org


IDAHO INSURANCE: 13,000+ Businesses to Get Portion of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that more than 13,000 businesses as
well as state and local governments have received a portion of $35
million following the settlement of a class-action lawsuit.  The
entities recently received the money after the Idaho Insurance
Fund settled the lawsuit that focused on dividends, the Idaho
Statesman reported.  The fund paid dividends to policyholders on a
prorated basis, but plaintiffs said state law required the fund to
pay equal dividends to policyholders.  The fund provides workers
compensation insurance.

"This will have absolutely no effect on the long-term viability of
the fund," said George Parham, the fund's chief legal counsel,
noting the fund had $678 million in assets last year.

Most public entities in the state pay premiums to the state-run
Idaho Insurance Fund, and many private businesses use it as well.
Dividends are paid to policyholders when the fund has a surplus.
The fund prorates dividends by paying more to policyholders with
fewer claims and payouts during the previous three years.

CDA Dairy Queen of Coeur d'Alene and Discovery Care Centre of
Salmon sued, arguing the fund should pay equal dividends to all
policyholders.  It was turned into a class-action lawsuit that
included those with policies between July 1, 2002, and May 5,
2009.

Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter in 2009 signed emergency legislation to
allow the fund to continue to prorate dividends.

Settling the lawsuit, Mr. Parham said, meant the fund avoided a
possible $60 million judgment being sought by the plaintiffs.

After the settlement, the West Ada School District received more
than $600,000 that district spokesman Eric Exline said was
deposited into the district's general fund.  He said he couldn't
remember the district receiving unexpected money before.

"Certainly not in a quantity like that," he said.

The Idaho Department of Health and Welfare received nearly
$780,000 from the settlement that's been deposited in the
department's general fund.  The city of Meridian received $48,197.


INTERNATIONAL ALLIANCE: Sued Over Alleged Plan Mismanagement
------------------------------------------------------------
James Scott Lowe, an individual on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. International Alliance Of Theatrical
Stage Employees Local 33, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04650-RGK-JPR
(C.D. Cal., June 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to timely remit and collect both employee and employer
contributions, which resulted in delinquent contributions and
significant monetary harm to the Plan as a whole.

International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees Local 33 is a
stage technicians union based out of Burbank, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc S. Schechter, Esq.
      Corey F. Schechter, Esq.
      Paul D. Woodard, Esq.
      BUTTERFIELD SCHECHTER LLP
      10021 Willow Creek Road, Ste. 200
      San Diego, CA 92131-1670
      Telephone: (858)444-2300
      Facsimile: (858)444-2345
      E-mail: mschechter@bsllp.com
              cschechter@bsllp.com
               pwoodard@bsllp.com


IRAN: Compensation Plan for 1979 Revolution US Hostages Advances
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles S. Clark, writing for Government Executive, reports that
the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act now working its way to
President Obama's desk contains "sense of the Congress" language
demanding "fair and appropriate compensation" for the 52 diplomats
and their survivors who were held hostage in Tehran for 444 days
after the 1979 Iranian revolution.

A detailed plan spelling out the amounts and source of such
compensation (penalties imposed on businesses that violate
sanctions against Iran) is moving separately in a bill by
Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga.  It is set to be marked up on May 21 at
a business meeting of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

A class action lawsuit involving as many as 151 individuals
directly or indirectly affected decades later by the torture and
abuse in Iran's Evin Prison has been pursued for years.  It has
been complicated by the 1981 Algiers Accords signed by President
Jimmy Carter that freed the hostages but shielded the Iranian
government from later legal attack.

The larger bill that cleared the Senate May 7 and the House May 14
-- which capped a negotiation between Congress and the White House
over congressional say in the executive agreement the
administration hopes to finalize with Iran -- includes language
adding several conditions not currently in the publicly released
negotiating framework.

Those include Iran addressing its human rights abuses, ballistic
missiles and continued support of terrorism, and "fair and
appropriate compensation for Americans who were terrorized and
subjected to torture while held in captivity for 444 days after
the seizure of the United States Embassy in Tehran, Iran,"
according to the legislation.  These matters are "critical to
ensure justice and the national security of the United States, and
should be expeditiously addressed."

"A lot of people have forgotten about what happened in 1979,"
Isakson said on the Senate floor May 7.  "We owe it to these
Americans to make sure they're compensated, and to make sure it
comes from the money that would have gone to the Iranians" that
was taken from the penalties for doing business with Iran under
the sanctions legislation.

Thus far, there is no House companion bill to Isakson's, but a
spokesman for the hostages says there is plenty of interest in the
House.


ISORAY INC: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on June 8 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of purchasers of
IsoRay, Inc. publicly traded securities during the period between
May 20, 2015 and May 21, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 22, 2015.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/isoray/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges IsoRay and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
IsoRay develops, manufactures and sells isotope-based medical
products and devices for the treatment of cancer and other
malignant diseases in the United States.  The Company produces
Proxcelan Cesium-131 brachytherapy seeds for the treatment of
prostate, lung, head and neck, colorectal, brain,
pelvic/abdominal, and gynecological cancers, as well as ocular
melanoma.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and misleading
statements in a press release issued before the markets opened on
May 20, 2015 regarding the results of the first major peer
reviewed study showing improved results using IsoRay's Cesium-131
seeds in the treatment of lung cancer.  The press release reported
what the Company termed "outstanding" results in the treatment of
lung cancer, including a 96% success rate in local control
(meaning control of the tumor in the lung) and 100% survival at
five years in high risk patients.  The Company's CEO stated that
they were "extremely excited to have [their] Cesium-131 isotope
seeds and mesh used in the treatment of non-small cell lung
cancers with such outstanding patient outcomes," and that
"[p]ublished studies are the final step to commercialization
. . . . This latest publication . . . [is] proving Cesium-131's
time is now."  As a result of these statements, IsoRay's stock
price increased from $1.61 per share to $3.12 per share in one
day.

Then, later in the day on May 21, 2015, TheStreet.com published an
article asserting that IsoRay had selectively edited the findings
from the study disclosed in its May 20, 2015 press release to make
its Cesium-131 product seem better than it really was and to prop
up its stock price.  The article stated that IsoRay "does a poor
job selling radioactive 'seeds' for use in cancer radiation
therapy.  To make up for the inability to deliver revenue growth
-- and prop up its stock price -- IsoRay issues a lot of
promotional press releases, some of which take liberties with
clinical data using clever, selective editing."  The article went
on to state that the study authors "do not endorse IsoRay's
Cesium-131 or call the results 'outstanding.'  They conclude that
early-stage lung cancer patients may benefit from surgery plus
Cesium-131 or an alternative form of radiation therapy compared to
surgery alone."  On this news, the price of IsoRay shares fell
$1.77 per share from the stock's intraday high trading price of
$3.79 per share to close at $2.02 per share on May 21, 2015, a
one-day decline of 35%, on volume of 52.8 million shares.  The
stock subsequently dropped to below $1.60 per share, essentially
the same price it had traded at prior to the May 20, 2015 press
release.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
IsoRay publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked
number one in the number of shareholder class action recoveries in
ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


LA COTE: "Lefevre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Lefevre, an individual v. La Cote Basque Winehouse, Inc.,
and Theresa Frohne, Carmen Frohne Dunham, and Dalton Dunham, Case
No. 8:15-cv-01428-SDM-TBM (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2015), seeks to
recover minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate La Cote restaurant in Pinellas
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heath C. Murphy, Esq.
      Robert S. Jones II, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BOBBY JONES, PA
      PO Box 41643
      St. Petersburg, FL 33743
      Telephone: (727) 571-1333
      Facsimile: (727) 573-1321
      E-mail: hmurphy@bobbyjoneslaw.com
              bjones@bobbyjoneslaw.com


LAFARGE CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Drywall Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Business Vancouver reports that a class action accuses nearly a
dozen companies, including Lafarge Canada Inc., of conspiring to
fix, maintain, increase and control the prices of drywall sold in
Canada and throughout North America.  Lead plaintiff Dann
Hickmann, who claims he bought drywall for several renovation
projects, filed a notice of civil claim in BC Supreme Court on
April 29.  The defendants include USG Corp., United States Gypsum
Co., CGC Inc., New NGC Inc., Lafarge North America Inc., Lafarge
Canada Inc., Certainteed Corp., Certainteed Gypsum Inc.,
Certainteed Canada Inc., TIN Inc. dba Temple-Inland Inc. and Pabco
Building Products LLC.

Together, according to the lawsuit, the defendants control 90% of
the drywall market in an industry with high barriers to entry.
The class action alleges that beginning in September 2011, the
companies' senior executives "participated in illegal and
secretive meetings" where they agreed to co-ordinated price
increases in January 2012 and January 2013, in addition to a
collective end to the industry practice of "job quoting," where
contractors could lock in a price for drywall for the duration of
a project.

The class seeks $20 million in damages or compensation and $2
million in punitive and exemplary damages.  The class has not been
certified, and the allegations have not been tested or proven in a
Canadian court.  The defendants had not filed responses by press
time.


LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $1.25 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Alba, writing for New York Daily News, reports that
LinkedIn, the professional social network, will pay approximately
800,000 of its users $1.25 million -- or $1 each -- to settle a
class-action lawsuit that claimed LinkedIn failed to protect the
passwords and information of its premium subscribers between March
2006 and June 2012.

"Following the dismissal of every other claim associated with this
lawsuit, LinkedIn has agreed to this settlement to avoid the
distraction and expense of ongoing litigation," LinkedIn said in a
statement, according to The New York Times.

Linked in was first sued in June 2012 by premium user Katie
Szpyrla when a file containing 6.5 million LinkedIn passwords was
posted on a Russian hacker site.  The passwords were reportedly
protected with weak security, which allowed any hacker to easily
reveal the code and access passwords.

The company was able to improve its security measures and assured
members that the breach hadn't cause much damage.  However,
LinkedIn is now paying American users who apply for a share of the
fund. If not everyone who was affected applies, the pay could
increase from just $1.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Faces Two Class Actions Over Illegal Taxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Humphreville, writing for CityWatch, reports that The City of
Los Angeles is the defendant in two major class action lawsuits
alleging that the City illegally collected over $2 billion in
taxes from the Taxpayers and Ratepayers that were not approved by
the voters.

The City, Mayor Eric Garcetti, City Council President Herb Wesson,
Budget and Finance Chair Paul Krekorian, and the rest of the City
Council have a massive conflict of interest as they attempt to
minimize the return of our money that was illegally collected
while we, their constituents, want full recovery of our hard
earned money.

The first lawsuit, Ardon v. City of Los Angeles, was filed in
December, 2009.  It alleges that that the 10% Telephone Users Tax
was an illegal tax, resulting in the collection of approximately
$750 million between 2006 and 2008.  With interest, the potential
liability to the City is more than $1 billion.

Parenthetically, in a special election held in February, 2008, 66%
of the voters approved the 9% Communication Users Tax (Proposition
S).  This replaced the 10% Telephone Users Tax.

The second class action lawsuit, Patrick Eck v. City of Los
Angeles, was filed in April, 2015.  It alleges that the
undisclosed 8% Transfer Fee levied by the Department of Water and
Power is an illegal tax.  This has resulted in the collection of
over $1.25 billion from Ratepayers since the passage of
Proposition 26 in November, 2010.  The plaintiff is requesting the
elimination of the 8% Transfer Fee ($266 million for the Fiscal
Year ending June 30, 2015) and the return of over $1.25 billion to
Ratepayers.

Another lawsuit, Tyler Chapman v. City of Los Angeles, was filed
in January, 2015.   It also involves the illegal 8% Transfer Fee.

The City has been less than transparent about the potential
liability involving the $1 billion liability associated with Ardon
litigation.  To the contrary, the City failed to disclose its
potential liability in the contingency section of its audit
financial statements, referring only to a class action litigation.
The City is continuing to fight this litigation and its
certification as a class action, all on our nickel.

Rather than waging a war against the Taxpayers and the Ratepayers,
the City needs to develop a plan to finance the repayment of our
$2 billion without paying big fat contingency fees to the class
action lawyers with our money.  This plan will involve new taxes
that will need to be approved by the electorate, not an easy ask
since the voters do not trust the fiscally irresponsible City
Council.

Therefore, the City will need to engage in wholesale financial,
budget, pension, and work place / personnel reform.  This would
include, at a minimum, placing on the ballot a Live Within Its
Means charter amendment that would require the City to develop and
adhere to a Five Year Financial Plan, to pass two year balanced
budgets based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and,
over the next twenty years, to repair our streets and sidewalks
and to fully fund the City's two pension plans.

The longer Mayor Garcetti and the Herb Wesson-led City Council
wait, the city's bargaining and financial condition will
deteriorate.  Now is the time to repay the Taxpayers and
Ratepayers their $2 billion.


MAINE AND ATLANTIC: Faces "Audet" Suit Over Lac-Megantic Accident
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The explosion that destroyed Lac-Megantic, Quebec stemmed from
crude oil with a "dangerously low flash point" carried on
defective railcars, a new class action against the rail and oil
industries claims, reports David Lee at Courthouse News Service.

Samuel Audet and 83 other named plaintiffs sued 57 oil producers,
suppliers, transporters, rail operators, railcar companies and
executives in Dallas County Court on June 4.

Forty-seven people died on July 6, 2013, when 72 railcars loaded
with crude oil rolled 7 miles downhill, derailed and exploded,
destroying downtown Lac-Megantic.

The plaintiffs estimate the class has 3,000 members.

Defendants include Edward A. Burkhardt, chairman of Montreal,
Maine and Atlantic Inc., the operator of the derailed train;
ConocoPhillips and Shell Oil; General Electric and Trinity
Industries.

The plaintiffs say MM&A was wholly owned and managed by a company
controlled by Burkhardt, who "had a reputation in the railway
transportation industry for cutting costs at the expense of
safety."

"Among defendant Burkhardt's characteristic successes that
preceded and presaged the Lac-Megantic disaster was the formation
of the Wisconsin Central Transportation Corporation and the
purchase of assets of a division of the struggling Soo Line
operations," the 58-page complaint states.

"Defendant Burkhardt designed a business plan to reduce costs from
the Soo Line operations by disbanding the union and union work
rules and reducing crew sizes on freight trains from an average of
4.8 employees per train to 2.2 employees per train."

The plaintiffs say the National Transportation Safety Board
concluded that the probable cause of a similar oil and gas
derailment of a Wisconsin Central train in 1996 that forced 1,700
residents to flee their homes was caused by "improper maintenance"
because management "did not ensure that two employees responsible
for inspecting the track structure" were correctly trained.

They claim the defendants were "well aware" that the NTSB had
criticized the use of DOT-111 tanker cars for hazardous, flammable
materials "due to the threat of catastrophic injury they posed to
the general public" if they derailed.  They claim the defendants
should have known DOT-111 lessees were not implementing enough
safety precautions to minimize the risk of "catastrophic
consequences" if they were to derail in urban areas.

"Upon information and belief, the DOT-111 tank cars used to
transport the [co-defendant] Irving [Oil Company's] shipment had
been manufactured prior to 2011 and had not been retrofitted with
reinforced shells, head shields, valves or other exposed fittings
and were, therefore, subject to a high risk of rupture in the
event of a collision or derailment," the complaint states.

Problems with the tankers have been well-documented "for more than
20 years" by government regulators and the news media, according
to the complaint.

Plaintiffs say the shipment was filled by defendants World Fuel
Services Corp. and Dakota Plains Holdings, originating from New
Town, N.D., and headed for Irving's refinery in Saint John, New
Brunswick, Canada.

"All of the defendants were aware or should have been aware that
the transport of misclassified highly volatile crude oil in
unsuitable tanker cars through densely populated urban areas, such
as Chicago, Illinois, puts the public at unreasonable risk of
catastrophic injury and death," the complaint states.

The plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages for negligence,
strict liability and personal injury.

Dakota Plains said June 8 that co-defendant World Fuel would
settle certain claims against Dakota Plains with MM&A's U.S.
bankruptcy trustee and Canadian bankruptcy monitor.

Dakota Plains said it was indemnified by World Fuel under the
dissolution of their partnerships in December.

Trustee Robert Keach told the Bangor Daily News in Maine that the
$110 million settlement will go to a victims' fund that now totals
$345 million.  Keach sued World Fuel in January, claiming it
misidentified the crude oil as "low danger."

"We applaud [World Fuel Services] for its good corporate
citizenship in reaching this settlement to the benefit of all of
the victims of the Lac-Megantic derailment," Keach told the
newspaper on June 8.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Webster, Esq.
          THE WEBSTER LAW FIRM
          6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 640
          Houston, TX 77036
          Telephone: (713) 396-5197


MASSAGE ENVY: Aug. 14 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------
Dave Olson, writing for TwinCities.com, reports that a proposed
settlement has been reached in a class-action lawsuit brought
against Massage Envy, a national chain of more than 900 massage
clinics.  There are some 24 Massage Envy locations in Minnesota,
most of them in the Twin Cities area.

The suit, which was initially filed in California state court and
is now in federal court, challenges how the chain handles prepaid
massages when clients cancel memberships or are in arrears on
their account.

Massage Envy charges a monthly fee that entitles clients to one
massage each month.  A massage that cannot be scheduled in a given
month may be carried forward and redeemed later.  If an account is
canceled or a bill is in arrears, the chain will not redeem unused
massages, according to the lawsuit, which sought compensation for,
or reinstatement of, unused prepaid massages.

Under the proposed settlement, which has a final approval hearing
scheduled for Aug. 14, former Massage Envy members would have 180
days to submit a reinstatement request that would entitle them to
some of their unused massages based on a formula.  Also, current
members who cancel memberships would have 60 days to use any
prepaid massages they have banked.


MILES INDUSTRIES: Supreme Court Approves Gas Fireplace Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crawford & Company (Canada) Inc. on June 6 disclosed that the
Supreme Court of British Columbia has approved a partial
settlement of a class action against defendants who designed,
manufactured and sold gas burning glass fronted fireplaces in
Canada.  In the action the plaintiffs claimed that gas fireplaces,
inserts and stoves become very hot when turned on and pose a
significant danger to anyone, and particularly to young children,
who touch the hot glass.

Four of the defendants: Miles Industries Ltd., Canadian Heating
Products, Inc., Monessen Hearth Canada, Inc., and Monessen Hearth
Systems Company, doing business as Vermont Castings Group, have
agreed to provide free protective screens or barriers to class
members.

Those defendants sold fireplaces under the names MONTIGO, VALOR,
MAJESTIC, VERMONT CASTINGS, MONESSEN, LEXINGTON FORGE, and DUTCH
WEST.

If you have a fireplace, fireplace insert or stove of one of the
above manufacturers, installed between January 1, 2001 and
December 31, 2014, you are a potential Class Member and you can
obtain free of charge a protective screen or barrier.

Class members must submit their claims within one year -- i.e. by
no later than June 6, 2016.

All residents of British Columbia who fit the description above
are automatically Class Members.  Persons living elsewhere in
Canada can become Class Members and join the settlement and obtain
a free protective screen or barrier by calling the claims
administrator or visiting the website below and completing a form
by no later than June 6, 2016.


MOLLY GOODHEAD'S: Faces "Graske" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Graske, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Molly Goodhead's, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
01432-VMC-TBM (M.D. Fla., June 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Molly Goodhead's, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in Palm
Harbor, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com


MPW INDUSTRIAL: Illegally Deducts Workers Pay Check, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Haggerty and Tory Shaver, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. MPW Industrial Services, Inc. and
Monte Black, Case No. 1:15-cv-00955-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 18,
2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of taking illegal
wage deductions from its employees' pay checks for the costs of
uniforms and uniform deposits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Peter Kondras Jr., Esq.
      HUNT HASSLER LORENZ & KONDRAS LLP
      100 Cherry Street
      Terre Haute, IN 47807
      Telephone: (812) 232-9691
      Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
      E-mail: kondras@huntlawfirm.net


NABORS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "McCarta" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William McCarta, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. Nabors International, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01734
(S.D. Tex., June 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Nabors International, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and
operates a land-based drilling rig fleet and is a provider of
offshore platform work-over and drilling rigs in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex M. Baggio, Esq.
      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South 8th St
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      E-mail: abaggio@nka.com
              fisher@nka.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sued Over Alleged Anti-Competitive TV Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Abrahamian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. National Football League, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-04606 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged agreement to eliminate competition
in the distribution of live men's football games over television,
specifically by agreeing to divide the live-game video
presentation market into exclusive territories, which are
protected by anti-competitive blackouts.

National Football League is comprised of thirty two separately
owned and operated major league men's professional football clubs
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP has disclosed that a class action
has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
on behalf of purchasers of Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc.
common stock during the period between February 27, 2014 and May
4, 2015.

The firm's statement reads:

f you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 2, 2015.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman
or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/nationstar/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Nationstar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Nationstar is the nation's second largest non-bank subprime
mortgage servicer.  In this capacity, Nationstar collects mortgage
premiums and otherwise services mortgages for loans owned by other
entities.  Nationstar began to grow its portfolio beginning in
early 2014 by purchasing mortgage servicing rights ("MSRs") from
other non-bank sub-prime mortgage servicers and from bank entities
who no longer wanted to service their own portfolios due to
increased regulatory scrutiny.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, future revenues, operating results and
financial prospects.  Nationstar claimed to be improving its
profitability as a result of increased servicing revenue on its
exponentially expanding MSR portfolio, leading to servicing fee
profits, and as a result of profits being "earned" by its
Solutionstar subsidiary, with which it had contracted to provide
various loan services.  However, Nationstar failed to disclose
deficiencies in management control and supervision necessary to
ensure the Company's compliance with applicable laws and
regulations in connection with the servicing of MSRs, and that
Nationstar had been gouging mortgagors and illegally enhancing its
profits through illicit practices, such as charging for repeated,
unnecessary inspections, which resulted in additional late payment
fees, and pressuring mortgagors to carry out expensive
modifications and refinances on their mortgages.  In addition,
heightened regulatory scrutiny into MSR transferring and
servicing, including a probe into Nationstar's own loan servicing
practices launched by the New York State Department of Financial
Services in March 2014, was significantly increasing Nationstar's
costs of servicing MSRs and diminishing the profitability and
carrying value of the Company's MSR portfolio.  Defendants' false
and misleading statements and omissions regarding the Company's
business, future revenues, operating results and financial
prospects issued during the Class Period caused Nationstar common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices of as high as $38
per share.

The complaint alleges that due to a series of partial disclosures
in late 2014 the price of Nationstar common stock began to
decline, beginning with a November 6, 2014 report of declining
third quarter 2014 financial results, followed in January 2015
with Nationstar being named as a defendant in a class action
brought in federal court in the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of mortgagors alleging racketeering in connection with the
collection of unlawful inspection fees.  Nationstar's stock price
declined further on a February 26, 2015 report of dismal fourth
quarter and fiscal 2014 financial results, and even further when
the Company priced a March 25, 2015 equity offering well below
market.

Then on May 5, 2015, before the market opened, Nationstar issued
disappointing first quarter 2015 financial results.  Nationstar
reported a net loss of $48.3 million, or ($0.53) per share, as the
Company's revenues fell 15% year-over-year.  Much of the loss came
from a $110 million ($0.77 per share) write-down on the value of
the Company's MSRs.  Following this series of partial disclosures,
the price of Nationstar common stock fell, closing at $19.51 per
share on May 5, 2015, nearly 50% below its Class Period high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Nationstar common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked
number one in the number of shareholder class action recoveries in
ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Johanna Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Navient Solutions, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-
00975 (C.D. Cal., June 17, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of contacting consumers on their cellular telephone using
an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice.

Navient Solutions, Inc. is in the business of offering various
types of student and consumer loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW JERSEY: High Court Upheld Gov. Christie's Pension Cuts
----------------------------------------------------------
The New Jersey Supreme Court rejected June 9 an attempt by unions
to challenge cuts by Gov. Chris Christie to the state's funding of
public pensions, reports Nick Rummell at Courthouse News Service.

Tension over the issue has been brewing for years as the
Republican governor saw pension funding as a means to fill the
budget hole he inherited, a deficit that now approaches $3
billion, while keeping his promise not to raise taxes.

As Christie made moves in 2011 to cut state contributions to the
public pensions -- which were also funded by employee
contributions and investment returns -- Democratic lawmakers
adopted Chapter 78 to give public employees a "contractual right"
a fully funded pension system.

Chapter 78 called for an incremental rise in New Jersey's payments
to pension funds, and New Jersey made the required contributions
in fiscal year 2012 and 2013.

Christie's first cuts took effect in fiscal year 2014, when the
pension was underfunded by nearly $1 million, but still met
Chapter 78's threshold.

The budget proposal for 2015, issued over a year ago, funded the
pensions as well, but Christie released an executive order on
May 20, 2014, that reduced state payments by almost $1.6 billion,
below the Chapter 78 threshold.

David Rosen, the New Jersey Legislature's budget and finance
officer, warned that the cuts would force employees to contribute
more, but Christie's attorneys justified the move under the debt-
limitation clause of the state constitution.

Several class actions ensued from state police unions, the AFL-
CIO, teachers unions, and other public employees, and the claims
were eventually consolidated in Mercer County Superior Court.

Though a judge there had sided with the unions, the state Supreme
Court reversed for Christie, 5-2, on June 9.

"The court does not question the good intentions of those
participating in the enactment of Chapter 78 or that they intended
to create a contractual arrangement to address future payments
into the funds to promote the fiscal health of the retirement
systems," Justice Jaynee LaVecchia wrote for the majority.  "But a
strictly legal question is before the court.  That, and that
alone, is what must be resolved."

A representative for one of the plaintiffs described the ruling as
giving New Jersey "a 'pass' on fiscal contractual obligations."

"I would warn anyone doing business or intending to do business
with the state of New Jersey to be wary," Christopher Burgos said
in an email, adding that the majority has given "the state an out
if they don't want to fulfill a contract."

Burgos, the president of the State Troopers Fraternal Association
of New Jersey, added the plaintiffs will appeal to the U.S.
Supreme Court.

The 68-page lead opinion emhasizes that political infighting had
no bearing on the case.

"That the state must get its financial house in order is plain,"
LaVecchia wrote.  "But the court cannot resolve that need in place
of the political branches.  They will have to deal with one
another to forge a solution."

The unions failed to sway the court that the debt-limitation
clause on which Christie relied applied only to new debts or
liabilities, not paying "overdue ordinary expenses" like pensions.

Finding that the clause "is clearly written to have a wide sweep,"
LaVecchia said it covers any debts and applies to various
financial arrangements.

The court also rejected the unions' claims that Chapter 78 created
an enforceable contract, finding that the Legislature lacked the
authority to make such an agreement without voter approval.

Chief Justice Stuart Rabner joined the dissent by Justice Barry
Albin, which disputes this point.  They said Chapter 78 does count
as a binding contract, and that nullifying it would violate the
U.S. Constitution.

"If the past is prologue, the solvency of the pension system is in
great peril," Albin wrote.  "The Federal Contracts Clause was
intended to protect contractual rights from the whims of the
majority."

LaVecchia meanwhile chided that "the hyperbole of the dissent is
no replacement for legal precedent, and it does not nullify state
constitutional law interdicting the formation of the so-called
binding contractual right asserted by plaintiffs."  Voicing
compassion for New Jersey's pensioners, LaVecchia noted that "the
loss of public trust due to the broken promises made though
Chapter 78's enactment is staggering."

"We recognize that the present level of the pension systems'
funding is of increasing concern, as does the dissent," she added.
"But this constitutional controversy has been brought to the
judiciary's doorstep, and our obligation is to enforce the state
Constitution's limitations on legislative power."

The pension funding issue has soured relations between the
Christie administration and unions, even stymieing negotiations
over state worker contracts.

AFSCME Council 1 president Ron McMullen warned last month that, if
the state Supreme Court did rule for the unions, "I don't think
negotiations are going to go well."


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Faces Class Action Over Parking Fees
-----------------------------------------------------
WGNO reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed against
the City of New Orleans and ACS State and Local Solutions about
the installation of the "Parkeon System" of parking pay stations
in 2005.  The lawsuit contends that it was illegal to install the
Parkeon Pay stations and that it was also illegal to collect
parking fees, issue citations, and collect parking fines in
connection with them prior to August 4, 2005.

The court will consider whether the defendants violated the law
and whether the class members will be eligible to receive
payments.  The case has been ongoing for 10 years, and those who
park in metered areas feel frustrated with how the city did not
acknowledge the new system when it was first installed, creating
widespread confusion.  For more information go to
www.NOLAParkingClassAction.com


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Guards at Rikers Charged in Inmate's Death
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that after
kicking a restrained inmate in the head, a Rikers corrections
officer told the dying inmate to "remember that I'm the one who
did this to you," a criminal complaint alleges.

The charges unveiled June 10 implicate three officers for alleged
crimes surrounding the death of Ronald Spear, a sickly pretrial
inmate who died on Dec. 19, 2012, after being beaten on the floor
of the Rikers Island prison medical facility.

At a press conference, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara wasted no time
in speaking about the prosecution in light of his office's
crackdown on civil-rights infractions at Rikers.

"Rikers inmates, although walled off from the rest of society, are
not walled off from the powers of our Constitution," he said.

While being held at North Infirmary Command, Spear demanded to see
a doctor at 5 a.m. about his liver disease, and he got into a
profanity-laced argument with corrections officer Brian Coll,
prosecutors say.

"Spear was placed in the NIC because, among other afflictions, he
suffered from end-stage renal disease and required regular
dialysis," the complaint states.  "While housed in NIC, Spear wore
glasses, a bracelet indicating that he was a 'risk of fall,' and
typically walked with a cane."

After the doctor postponed the appointment, Coll and Spear "began
jabbing at each other, with Coll then punching Spear in the face,"
the complaint states, relying on the testimony of another guard
turned confidential government witness.

Two of the corrections officers there at the time of the alleged
assault are named as confidential witnesses in the complaint.  One
had to calm down the inmates "who were becoming agitated and had
begun yelling things along the lines of 'What are they doing to
him?' and 'They're going to kill him,'" according to the
complaint.

The other witness restrained Spear by putting him face down on the
ground with his hands behind his back, prosecutors say.

"Almost immediately after this occurred -- and while the second
confidential witness had both of Spear's hands secured behind his
back and was physically on top of Spear -- Coll became irate,
stood up and yelled 'Motherfucker!' and reared his foot back.
Coll proceeded to kick Spear in the head and pulled his foot back
to do it again," the complaint states.

The onslaught continued "even after another correction officer
told to Coll to stop and attempted to shield Spear's head from
further blows," prosecutors say.  "After Coll kicked Spear in the
head multiple times, Coll bent down and picked up Spear's head."

"Coll put his face inches away from Spear, and stated words to the
effect of 'That's what you get for fucking with me,' and 'Remember
that I'm the one who did this to you.'  Coll then dropped Spear's
head and it struck the hard prison floor," according to the
complaint.

The prison's "probe team" responded "moments later," but Spear was
unresponsive, prosecutors say.

The Bronx Chief Medical Examiner determined the cause of Spear's
death to be "hypertensive cardiovascular disease, with 'physical
altercation including blunt-force trauma to head' and diabetes
mellitus as contributing factors," according to the complaint.

At a press conference, Bharara remarked: "The alleged cover-up of
this vicious crime began almost immediately."

Officers Byron Taylor, Anthony Torres and Coll allegedly lied on
use-of-force reports, misled Department of Corrections
investigators and the Bronx District Attorney's office.

"And when Taylor came to testify before a federal grand jury in
this district, he allegedly lied there too," Bharara told
reporters.

Torres, now a cooperating witness, faced a charge that carries a
total of 20 years imprisonment.

Coll, 45, faces a maximum penalty of 70 years in prison if
convicted of all charges.

Taylor, 31, may face up to 40 years in prison.

When the Bronx District Attorney's office declined to prosecute
these cases, Spear's family wrote Bharara's office a letter, the
federal prosecutor said at the conference.

Meanwhile, time is running out for New York City to settle a
separate case that Bharara's office filed late last year to order
Rikers Island to agree to systemic reforms in their juvenile
prison.

Since a two-year federal investigation wrapped up in September
2014, Bharara has denounced what called a "Lord of the Flies"
climate for teen inmates and urged City Hall to take action before
the June 22 deadline.

"We are impatient about it," he said.

Bharara kept mum on what other alleged civil-rights violations his
office may be investigating at Rikers.  He declined to comment on
a recently filed class action in the same courtroom, alleging an
alarming pattern of rape in the prison.


NIPPON CHEMI-CON: Has Lost Bid to Duck Capacitor Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge June 11
denied Nippon Chemi-Con Corp.'s motion to dismiss it from a
consolidated antitrust class action about price fixing in the
capacitor industry.

The consolidated case is captioned In re Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 14-cv-03264-JD, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.


NY RENAISSANCE: Faces "Bridgelal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Bridgelal and Wilkins Bellaird, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NY Renaissance Corp., Dan
Pirvulescu and Monique Delacroix, Case No. 2:15-cv-03571
(E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hour worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate an engineering company with its
principal place of business located at 2079 Wantagh Ave, Suite 10,
Wantagh, NY 11793.

The Plaintiff is represented by

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


OFS 2 DEAL: Faces "Cooper" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyeler Cooper, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. OFS 2 Deal 2, LLC, f/k/a Vision Oil Tools, LLC, KLX
Inc. and KLX Energy Services LLC, d/b/a Vision Oil Tools and
Vision Energy Services, Case No. 1:15-cv-01291 (D. Colo., June 18,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide technical services and associated rental
equipment to the energy sector in the North Dakota and Rocky
Mountain regions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OM GROUP: Being Sold to Duke for Too Little, Shareholders Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling OM
Group (specialty chemicals) too cheaply through an unfair process
to Duke Acquisition Holdings, for $34 a share or $1 billion,
shareholders claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


OMNICARE INC: Being Sold for Too Little to CVS, Class Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling
Omnicare to CVS Pharmacy too cheaply through an unfair process,
for $10.4 billion or $98 a share, a class action claims in
Delaware Chancery Court.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Lead Counsel Awarded $3-Mil. in Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that lead attorneys Barrack, Rodos
& Bacine of San Diego were awarded $3 million in fees and costs
for distribution in a shareholders' federal class action against
Omnivision Technologies.

The consolidated case is captioned In re OmniVision Technologies,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 5:11-cv-05235-RMW, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Jose).


PARNON ENERGY: Plaintiffs Settle Market Manipulation Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Berthelsen, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that a group of private plaintiffs have agreed to settle a
putative class action alleging two companies and their traders
manipulated U.S. crude oil prices during the unprecedented market
spike in 2008, accepting a fraction of what the defendants
allegedly made in the scheme.

The plaintiffs, who were traders in financial derivative markets
for oil at the time, alleged the firms distorted oil market prices
by more than $1 billion through a tactic in which the firms
allegedly hoarded physical oil to benefit bullish trading
positions in the financial markets, and then dumped the oil back
into the market after taking market positions that would profit
when prices fell.

The defendants are Tulsa, Okla., oil logistics firm Parnon Energy
and London-based Arcadia Petroleum, a physical oil trading house,
and traders James T. Dyer and Nicholas J. Wildgoose.  Both
companies are owned by Norwegian shipping and tanker magnate John
Fredricksen.  Mr. Wildgoose worked for Arcadia and Mr. Dyer worked
for Parnon.  Attorneys for the defendants at law firm Winston &
Strawn didn't respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. oil benchmark soared about 50% from the beginning of 2008
to its record high of $145 a barrel on the New York Mercantile
Exchange in early July of that year, only to crash back down to
the $40 range by the end of the year.

But in a proposed settlement agreement filed in U.S. District
Court in Manhattan on June 3, lawyers for the plaintiffs asked
U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest to approve a settlement
of $16.5 million.  The filing cited a risk of going to trial as a
justification for the settlement, given a lack of clear precedent
in Commodity Exchange Act manipulation cases, the complex nature
of the allegations, and the time and expense it could take to try
the case.

"This lack of precedent makes evaluating the strength of a CEA
case more difficult and more unpredictable," lawyers for the
plaintiffs said in the filing.  Another factor was a motion to
dismiss the case filed by the defendants, in part raising issues
involving the statute of limitations.

The settlement follows a similar move by the U.S. Commodity
Futures Trading Commission last August, when the regulator settled
similar civil enforcement charges against the same defendants for
$13 million.  In charging documents filed in the case in 2011, the
agency asserted the defendants made at least $50 million from the
strategy.  The case was the only enforcement action to result from
the CFTC's investigation into what happened in the oil market in
2008.  The defendants didn't admit or deny wrongdoing in the CFTC
case.

The plaintiffs include Todd Kramer, a former Citigroup Inc. trader
who is now a principal in New York hedge fund firm Blueshift
Capital Group, which trades complex derivatives tied to volatility
in oil prices.  A person who answered the phone at Blueshift on
June 5 said Mr. Kramer wasn't available and the firm had no
comment.

The settlement requires judicial approval and certification as a
class to distribute the proceeds to anyone alleging their trades
were harmed by the activity.  The defendants aren't admitting or
denying liability under the terms of the proposed agreement.


PATH: Settles Class Action Over Unwanted Text Messages
------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that mobile social
networking service Path has agreed to settle a lawsuit accusing it
of sending unwanted text messages to people, according to new
court papers.  Details of the proposed settlement, including
financial terms, haven't yet been disclosed.

The settlement will resolve a class-action lawsuit dating to 2013,
when Illinois resident Kevin Sterk alleged that he received a text
message stating that another person -- Path user Elizabeth Howell
-- wanted to show him photos on the service.  The text also
contained a link to a site where Mr. Sterk could register to join
the service.

Mr. Sterk, who is seeking class-action status, argued that Path
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by sending him the
message.  That law prohibits companies from using automated
dialers to send SMS ads without the recipients' permission.

Earlier in the case, Path asked U.S. District Court Judge Samuel
Der-Yeghiayan to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the
company's texting system doesn't use "automated dialers."  The
company said its system only sends SMS messages to people whose
phone numbers were provided by users.  Path contended that "human
intervention" -- users' uploading of their friends' numbers --
means its system isn't an automated dialer.

In December, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to allow
Path to immediately appeal that decision.

In an unusual twist, Mr. Sterk withdrew the lawsuit from federal
court, in order to settle the dispute in state court in Cook
County.  Mr. Sterk's attorneys said in court papers that the shift
to state court was spurred by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent
decision to hear Spokeo's appeal in a lawsuit involving a separate
consumer protection law -- the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In that matter, Spokeo -- a "people search engine" that lets users
search for information about individuals -- argues that it
shouldn't be required to face a federal lawsuit over inaccuracies
in its results, without proof that the errors were harmful.

"While the parties have reached a class-wide settlement, Defendant
is concerned that the outcome of the United States Supreme Court's
recent grant of [review] in Spokeo . . . might divest this Court
of subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action before the
proposed settlement is effectuated," the Edelson law firm says in
its court papers. Jay Edelson, founder of the firm, also
represents the consumer who is suing Spokeo.

The same day that Path said in court papers it had agreed to
settle the case, it confirmed the sale of its social networking
app to South Korean company Daum Kakao.


PEPSICO INC: Court Refuses to Junk Suit Over Carcinogen Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
PepsiCo must face a class action that claims Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and
Pepsi One contain carcinogenic 4-methylimidazole at levels above
the threshold set by California Proposition 65, reports Elizabeth
Warmerdam at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.

Nine putative class actions were consolidated into one, with lead
plaintiff Mary Hall claiming that Pepsi does not warn California
consumers that caramel coloring used in Pepsi produces 4-MeI as a
byproduct.

California listed 4-MeI on its Proposition 65 list of carcinogens
in 2011, after the National Toxicology Program found that it
caused lung tumors in laboratory animals, according to the state's
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Under California law, the amount of exposure to 4-MeI that will
not cause a significant cancer risk is 29 micrograms per day.

Hall claims that Pepsi intentionally concealed that its drinks
contain 4-MeI at levels above this safety threshold.

Consumer Reports in 2014 published the results of tests it
conducted in 2013 on a number of soft drinks and found that the
amounts of 4-MeI in the Pepsi beverages were higher than in other
soft drinks tested.  The tests showed more than 29 mcg in a can or
bottle of 4-MeI, the complaint states.

Hall calls this significant because soda drinkers typically drink
more than one 12-ounce serving per day.

In its annual reports from 2010 to 2013, Pepsi made statements
that suggested it knew that it was subject to Prop. 65, according
to the consolidated complaint.

Hall claims that Pepsi also said that when the regulatory
requirements on the carcinogen changed in California it
immediately moved to meet the new requirements, and that the work
had been completed in California.  But it did not, according to
the complaint.  Hall claims Pepsi's statements misled consumers
into thinking that its beverages were safe.

Pepsi claimed the consolidated action should be dismissed because
the entire lawsuit rests on the consumers' mistaken belief that
exceeding 29 mcg in a single 12-ounce serving constitutes a
violation of Prop. 65.  Pepsi said that was not the intent of
Prop. 65, which calculates consumption based on lifetime exposure
patterns using the average rate of intake or exposure for average
users.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen disagreed, finding that the
consumers adequately pleaded that the Pepsi beverages at issue did
not fall within the safe harbor established by Prop. 65.

"In particular, the CAC [Consolidated Amended Complaint] alleges
that studies show that consumers who drink soda consume, on
average, more than one 12-ounce serving per day.  Assuming the
facts alleged in the CAC to be true, a plausible inference that,
where each serving of the Pepsi beverages contained more than 29
micrograms of 4-MeI, the average daily exposure to a consumer who
drinks more than one serving per day exceeds 29 micrograms," Chen
wrote.  He ruled that Pepsi can challenge the consumers' exposure
calculation methodology at summary judgment or at trial.

Chen also rejected Pepsi's argument that mandating a Prop. 65
warning on its products would impose a labeling requirement
different from the requirements of the federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Administration and is therefore subject to the National
Labeling and Education Act's preemption of state laws on
misbranding.

Chen disagreed, finding: "(T)he NLEA carves out an exemption from
its express preemption clause where warnings concerning the safety
of food or component of food are at issue.

"The Proposition 65 warning and the cancer risks alleged in the
CAC unambiguously implicate safety concerns.  Thus, unlike cases
in which no safety concerns are raised, the section 6(c)(2)
exemption from preemption applies where, as here, such concerns
are manifest."

Nor are consumers' allegations that Pepsi misrepresented the
amount of 4-MeI in its products preempted.

The consumers allege "a material misstatement in the form of a
public statement regarding steps that Pepsi had taken to conform
its beverages to state regulations.  In the light most favorable
to plaintiffs, the misstatement or omissions that Pepsi made in
its public statements and/or on its website is a deceptive claim
regarding a consumer product.  Pepsi has pointed to no provision
of the FDCA or FDA regulations that preempts claims based on such
alleged misrepresentations, which are not alleged to be included
on product labels or packaging," Chen ruled.

Plaintiffs' attorney Daniel Warshaw, with Pearson Simon Warshaw,
said he was "pleased with Judge Chen's ruling that this case is
not preempted by federal law and no cause of action in plaintiff's
complaint should be dismissed based on the technical pleading
arguments asserted by Pepsi.  We look forward to litigating this
case on the merits."

PepsiCo representative Aurora Gonzalez told Courthouse News the
company's products are safe.

"Our products are safe and in full compliance with all applicable
laws," Gonzalez said.  "[June 5]'s ruling did not address the
merits of the case, only that the case would continue to proceed.
Beyond that, we cannot comment on the specifics of a pending
litigation."

The consolidated case is captioned Stacy Sciortino, et al. v.
PepsiCo, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00478-EMC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.


PLAINS ALL-AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Refugio Oil Spill
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edhat.com reports that Santa Barbara resident and fisherman, Stace
Cheverez, filed a class action lawsuit in Los Angeles against
Plains All-American Pipeline after the oil spill near Refugio
State Beach.  Ms. Cheverez claims the oil spill by Plains All
American Pipeline has damaged his livelihood and business in Santa
Barbara and is seeking economic repairs.  The suit was filed
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated; it's
expected that more fishermen and businesses will join the lawsuit.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: "Pettit" Wipes Suit Removed to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Jamie Pettit filed a lawsuit April 6
in California Superior Court against Procter & Gamble alleging the
personal hygiene moistened wipes don't actually break down when
flushed.  The defendant removed the suit to U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California on May 21.

The lawsuit says the wipes actually: damage and clog plumbing
pipes; don't break down and damage in septic tanks; catch on
municipal sewage line screens; and damage those lines and pumps.
Pettit said because the damage done by the wipes is so severe,
California has outlawed the flushing of the wipes.

"Reasonable consumers would not pay a premium to obtain the
benefits of a 'flushable' wipe if [Procter & Gamble] disclosed the
risks of flushing the wipes and that flushing the wipes is in fact
illegal," the lawsuit said.

Ms. Pettit seeks class status in the suit, and an unspecified
amount in damages.

Ms. Pettit is represented by attorneys Adam J. Gutride, Seth A.
Safier, Marie McCrary and Kristen G. Simplico --
kristen@gutridesafier.com -- of Gutride Safier in San Francisco;
Lorenzo B. Cellini of Tycko & Zavareei in Washington, D.C.; and
Stuart E. Scott and Daniel Frech of Spangenberg Shibley & Liber in
Cleveland.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California case
3:15-cv-02150


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Still Liable in 2014 Suit Despite Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the 1997 settlement of a nationwide class action claiming agents
of Prudential Insurance Co. engaged in fraudulent sales practices
did not release the company from liability in a 2014 suit by
members of the class, a federal judge in Newark has ruled.

Prudential sought to enjoin class members Wynne Whitman and Stacy
Whitman from relitigating issues that were addressed in the class
action.  But U.S. District Judge Dickinson Debevoise of the
District of New Jersey denied the motion, finding that the 1997
settlement did not release the company from honoring the express
terms of policies purchased by class members.

In approving the 1997 settlement, the court found Prudential
engaged in a practice called churning, which refers to the removal
of the cash value of an existing life insurance policy to acquire
a replacement policy.

In September 2014, sisters Wynne Whitman and Stacy Whitman sued
Prudential in Superior Court in Morris County, claiming the
company breached the terms of $2.5 million policies they took out
on their parents in 2009 by raising the annual premium from
$54,899 to $109,701.  They sought a money judgment reimbursing
them for excess premium payments and a declaratory judgment
returning the premium to its previous level.

In its federal court motion, Prudential argued that the class
settlement released it from the Whitmans' claims because they are
class members and their policies do not include a term limiting
the premiums to $54,899, and because the settlement released
Prudential from the Whitmans' breach-of-contract claim.
Prudential said in its motion that the Whitmans, "in order to
avoid the preclusive effect of the final order and judgment,"
maintained that a letter from Prudential concerning premiums on
the policy was a part of the policy itself, even though it was
printed in a different font and typeface than the main document.
Judge Debevoise said the factual dispute over what the policy
premiums were was not properly before him, and would be addressed
in state court.

Federal courts are strictly limited under the Anti-Injunction Act
from taking actions to enjoin state court proceedings, with
limited exceptions, Judge Debevoise said.  He said the applicable
injunction in the present case called for a determination of
whether the injunction sought is the "necessary in aid of
jurisdiction" question.  To determine whether the injunction
Prudential sought was necessary in aid of jurisdiction, the
court's duty was to examine whether the Whitmans are class members
and whether the breach of contract claims in the Whitmans'
complaint arose from the same nucleus of operative facts as the
claims settled in the class action, Judge Debevoise said.

The judge said the Whitmans are members of the class because they
purchased their policies within the class period.

But, as the Whitmans correctly asserted, "Prudential has not shown
that the class settlement released Prudential from honoring the
express terms of insurance policies purchased by class members,"
Judge Debevoise said.

"The breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims the
Whitmans seek to litigate in their state court complaint have
nothing to do with the fraudulent or misleading sales and
marketing practices which were the subject of the class action,"
Judge Debevoise said.  "The breach of contract and declaratory
claims raised in the Whitmans' complaint were not released in the
class settlement, as those claims do not arise from the same
nucleus of operative facts as the claims settled in the class
action, i.e., claims regarding deceptive sales practices and
misrepresentations."

The scope of the release in the class action is "not as broad as
Prudential contends," Judge Debevoise said. And opinions issued in
the class action that were cited by Prudential to show that other
state claims were precluded by the settlement did not support the
company's motion in the present case, the judge said.  Those cases
concern claims about sales practices, unlike the Whitmans' case,
he said.

Prudential's lawyer in the case, Edward Reich of Dentons US in
Short Hills, did not return a call about the ruling.  Prudential
spokeswoman Sheila Bridgeforth said the company would not comment.
Joseph McNulty -- jmcnulty@cmk.com -- of Carroll, McNulty & Kull
in Basking Ridge, who represented the Whitmans, also declined to
comment on the ruling.


QEP MIDSTREAM: Powers Taylor Files Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe and the securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor
LLP on June 2 disclosed that a class action has been commenced in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
on behalf of holders of QEP Midstream Partners, LP common stock on
April 6, 2015, in connection with the proposed acquisition of QEP
by Tesoro Logistics LP.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from June 2, 2015.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Willie Briscoe
at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via email at
shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com Patrick Powers at Powers Taylor
LLP via e-mail at shareholder@powerstaylor.com or by calling toll
free at (877) 728-9607.  Any member of the putative class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

The complaint charges QEP's Board of Directors with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Defendant QEP is a Delaware
Limited Partnership, with its principal place of business located
in San Antonio, Texas.  QEP common units are listed on the NYSE
under the ticker symbol "QEPM."  QEP was formed by QEP Resources,
Inc. to own, operate, acquire and develop midstream energy assets.
QEP's primary assets consist of ownership interests in four
gathering systems and two FERC-regulated pipelines through which
QEP provides natural gas and crude oil gathering and
transportation services.  QEP's assets are located in, or are
within close proximity to, the Green River Basin located in
Wyoming and Colorado, the Uinta Basin located in eastern Utah, and
the Williston Basin located in North Dakota.  As of the year ended
December 31, 2014, QEP's gathering systems had over 1,500 miles of
pipeline.  QEP believes its customers are some of the largest
natural gas producers in the Rocky Mountain region.

On April 6, 2015, QEP announced that its Board had entered into a
merger agreement with Tesoro whereby Tesoro will acquire QEP in a
unit-for-unit exchange.  Under the terms of the merger agreement,
QEP public unitholders will receive 0.3088 Tesoro common units for
each QEP Common Unit Held.

The complaint alleges that on May 11, 2015, to encourage QEP
unitholders to accept the merger, defendants filed a Registration
Statement on Form N-14 8(c) with the SEC that contained material
misstatements and omissions in violation of 14(a) and 20(a) of the
1934 Act.  According to the complaint, the Registration Statement
does not allow QEP unitholders to properly gauge the expected
value they would gain in the merger.  Among other things, the
complaint alleges that the Registration Statement omits material
details regarding the valuation methodologies QEP's financial
advisor, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Advisors, LLC, utilized in
the fairness opinion it provided to the Board.  The complaint
concludes that the Registration Statement deprives QEP unitholders
of the ability to cast rational, intelligent and informed votes in
favor of or against the merger.

Plaintiff seeks injunctive and equitable relief on behalf of QEP
public unitholders and is represented by Willie Briscoe and Powers
Taylor LLP.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation
and shareholder rights advocacy firm with more than 20 years of
experience in complex litigation and transactional matters.

Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a
variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.


RALPH S. MACRO: Faces "Sexton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Danette Sexton, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Ralph S. Macro d/b/a 7 Eleven Store #34856A, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00360-JES-CM (M.D. Fla., June 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Ralph S. Macro owns and operates 7 Eleven Stores in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com


RIVERSTONE PROPERTY: Tenants' Class Action Certification Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Erickson, writing for Ravalli Republic, reports that a group
of 1,350 elderly, low-income and disabled renters in Missoula and
Billings has sued one of the largest third-party property
management companies in the U.S. for including illegal provisions
in its leases.  Now, the Montana Supreme Court has upheld a lower
court decision to grant the plaintiffs class action certification.

In the summer of 2013, Victor Worledge, Ana Vlahovich and Lynne
Kelly of Missoula filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of other tenants
against Riverstone Property Management and the owners of four
apartment complexes the company managed in Billings and Missoula.
They alleged that rental agreements at the complexes were almost
identical and contained seven different provisions that violated
the Montana Residential Landlord and Tenant Act and the Montana
Security Deposit Act.

Mr. Worledge and Ms. Vlahovich were both residents of the 161-unit
Creekside Apartments in Missoula and Kelly rented at the 96-unit
Wildflower Apartments in Missoula, both of which are for low-
income residents.

The other apartments named in the lawsuit were the 199-unit Mullan
Reserve Apartments (which are not low-income) and the low-income,
120-unit Shiloh Glen complex in Billings.  All were managed by
Riverstone, which oversees more than 890 properties nationwide
valued at more than $17 billion.

The lawsuit alleges that the leases violated Montana law by not
offering default options and requiring tenants to pay liquidated
damages and cancellation fees for termination of their leases. The
plaintiffs also claim that a 2010 Montana Supreme Court decision
found that landlords may not deduct future rent by charging a
client in advance for the remaining term of the lease, something
which the Riverstone leases allowed.  The lawsuit further alleged
that the leases allowed for illegally withholding security
deposits and also required tenants to pay attorney fees if they
attempted to recover damages in the event of a breach of contract.

"It is hard to imagine more unconscionable or one-sided language
in any contract, let alone a rental agreement for tax credit
apartments where many of the tenants are disabled, on fixed-
incomes and receiving rent assistance," the lawsuit states.

Finally, the plaintiffs accuse the defendants of purposefully and
knowingly using a lease that contains illegal provisions.  The
plaintiffs accuse Riverstone of negligence and/or tortuous breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and they are
seeking punitive damages and have demanded a jury trial.

The defendants denied all the allegations.

While the case itself is still in the discovery phase, the
defendants appealed a Missoula District Court judge's decision to
grant class action certification to the Montana Supreme Court.

On May 26, by a unanimous 5-0 decision, the state Supreme Court
affirmed the District Court's decision to certify the class
action.

"Individual tenants likely could not afford to bring separate
claims for what is an alleged illegality in a standard lease form
widely used by Riverstone," the court's decision reads.  "By
contrast, as a District Court noted, a class action would save the
resources of the courts and parties by permitting a common
question of whether Riverstone leases contained prohibited
provisions to be litigated in an economical fashion."

Attorney Chris Froines of Missoula, who is representing the
plaintiffs, said the class action certification will allow the
plaintiffs to avoid duplicating the same story for a jury over and
over again.

"That could go on for years," he said. "This will allow them to
bring one suit with all the facts."

Mr. Froines anticipates that there will be a jury trial sometime
in 2016.  He said that there aren't many class action lawsuits in
landlord/tenant law.

"You usually don't see a violation on that scope," he said. "It's
somewhat unusual."

Mr. Worledge, who still resides in the Creekside Apartments, said
he was asked by the Missoula Housing Authority to add his name to
the lawsuit in 2013 after being informed of the violations, of
which he was previously unaware.

"There were clear violations, but I couldn't go out and hire a
lawyer and I was low-income anyway, and lawyers were kind of
pricey," he recalled.  "I didn't do anything about it earlier.  I
couldn't fight Montana law with no income. Apparently the Missoula
Housing Authority knew the violation, and there were a group of
thousands of tenants."

Mr. Worledge said he has been in low-income housing for most of
his life and he can't afford to live elsewhere.

"If we win on this class action lawsuit, the lawyer receives a
share and we -- however many plaintiffs there are -- receive a
portion of whatever is left," he explained.  "If we lose, we're
out no cost.  None of us are out any cost.  That's how it was
explained to me."


ROYAL CANADIAN: Hearings Begin in Gender Discrimination Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gemma Karstens-Smith, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that
a lawyer arguing for a class-action lawsuit against the RCMP says
the cases of hundreds of female employees alleging the force
discriminated against them must be considered together.  David
Klein said the RCMP is toxic to women and has been for a number of
years.

"Day after day, week after week, year after year, they were
subjected to degradation, humiliation, and demoralizing comments
and behavior.  Comments and behavior that were not adequately
addressed by management," he said on June 1 outside B.C. Supreme
Court.

Mr. Klein was set to argue that the complaints of 363 female RCMP
employees should move forward collectively because that would
provide a full picture of a systemic problem.

"This is conduct that occurs over months or years, by multiple
perpetrators, that's ignored by management at multiple locations,"
he said of the women. Two thirds of them still work for the force.

No dollar figure has been attached to the case, but Mr. Klein said
that with hundreds of cases involved, a judgment could be in the
"many millions of dollars."

The RCMP has taken small steps to address harassment on the force
since the suit was originally filed in 2012, Mr. Klein said.  But
he believes there's more to be done.

"They at least pay lip service to taking the problem seriously,
but they're not taking the women seriously.  And until they take
the women seriously, until they take those claims seriously, the
problem will not be solved."

The hearing began three years after for Nanaimo RCMP officer
Janet Merlo came forward with allegations about discrimination she
experienced throughout her career, including lewd comments and
actions from her male colleagues.  Ms. Merlo said it's time for
the courts and the public to hear not only her story, but the
stories of other women who've worked for the force across Canada.

"I think it's time the organization changed, changed for
everybody," Ms. Merlo said.  "It's gone on far too long and
there's been too many lives destroyed, and still being destroyed
because there's a lot of members who are still active.  So that
tells me that not a lot's being done to make it right."

The hearing was scheduled for five days, but a decision is not
expected for several months.


RYLAND HOMES: Faces Class Action Over Fire Sprinklers
-----------------------------------------------------
Building Online reports that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against nation-wide home builder Ryland Homes for failure to
follow codes requiring the installation of fire sprinklers in
three-story homes.  The suit, filed in Clark County District
Court, Case No. A-15-714981-D, alleges that every three-story home
built by Ryland Homes in the Las Vegas area under the applicable
codes has this defect.  The suit also contends that the failure to
include the necessary sprinklers has caused the owners of all
affected homes to suffer damages including the cost to repair the
defect in design, and that the homes pose an imminent threat to
the health or safety of their inhabitants.

The homeowners in this class action against Ryland Homes are being
represented by Mark J. Bourassa and Christopher W. Carson of The
Bourassa Law Group, LLC, in Las Vegas Nevada. Bourassa stated:
"This is a classic case of a large corporation putting profits
before people -- in this case, blatantly disregarding the building
codes and putting the lives of homeowners and first-responders at
risk to save a few dollars per home."

According to the National Fire Protection Association's (NFPA)
Fire Sprinkler Initiative, there are approximately 367,000 home
fires in the United States each year, killing 2,500 people.  Fire
sprinklers reduce property damage by about 70% per fire, and
reduce the risk of dying in a home fire by about 80%. Fire
sprinklers cost an average of $1.35 per square foot to install.

Following the filing of this class action suit, the Nevada Senate
Committee on Government Affairs submitted Senate Bill No. 477,
which seeks to limit when builders in the state of Nevada are
required to install automatic fire sprinklers in new construction
homes.  The bill includes language that limits the county or city
governing the area where the home is to be built from requiring
automatic sprinklers except under specific circumstances.  Homes
under 5,000 square feet would be categorically excluded regardless
of how many stories, unless there are unique characteristics of
the location of the home that would cause an unreasonable delay in
firefighter response time.  If the residence is more than 5,000
square feet, a cost-benefit analysis of installing the sprinklers
would have to be completed, then presented and agreed to at a
public hearing before they can be required in the dwelling.  If
passed, the law would go into effect as of October 1, 2015.

The Bourassa Law Group represents homeowners in construction
defect claims and represents aggrieved people in matters of debt
collection harassment, personal injury, and employment disputes.
The firm has attorneys admitted to practice throughout Nevada,
Colorado, Arizona, California, Missouri and Florida.


SEATTLE, WA: Two Teachers File Class Action Over Pension System
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two teachers in the Snoqualmie
Valley School District have filed a class-action lawsuit in
federal court against the state pension system.  The lawsuit was
filed on June 1 on behalf of current and former teachers who
transferred their retirement savings from one plan to another in
the state pension system.  The lawsuit claims the state wrongly
withheld interest from teachers when their retirement savings were
transferred.

Seattle attorney Steve Festor says his law firm unsuccessfully
pursued the case in Washington state courts before filing it in
federal court.  Mr. Festor said his law firm is not sure how much
money is owed the teachers in the class, who he estimates to total
about 20,000 people.  A similar pension lawsuit filed in
Washington on behalf of another group of teachers was settled for
$5.5 million.


SAC CAPITAL: Seeks Information of Class Action Litigation Funding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that the investment
firm formerly known as SAC Capital Advisors LP wants to know more
about who is helping to pay for a class action lawsuit filed
against it by Elan Corp investors who blame losses on insider
trading at SAC.  Billionaire investor Steven A. Cohen's firm filed
a motion in Manhattan federal court asking a judge to require Wohl
& Fruchter to provide documents related to third-party litigation
financing they received to pursue the lawsuit.


SEGA OF AMERICA: Settles "Aliens" Misrepresentation Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sega has settled a class action that claimed its ads for "Aliens:
Colonial Marines" misrepresented the game's quality, reports
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service.

Sega's codefendant Gearbox settled the claims against it June 3.

Lead plaintiff Damion Perrine sued Sega of America and Gearbox
Software in 2013, claiming the game's misleading promo induced him
to buy it.

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

After Gearbox settled the claims against it in the week of June,
its attorney Robert Schwartz, with Irell & Manella, said his
client "paid nothing to plaintiffs."

Neither side could be reached June 9 for the terms of the Sega
settlement and dismissal.

The case is John Lock, et al. v. Sega of America, et al., Case No.
3:13-cv-01962-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Samuel Lasser, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          1934 Divisadero Street
          San Francisco, CA 94115
          Telephone: (415) 994-9930
          Facsimile: (415) 776-8047
          E-mail: slasser@edelson.com

               - and -

          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com


SERRA NISSAN: Faces RICO Class Action in Alabama
------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for al.com, reports that Serra Nissan, where
eight former managers and salesmen have pleaded guilty to criminal
charges in a scheme to falsify car loan documents, now faces a
civil lawsuit from a Jefferson County couple who says the
dealership was involved in a criminal enterprise during the
purchase of their car.

Brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO), the lawsuit, filed in federal court on June 1, also
seeks to be designated a class-action case to represent all
customers who may have been injured in a deal with Serra Nissan.

"The complaint seeks justice for the consumers who were harmed by
the crimes committed at Serra Nissan and Serra VW," according to a
statement from Jerome Tapley, an attorney with the Birmingham firm
of Cory Watson, which filed the lawsuit.  "The complaint alleges
that Serra Nissan and Serra VW are not merely car dealerships --
Serra employees perpetrated a pervasive scheme to defraud
customers, and in doing so formed an enterprise engaged in
organized crime."

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and
punitive damages.

[The controller for Serra Nissan was arrested on June 2 on federal
conspiracy and wire fraud charges]

The dealership issued a statement on June 2 stating that it has
never tolerated wrongdoing, has cooperated with authorities and
will aggressively defend itself against what it calls false and
unsupported allegations in the lawsuit.

"Anthony Serra has proudly owned dealerships in the Birmingham
area for more than 30 years.  His business has grown and prospered
during that time because of the positive way his dealerships have
treated customers," according to the statement.

Jeff Ingram, an attorney for Serra, said that Serra no longer
participates in the day to day operations.  "I think it's pretty
outrageous that they sued him personally," he said.

Serra employees were routinely instructed that criminal conduct
would not be tolerated before there was even a hint of wrongdoing,
according to the statement.  The employees also were informed the
dealership would actively assist in prosecuting any employee who
engaged in any wrongdoing, according to the statement.

"That is, in fact, what has happened in recent months.  The
dealership immediately terminated employees accused of criminal
conduct involving customers, voluntarily turned over records to
the government, and provided other information to assist in the
U.S. attorney's investigation and prosecution," according to the
statement.

"Not one shred of evidence suggests Tony Serra was involved in,
encouraged or condoned any criminal conduct.  The unsupported and
false allegations of a law firm trolling for clients do not change
that fact," according to the statement.

Serra and the dealership continue to cooperate with the
government, "but they will not stand by idly while others slander
them for profit."  To the extent that Serra Nissan employees
engaged in improper conduct that hurt consumers, Serra Nissan
will, as it already has, act to alleviate that injury.  It will
not however be bullied by lawyers attempting to profit from
illegal conduct that Serra Nissan neither encouraged nor condoned.

Richard Kemp and Gwendolyn Henderson, a married couple from
Jefferson County, are named as the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
Named as defendants are Tony Serra, Serra Nissan/Oldsmobile Inc.,
and Serra Volkswagen Inc.

Also named as conspirators in the "Serra Enterprise," the lawsuit
states, are eight men who have already pleaded guilty to criminal
charges, two other salesmen, and a Birmingham private
investigation company.

"This lawsuit revolves around the predatory practices of
automobile dealerships targeting lower-income borrowers and taking
advantage of those without meaningful access to credit," the
lawsuit states.  "These consumers thought they were paying for a
vehicle, but were unaware they were actually paying to increase
the dealerships' profit margins through unlawful markups, unwanted
add-ons, and fraudulently inflated sales prices."

Customers paid for features not on the vehicle, paid a
fraudulently inflated purchase price, were indebted by fraudulent
means, and/or paid for additional add-on products that were
fraudulently packed into their loans without their knowledge, the
lawsuit states.

"Defendants and members of the enterprise would not provide the
closing documents for buyers to review prior to or during their
execution," the lawsuit states.  "Buyers were therefore denied any
meaningful opportunity to read the closing documents and prevented
from reviewing or understanding what they were actually financing
and prevented from understanding the total amount they will have
paid after making all scheduled payments."

In the case of Henderson and Kemp, the couple in September 2013
emailed their personal information to a salesman.  That
information included an Alagasco bill and Kemp's social security
number and Kemp's pay stubs, which indicated an average weekly
income of $318.  Henderson's only source of income was her VA
disability compensation, which was approximately $250 a month,
according to the lawsuit.  Henderson believed they had been
approved for financing because the salesman continued to contact
them urging them to buy an automobile.  When the couple arrived at
the car lot, the salesman told them he was working with a sales
manager on their deal, the lawsuit states.

The couple test-drove a 2011 Toyota Corolla and then immediately
were taken to the sales manager's office to sign closing
paperwork.  The closing paperwork was completely filled out when
the couple entered the office, including the financing.

The salesman told Kemp and Henderson the monthly payment would be
$430 per month, which was the only financial disclosure Plaintiffs
received before signing the closing documents, the lawsuit stated.
Also, the salesman falsely told Plaintiffs they could refinance
the Corolla after making payments for a year to lower the monthly
payment, the lawsuit states.

"Immediately before signing the closing documents, (the salesman)
instructed Plaintiffs to 'get ready to sign' because they would be
signing a lot of documents," the lawsuit states.  "(The salesman)
maintained control over the closing documents when plaintiffs were
signing them, exposing only the portions where plaintiffs needed
to initial or sign and telling Plaintiffs only where to initial or
sign -- initial here, initial there; sign here, sign there."

Henderson and Kemp had no meaningful opportunity to read the
documents, the lawsuit states.  After the couple signed the
closing documents, the salesman informed them that Capital One,
the financing company, would contact them asking about the
accessories on their Corolla.  He instructed Henderson and Kemp to
tell Capital One the Corolla had leather seats, a navigation
system, and a Bose sound system. The car did not have any of those
items.

The couple left in a loaner car until the next Monday -- they had
brought a trade-in.  The salesman assured Henderson that the
features were included, the lawsuit states.

Capital One called once about the features and then again to
verify the Corolla's vehicle identification number and mileage,
which Henderson provided, the lawsuit states.

Shortly after the Capital One calls, two Internal Revenue Service
criminal investigation special agents contacted Henderson and
Kemp, the lawsuit states.  The IRS agents presented the couple
with paperwork and documents showing that someone had altered
their personal information that was submitted to financial
institutions, the lawsuit states.  IRS agents also told the couple
that someone at the dealership had listed features of the Corolla
that were not actually included on the automobile -- the leather
seats, a navigation system and a Bose sound system.

The salesmen defrauded the couple by quoting them an inflated
monthly payment on the Corolla, so that a vehicle service contract
and Gap insurance contract could be added at the end of the
transaction without Plaintiffs realizing they were paying for
them, the lawsuit said.

Later two investigators with a private firm visited Kemp and
Henderson and falsely represented they received their information
from the IRS agents, the lawsuit states.  The couple contacted the
IRS agents, who told them that was false.

The private investigators also misrepresented they were there only
for the purpose of "gathering information," giving Kemp and
Henderson the false impression they were there to help them, the
lawsuit states.  The investigators, however, visited the couple to
convince them that the salesman and sales manager -- not the
dealerships -- "were solely responsible for the fraudulent conduct
in their purchase of the Corolla" and any legal action should be
pursued against the two men.  The investigators twice asked the
couple if they could "write something up" for them to sign, the
lawsuit states.  The couple declined to sign, the lawsuit states.

Mr. Ingram allowed an AL.com reporter on June 2 to view an 18-
minute video of the closing on the sale with Kemp and Henderson.
The couple signed an agreement to allow the deal to be recorded.

The video shows the manager pointing out details of the contract
to the couple with a pen. The manager answered questions about
certain aspects of what they were about to sign and the manager
answered their questions.  While the manager told the couple that
Capital One would be calling to confirm employment information, he
did not talk on the video about telling Capital One about items
being included in the car.

Mr. Ingram said the main points from the video include the couple
had an opportunity to read everything they signed, they asked
questions, no documents were covered up by the manager, and the
couple signed all the documents.  "They were not rushed," he said.

Among other things, the couple and manager also talked about the
interest rates, their credit scores, the 3-year extended service
and GAP insurance contracts, and the ability to use the purchase
to help build credit.  The manager talked about how in a year, if
they make the payments, they could build up a better credit score
and come back next year and buy a new car.   During the closing,
the manager can be seen writing on sales documents and printing
things out.

Ingram declined to provide a copy of the video to AL.com for
public view.

The lawsuit also details the criminal charges against 8 other
salesmen and sales managers at Serra Nissan.

The U.S. Department of Justice, the local U.S. Attorney's Office,
and Federal Trade Commission have been targeting subprime lending
-- loans to people who really can't afford them -- among car
dealerships around the nation.  The situation, federal authorities
have said, is similar to the subprime lending that led to the bust
in the housing market in nearly a decade ago.

Former Serra Nissan general sales manager Abdul Islam Mughal was
sentenced to serve two and a half years in federal prison for his
guilty plea to charges related to a scheme to falsify loan
documents in order to qualify customers for loans.  Under an
agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mr. Mughal had pleaded
guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit bank fraud and one
count of bank fraud.

Mr. Mughal was the first sentenced of the eight former Serra
Nissan employees who have pleaded guilty in the scheme to falsify
car loan documents so low-income customers, who otherwise could
get a loan, could get the money to buy vehicles.

The other seven other former Serra Nissan employees are to be
sentenced over the next few months. They are: Gerald Shepard;
Dwight Perry; D. Scott Burton; Roland W. Riley; Michael J.
Wilkinson; Terry W. Henderson, Jr.; and Jeffrey Green.

The lawsuit states the acts of the salesmen are not the result of
a few "rogue" employees.

Instead, the lawsuit states, employees were incentivized by Serra
to:

  -- Submit fraudulent documents and "power book" at Serra Nissan,
because if a vehicle was sold and the total profit on the
transaction was high enough to qualify, Serra Nissan would pay
employees on the deal an additional amount on top of their normal
commission.

  -- Shred original credit applications filled out by certain
customers so there was no record of the customers' actual income.

  -- Falsely report that vehicles were sold at Serra Nissan, when,
in fact, they were sold at a different dealership, in order to
obtain incentive payments to which Serra Nissan was not entitled
without the fraudulent representation.

Serra Nissan has settled a few lawsuits over the past few years
regarding its sales practices, according to court records.  Some
of the sales practices the lawsuit claims Serra employees used
included:

   -- "Fluffing" -- fraudulently inflating the income of
prospective car buyers to show financial institutions that
customers -- who otherwise would not qualify -- would be able to
get a loan.

  -- "Power Booking" -- the act of submitting false information to
financial institutions regarding what features were on the vehicle
-- such as power seats, sunroofs and towing packages -- in order
to artificially inflate the vehicle's retail value so that the
financial institution would increase the amount funded for the
car.

  -- "Drop Deal" -- a transaction where the dealership would pay
their salesmen, finance managers, sales managers, or general sales
managers additional compensation on top of their normal commission
because the total profit on the transaction was increased as a
result of submitting fraudulent documents and "power booking."

  -- "Payment Packing" -- quoting the customer an inaccurately
high monthly payment that incorporates the cost of additional
products -- such as a vehicle service contract, warranty, or gap
contract.

  -- "Straw Buyer" -- making it appear that an individual who
qualified for the loan bought the car when the actual buyer would
not otherwise qualify because they had poor credit, insufficient
income, no proof of residency.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Sued Over Alleged Illegal Use of Biometric Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Norberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Shutterfly, Inc. and ThisLife, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
05351 (N.D. Ill., June 17, 2015), is an action for damages as a
result from the Defendants' illegal actions of collecting, storing
and using the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated
individuals' biometric identifiers and biometric information
without informed written consent.

The Defendants operate several e-commerce and social networking
websites that offer a wide range of electronic and print-based
photo storage and photo sharing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      Chicago Office
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      David P. Milian, Esq.
      Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
      CAREY RODRIGUEZ O'KEEFE MILIAN GONYA, LLP
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
      Miami, Florida 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-7474
      Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
      E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
              fhedin@careyrodriguez.com


SIRIUS XM: Wins Summary Judgment in Florida Suit by Flo & Eddie
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flo & Eddie Inc., filed a purported class action against Sirius XM
Radio Inc. et al. on September 3, 2013. In its Amended Complaint,
Flo & Eddie asserts claims for common law copyright infringement,
unfair competition, conversion, and civil theft related to its
sound recordings. Flo & Eddie asserts Sirius violates its property
rights in the sound recordings by (1) publicly performing the
recordings and (2) reproducing the recordings via the back-up and
buffer copies. Flo & Eddie filed nearly identical class actions in
California, Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., CV-13-
05693 (PSG) and New York, Flo & Eddie, Inc. v. Sirius XM Radio,
Inc., 13-CIV-5784 (CM).

Sirius seeks summary judgment, arguing primarily that Flo & Eddie
has no public performance rights in The Turtles' pre-1972 sound
recordings and that its back-up and buffer copies do not violate
any of Flo & Eddie's rights. Both the California and New York
district courts have already addressed Flo & Eddie's claims on
motions for summary judgment. Each found that copyright ownership,
under California and New York law respectively, includes the right
to publicly perform a sound recording. The Second Circuit Court of
Appeals has granted Sirius' petition for leave to appeal the
district court's rulings in the New York Litigation.

Sirius does not dispute that Flo & Eddie has some property
interest in the sound recordings. Rather, Sirius argues that Flo &
Eddie's interest does not include the exclusive right of public
performance because (a) Florida's common law protection for sound
recordings does not extend to public performance and (b) Flo &
Eddie lost any common law copyright protection under Florida law
after The Turtles first published the sound recordings over forty
years ago.

District Judge Darrin P. Gayles of the Southern District of
Florida, granted Sirius' motion for summary judgment.  Among
others, Judge Gayles said Florida common law does not provide Flo
& Eddie with an exclusive right of public performance in The
Turtles' sound recordings.

Flo & Eddie also argues that the back-up and buffer copies are
unlawful reproductions under Florida common law copyright. Sirius
argues that (a) the back-up and buffer copies are never
distributed to the public and wouldn't qualify as an unlawful
reproduction and (b) upon first publication, Flo & Eddie's
copyright protection in the sound recordings ended.

Judge Gayles said Sirius' buffer and back-up copies do not
constitute an improper reproduction. Unlike a complete or
significant portion of a compact disc or record, none of the
buffer or back-up copies are maintained by Sirius or accessible to
the public. They are discarded immediately after use, the judge
explained.  The buffer copies also are not full length copies of
the recording.

The Court also held that Flo & Eddie's remaining claims for unfair
competition, conversion, and civil theft are all based on its
alleged common law copyright. Because the Court finds that Sirius
has not infringed on any of Flo & Eddie's copyrights, these claims
are without merit.

The case is, FLO & EDDIE, INC., Plaintiff, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-23182-CIV-GAYLES/TURNoFF
(S.D. Fla.).

A copy of the Court's June 22 Order is available at
http://is.gd/AGTTeffrom Leagle.com.


SONY PICTURES: Former Intern Files Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy and Kurt Orzeck, writing for Law360, report that Sony
Pictures Entertainment Inc. and DirectTV Inc.-owned cable network
dedicated to television game shows was hit with a proposed class
action in a California court by interns who said that the channel
violated the state's labor laws.  The suit filed on May 15 by Kimi
Gupta, a former intern who also sued Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios
Inc. earlier in May, seeks compensatory and punitive damages from
the Game Show Network LLC on behalf of herself and others who
interned at the network without pay in the last four years.

"When employers fail to pay required minimum wages, the economy as
a whole suffers and the moral well-being of our state is
compromised," Ms. Gupta said in her complaint.

Ms. Gupta said that as an intern at the network for a month in
2012, she worked around 16 hours a week scheduling programs,
maintaining records of program schedules, entering program
information into databases and performing other duties.  She
alleges that the network violated California labor code by failing
to pay her minimum wage, furnish wage statements, pay her upon
termination and keep records of her hours, and that those
practices went against California's Unfair Competition Law.

John Kristensen of Kristensen Weisberg LLP, one of the lawyers
representing Ms. Gupta and the proposed class against both Game
Show Network and MGM, called the unpaid internships an
"anachronism" that hurt not only the interns but the entry-level
employees at a business as well as that business's competitors.

The action is the latest in string of class actions brought by
unpaid interns against media, luxury and entertainment companies.

NBCUniversal Inc. shelled out $6.4 million to resolve a putative
class and collective action filed by former unpaid interns at
MSNBC and "Saturday Night Live" who claimed that they should have
been compensated, according to documents filed in New York federal
court in mid-October.  In April, the proposed class asked for $1.2
million in attorneys' fees.

Viacom Inc. in April sought to reassure a New York federal judge
of the fairness of its proposed $7.2 million settlement that would
provide $505 payments to 12,500 class members for each semester
they interned.

Mr. Kristensen pointed to those class actions being resolved in
favor of the plaintiffs as evidence that unpaid intern policies
are both endemic in the entertainment industry and run contrary to
labor law.  "They are not making big settlements unless they have
a lot of exposure, and they have that kind of exposure when the
law is not on their side," Mr. Kristensen said.

Ms. Gupta is represented by John P. Kristensen and David L.
Weisberg of Kristensen Weisberg LLP, Michael V. Pundeff of Law
Office of Michael V. Pundeff, and William A. Adams of Norton Moore
& Adams LLP.

The case is Gupta v. Game Show Network LLC et al., case number
BC581985, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles.


SQUARE INC: 18% Tax & Gratuity Didn't Reach Drivers, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Square charges customers an
18% "tax and gratuity" for its "trycaviar.com" business, but gives
none of the money to the drivers, a class action claims in
California Federal Court.


STATE FARM: Delaware Court Tosses Count 1 of "Clark" Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, granted State
Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on Count I (Declaratory Judgment) of the Complaint,
REBECCA CLARK and JAMES SMITH, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL
AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, C.A. No. 14C-02-188-JRJ
CCLD (Del. Super.).

Rebecca Clark and James Smith, and others similarly situated, on
February 20, 2014, filed a Proposed Class Action Complaint against
State Farm, which included four counts: (1) Declaratory Judgment;
(2) Breach of Contract; (3) Bad Faith Breach of Contract; and (4)
Statutory Consumer Fraud.  All four counts were based on
Plaintiffs' allegations that State Farm had improperly deducted
statutory interest payments from Plaintiffs' Personal Injury
Protection ("PIP") coverage limits in their automobile policies,
in violation of 21 Del. C. Sec. 2118B.

Count I of the Proposed Amended Complaint sought a declaratory
judgment against State Farm for improperly deducting statutory
interest payments, a claim identical to Count I of the Complaint.
In Count II of the PAC, Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment
that State Farm violated 21 Del. C. Sec. 2118B by adopting an
improper practice of delaying processing, payment, and denial of
claims for PIP.

On October 14, 2014, the Court granted State Farm's Motion for
Summary Judgment on all four counts of the Complaint because
Plaintiffs advised the Court that they would not contest State
Farm's motion.  On October 15, 2014, however, the Court modified
the October 14 Order by deferring ruling on Count I (Declaratory
Judgment) until after the pending Motion for Leave to Amend was
resolved.

On March 30, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave
to Amend, finding that Plaintiffs failed to plead an immediate, or
about to be immediate, controversy between the parties.  The Court
found Plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief amounted to a
request for an advisory or hypothetical opinion.

"Count I of the Complaint relies on a theory the Plaintiffs are no
longer pursuing. Consequently, the Court finds that there is no
genuine issue of material fact in dispute with regard to Count I
of the Complaint," according to the Court's June 23, 2015 Order, a
copy of which is available at http://is.gd/sDsIemfrom Leagle.com.


SUNWATER: 200 Families Launch Callide Dam Flood Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Moore, writing for, Brisbane Times, reports that around 200
families near Biloela in central Queensland on May 19 was set
to begin a class action against Sunwater, the Queensland-
Government owned authority that runs the Callide Dam that in
February spilled during Tropical Cyclone Marcia, flooding and
wrecking their homes.

Victorian-based Maddens Lawyers was set to formally lodge a class
action on May 20 in the Victorian Supreme Court to sue Sunwater
for losses to hundreds of families and businesses.

Sunwater is being sued for economic loss, for the families'
personal hardship to recover their homes, and for the loss in
value to the homes when the Callide Dam overflowed on February 20.

Maddens's class action principal lawyer Brendan Pendergast said
the company anticipated around 200 families and businesses would
join the action.  Under Victoria's Supreme Court class action
legislation, the class action begins with a "lead plaintiff" and
the process then allows other families and businesses to join the
action.  At a date in the future the Victorian Supreme Court sets
a "class closure order" when families can either "register in" or
"opt-out" of the proposed class action.

The floodwaters from the dam washed downstream to Biloela and
Jambin, about 34 kilometers downstream from Callide Dam.

"Obviously Jambin was pretty severely impacted; they were some
serious property damage and damage to businesses as well,"
Mr. Pendegast said.

The Callide Dam went into emergency release on the night the
cyclone hit, spilling millions of liters of water that flooded
homes and businesses downstream.

Maddens has identified a "lead plaintiff".

"The court will then -- sometimes down the line -- make orders to
determine exactly how many people and how many families so we can
be assisted during any mediation," Mr. Pendergast said.

"And the exact size of the class action."

The action is being lodged in Victoria because Queensland does not
have appropriate legislation to deal with class actions in damages
claims.

The large class action being taken against Seqwater -- the
managers of the Wivenhoe Dam -- is being taken in Sydney for the
same reason, Mr Pendergast said.

"So that is why, in the absence of being able to run it in
Queensland, we propose to run it in Victoria, through the
Victorian Supreme Court."

Mr. Pendergast said Maddens had asked residents to documents their
losses to homes and properties.

"The loss will be pretty significant because of lot of the
properties, particularly in Jambin, were farming properties.

"And a lot of farmers were saying they were going to have a really
compressed ability to earn an income for a few years," he said.

Some residents were also flooded in 2013's Cyclone Oswald.

Sunwater maintains it did not breach any operating guidelines and
closely monitored the amount of water coming into the Callide Dam
before the gates opened.  Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has
already ordered an investigation into Sunwater's operation of
Callide Dam.  Emergency Management Inspector-General Iain
MacKenzie, is running the inquiry, examining the dam operations
and the adequacy of its warnings to homeowners.  SunWater has in
the past declined to comment on the inquiry, saying its decisions
will be examined in the review.


TAKATA CORP: Faces U.S. Congressional Panel Probe Over Airbags
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Yan and Bex Wright, writing for CNNMoney, report that
airbag maker Takata faces a long hard road to recovery after its
faulty products prompted the largest auto safety recall ever.

Takata is one of the world's largest auto parts manufacturers, and
its airbags are now at the center of a global scandal.  Some have
been known to explode and fire out shards of metal when they
inflate, causing serious injuries and even deaths at the wheel.
Various recalls have trickled out in recent years but it's the
latest -- affecting 34 million vehicles, or one in seven cars on
U.S. roads -- that has really rocked the company.  Takata faces
questions from a U.S. congressional panel about the recall on
June 2.

In testimony prepared for the hearing, Kevin Kennedy, an executive
at Takata's North American operation, said the company has
identified the type of inflator in driver-side airbags that caused
67 to explode in the field, causing most of the serious injuries
and all six deaths associated with the airbags.

Takata will stop making those inflators and will transition to a
different version.  Mr. Kennedy did not give details as to when
that change will be complete.

Analysts say airbag problems have plagued Takata for at least a
decade, far before the first related recalls were issued by Honda
(HMC) in 2008.  And Takata's failure to act quickly and early
enough caused huge damage which will take years and billions of
dollars to repair.

"Takata at the very beginning, I think, mishandled the situation
. . . and so far, we haven't really seen their top management
appear in public to say anything," said Koji Endo, managing
director at Advanced Research, a firm that specializes in Japanese
equities.

The cost just to fix the airbags will be around 250 billion yen
($2 billion), Endo estimates.  And it could take years -- at full
capacity, Takata can make roughly seven million new airbags a
year.

Honda, one of Takata's biggest customers, has asked competitors
Autoliv and Daicel to boost airbag production to help with the
recalls, Endo said.

On top of that, Takata faces mounting costs of defending itself in
class action lawsuits, paying compensation, and regulatory fines.
Plus, any loss of confidence in Takata could hurt its business in
coming years if customers switch to alternative suppliers.

The impact of recalling millions of cars has already tipped the
company into the red -- it reported a net loss of 29.5 billion yen
($244 million) last year.  The company had expected to return to
profit this year, but that was before the latest massive recall.
It has yet to issue updated earnings guidance.

Takata shares have lost 40% over the last year, at a time when
Japan's benchmark Nikkei index has gained as much over the same
period.  The fallout could spread beyond Takata.  Japan's auto
industry supports a number of other sectors, including steel,
rubber and chemical manufacturers.  It's a "pyramid-shaped supply
chain," said Endo.  "We're talking about huge business risk --
it's going to be a huge problem."


TASTE OF ITALY: "Alvarado" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edith Yarema Alvarado, on behalf of herself, and others similarly
situated v. Taste of Italy Restaurant & Pizzeria NYC Inc., and
Taste of Italy Pizzeria #2 Inc., d/b/a Taste of Italy Pizzeria,
and Luis Paucar, Case No. 1:15-cv-03536 (E.D.N.Y., June 17, 2015),
seeks to recover minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Taste of Italy Pizzeria located at
40-05 Junction Boulevard, Corona, New York 11368.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOP RANK: Sheller P.C. Files Consumer Fraud Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Benzinga.com reports that despite negative reviews of their "fight
of the century" and a class action lawsuit filed against them,
promoters and television networks, Floyd Mayweather and Manny
Pacquiao are discussing a rematch. According to a New York Post
inside source "it's already being negotiated."

While plans for a future fight in 2016 at the new MGM AEG Arena in
Las Vegas are being drawn up, Allan Gordon and Seth Lamb of
Philadelphia, the two plaintiffs heading up the class action
lawsuit, are proceeding.  In the complaint filed by their attorney
Marc Goldich of Sheller, P.C., they allege defendants' actions
amounted to "consumer fraud."

The nationwide class action lawsuit is being filed on behalf of
those individuals who purchased the Pay-Per-View (PPV) fight from
their cable provider for $89 to $99 each.  According to the
complaint "defendants engaged in wrongful conduct which violated
the contractual rights of pay-per-view purchasers."

Fight promoters as well as HBO and Showtime are named in the
complaint.  The promoters claim they were only made aware of the
injury on the day of the fight.

The Las Vegas Boxing Commission stipulates that all boxers are
obligated to fill out a one page "Pre-Fight Medical Questionnaire"
and report any and all injuries.  According to the complaint
Pacquiao failed to mention any injury in the questionnaire, but
later admitted that he "suffered a torn rotator cuff in his right
shoulder roughly a month prior to the Fight, limiting his ability
to fight."

As cited in court documents, plaintiffs allege that "the match was
touted as the richest fight in boxing history" but was "not fair
for consumers who ordered the fight on pay-per-view."  According
to The New York Times, the Mayweather-Pacquiao fight set records
for pay-per-view purchases and revenue, with some 4.4 million
viewers, generating more than $400 million in domestic revenue.

The case is PA Ed. 2:15-cv-02511-JHS in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

For more information on the class action lawsuit, contact Sheller,
P.C. at 1-800-883-2299 or write info@sheller.com

Sheller, P.C. -- http://www.sheller.com-- represents individuals
nationwide who have been injured or harmed by corporate
wrongdoing, defective and dangerous drugs, devices, and consumer
products.  Currently, the attorneys are investigating severe
intestinal problems reported by people taking the blood pressure
drug Benicar, excessive bleeding with Xarelto blood thinner, and
the link between Actos diabetes drug and bladder cancer.  The firm
also brings lawsuits in employment "independent contractor"
misclassification, telemarketing "RoboCall" infringements,
consumer protection matters including privacy, data breach and
other matters.


TOSHIBA CORP: Accused by Shareholders of Issuing False Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Toshiba directors propped up
the stock price with false statements before it fell from $24.56
to $18.33 from April 3 to May 11, shareholders claim in California
Federal Court.


TOWNSEND FARMS: Suits Over Hepa A Contamination May Be Joined
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David O. Carter for the Central District of
California directed plaintiffs in seven lawsuits involving
Townsend Farms Inc. and Costco Wholesale Co., Inc., to show cause
why the cases should not be consolidated.  The parties' joint
response to the Order to Show Cause is due July 27, 2015.  The
Court will hold a status conference to discuss scheduling of all
cases on Aug. 3, at 8:30 a.m.

The seven related cases are:

   (1) Petersen, et al. v. Townsend Farms, Inc., et al., 13-1292;

   (2) Walters, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Co., Inc., et al.,
       14-1176;

   (3) Gleckler, et al. v. Costco Wholesale Co., Inc., et al.,
       15-0620;

   (4) Luethy v. Townsend Farms, Inc., et al., 15-0663;

   (5) Townsend Farms, Inc. v. Goknur Gida Maddeleri Enerji Imalat
       Ithalat Ihracat Ticarat ve Sanayi A.S., et al., 15-0837;

   (6) Purely Pomegranate, Inc., et al. v. Fallon Trading Company,
       et al., 15-0840; and

   (7) Kelly, et al. v. Townsend Farms, Inc., et al., 15-0841.

Petersen is a putative class action brought on behalf of
individuals who incurred vaccination costs as a result of exposure
to the defective product or to people who had consumed the product
and become ill with Hepatitis A.  The class does not include
people who actually contracted Hepatitis A because of the product.

Walters, Gleckler, Luethy, and Kelly are brought by individuals
who allege that they contracted Hepatitis A as a result of
consuming the product.

Townsend Farms and Purely Pomegranate involve companies in the
distribution chain suing other companies upstream of them in the
distribution chain.  The third-party complaints in Petersen and
Walters involve companies suing other upstream companies.

Each company in the distribution chain is so far represented by
the same counsel in all of the cases in which they have appeared.
The Court notes that the corporate defendants in the later-filed
cases, Gleckler, Luethy, Kelly, Townsend Farms, and Purely
Pomegranate, have not yet appeared (except that Townsend Farms,
Inc. and Purely Pomegranate, Inc., have appeared as defendants in
Luethy).

The plaintiffs in the Consumer Cases are represented by three sets
of attorneys.  The plaintiffs in Petersen and Walters are
represented by Markler Clark LLP.  The plaintiffs in Gleckler are
represented by Elliott & Elliott.  The plaintiffs in Luethy and
Kelly are represented by the Law Offices of Ofer M. Grossman.

A litigation schedule has already been set in Petersen and
Walters, the first two filed cases. The hearing on class
certification in Petersen is scheduled for July 27, 2015. Both
cases have a discovery cut-off date of March 18, 2016; a summary
judgment motion cut-off date of June 13, 2016; final pretrial
conference on July 18, 2016; and trial on August 14, 2016.

Given that the facts in these seven cases are closely related, the
Court is inclined to adopt the dates already in place for Petersen
and Walters for all of the later-filed cases.

A copy of the Court's June 23, 2015 Civil Minutes is available at
http://is.gd/8wzUlofrom Leagle.com.

Townsend Farms Inc., an Oregon corporation doing business in
California, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Dorse , Theodora
Oringher PC, William E Gaar , Buckley Law PC & Christopher Van
Gundy, Keller and Heckman LLP.


TOWNSEND FARMS: Class Cert. Hearing in "Petersen" on July 27
------------------------------------------------------------
A litigation schedule has already been set in the Hepatitis A
contamination cases, Petersen, et al. v. Townsend Farms, Inc., et
al., 13-1292 (C.D. Cal.); and Walters, et al. v. Costco Wholesale
Co., Inc., et al., 14-1176 (C.D. Cal.).

Petersen is a putative class action brought on behalf of
individuals who incurred vaccination costs as a result of exposure
to the defective product or to people who had consumed the product
and become ill with Hepatitis A.  The class does not include
people who actually contracted Hepatitis A because of the product.

Walters is brought by individuals who allege that they contracted
Hepatitis A as a result of consuming the product.

The hearing on class certification in Petersen is scheduled for
July 27, 2015.

Both cases have a discovery cut-off date of March 18, 2016; a
summary judgment motion cut-off date of June 13, 2016; final
pretrial conference on July 18, 2016; and trial on August 14,
2016.


TURN: Consumers Want Verizon Tossed From "Supercookies" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Verizon has no
right to involve itself in a class-action privacy lawsuit against
Turn, consumers who are suing the ad tech company say.

The battle between consumers and Turn stems from the ad company's
use of Verizon's "supercookies" to track Verizon mobile users.  In
April, New York residents Anthony Henson and William Cintron sued
Turn for allegedly violating their privacy by drawing on headers
that Verizon injected into mobile traffic.  Those "unique
identifier headers," called UIDHs, enable ad companies to compile
profiles of users and serve them targeted ads.  The headers are
known as "supercookies," or "zombie cookies," because they allow
ad companies to recreate cookies that users delete.

Turn has asked U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the
Northern District of California to send the lawsuit from the
public court system to a private arbitration.  Turn argues that
Verizon's contract with mobile users requires arbitration of all
disputes.  Turn itself wasn't a party to the contract between the
users and Verizon.

In late May, Verizon filed a proposed friend-of-the-court brief
backing Turn's request.  Verizon argues in papers filed with U.S.
District Court Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern District of
California that the lawsuit will subject the company to "the
burdens that it contracted to avoid, including the class
procedures its subscribers agreed to forego, through the
arbitration provision in its customer agreements."

But Messrs. Henson and Cintron argue that Verizon doesn't have any
justification for getting involved in the battle about
arbitration.  "This case has nothing to do with the enforceability
of the provision as between Verizon and its subscribers," the
consumers argue in papers filed on June 5.  They're asking Judge
White to reject all of Verizon's arguments, including that it has
an interest in the interpretation of its arbitration agreements.

"The court and the parties are perfectly capable of reviewing
Verizon's contract to see whether Turn was named as a beneficiary
of the arbitration clause (it was not), or whether Verizon
considered Turn its 'agent' in their separate contract (it did
not)," the consumers argue.  "Indeed, as alleged in the complaint,
Verizon openly distanced itself from Turn after Turn's zombie
cookie program became public."

They add: "Verizon's interest in assisting its business partners
is irrelevant to whether Turn can hide behind an arbitration
clause to which it is not a party."

Consumers sued Turn soon after lawyer and computer scientist
Jonathan Mayer published research showing how the company used the
headers for its behavioral advertising program.  Mr. Mayer
reported in January that Turn uses Verizon's UIDH to collect data
and send targeted ads to mobile users who delete their cookies.
At the time, Verizon allowed people to opt out of receiving
targeted ads powered by its own ad programs but didn't let users
avoid header injections.  The company recently changed its policy
and now allows subscribers to opt out of the header insertions.


TWININGS NORTH AMERICA: Court Won't Review Dismissal of Tea Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that a
federal judge refused to reconsider an order dismissing an unjust
enrichment claim against Twinings tea, as the same woman sued it
in a false advertising lawsuit.

Nancy Lanovaz sued Twinings of North America in May 2012, claiming
it misbranded its tea as containing antioxidants.  She claimed
that because California had adopted federal regulations, Twinings
also violated California laws on unfair competition, false
advertising and consumer remedies.'

The court granted her motion for leave to file a reconsideration
of its February 2013 order denying certification of the damages
class under the unjust enrichment claim.  She argued that the
claim is a stand-alone cause under California law and that "the
remedy of nonrestitutionary disgorgement is available under an
unjust enrichment claim, but not under the UCL, FAL or CLRA, such
that the unjust enrichment claim is not duplicative."

But on June 10 U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte denied the motion,
finding the damages she seeks are available under the Consumer
Protection Act.

"It is now apparent that plaintiff is actually seeking a form of
damages that is available . . . under both an unjust enrichment
claim and a consumer protection claim, namely restitutionary
disgorgement of profits from Twinings alleged mislabeling," Whyte
said in his 9-page order.  "Because this form of damages was
available under the consumer protection claim, plaintiff should
have sought such a remedy when presenting her motion for class
certification. She did not.

As the court noted in its order granting leave, the court will not
allow plaintiff to use the unjust enrichment claim as a vehicle
for belatedly obtaining a second bite at class certification, if
the damages issues under the unjust enrichment claim are the same
as the damages issues under the consumer protection claims on
which the court has already ruled."

The case is Nancy Lanovaz v. Twinings North America, Inc., Case
No. 5:12-cv-02646-RMW, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court to Review "Bouaphakeo" Wage Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Wheeler, writing for The Hill, reports that the Supreme
Court is poised to weigh new limits on class action lawsuits,
taking up the appeal of a judgment against Tyson Foods, Inc.
Tyson was ordered to pay $5.8 million to employees in a class
action lawsuit for violating federal and state labor laws.

The case began in 2007, when six employees of Tyson's meat-
processing facility in Storm Lake, Iowa sued the company for
failing to pay employees overtime for putting on personal
protective equipment and taking it off.  The case included more
than 3,000 current and former employees.  Tyson calculated paid
working hours by what it called "gang time" -- when the employee
is at their working station and the production line is moving,
according to court documents.

Before 2007, court records show that Tyson added four minutes of
K-code time per day to the paychecks of employees who worked in a
department where knives were used. K-code time was the company's
way to compensate workers for putting on and taking off unique
items.  But a study showed that it took employees an average of 18
minutes in the fabrication department and 21 minutes in the kill
department to not only put on and take off equipment, but walk to
their stations.

The employees claimed Tyson was not paying wages due under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Iowa Wage Payment
Collection Law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit upheld the lower
court's judgment, siding with the employees and rejecting Tyson's
argument that the plaintiffs presented insufficient evidence to
prove damages classwide.  Tyson claimed the class should be
decertified because evidence showed that some members did not work
overtime and had no legal right to damages.

In the case, the high court will decide if all members of a class
action lawsuit need to have been injured and have a legal right to
damages.  Arguments in the case will be heard in the fall.

Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Maria Guyton and Dionicio Canuzal are the lead plaintiffs in the
case.  Per its custom, the Supreme Court did not issue any comment
in taking up the case June 8.

The case is Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, Peg, et al., Case No.
14-1146, in the Supreme Court of the United States.


UBER TECH: Can't Compel Drivers to Arbitrate Class Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Uber cannot force its drivers to arbitrate class action claims of
"unconscionable" contracts, but must defend itself in court, a
federal judge ruled June 10, reports Nick Cahill, writing for
Courthouse News Service.

U.S. Judge Edward Chen called Uber's online services agreement
with its drivers unconscionable, and refused the company's motions
to compel arbitration.  Chen ruled that Uber's opt-out clause for
arbitration was buried in fine print and unenforceable.

"The opt-out provision was printed on the second-to-last page of
the 2013 agreement, and was not in any way set off from the small
and densely packed text surrounding it," Chen wrote.

Drivers had to hand-deliver or overnight the contracts with the
buried opt-out clause to Uber's office in San Francisco.  Chen
struck down Uber's claim that several drivers did opt out of the
arbitration agreement, saying it provided no evidence to back that
claim.

Former Uber contractors Abdul Kadir Mohamed and Ronald Gillette
sued Uber in November 2014, claiming they were suddenly denied
access to the Uber system without reason.  Mohamed claimed Uber
told him he could no longer drive after two years with the company
because it found new information in his background check, which it
never showed him.  Gillette accused Uber of failing to pay
employees promptly upon termination and misclassifying drivers as
independent contractors.

Numerous lawsuits across the country claim that Uber misclassifies
its drivers as contractors rather than employees.  Uber claims
that when drivers sign the online services agreement, they agree
to a provision that requires disputes to be settled in "final and
binding arbitration and not by way of court or jury trial," and
that the plaintiffs signed the contract willfully without using
the opt-out clause.

While Chen agreed that the former drivers knowingly signed the
contract, he found several issues with Uber's legalese and found
the arbitration provisions unenforceable.  He wrote that for
Uber's arbitration provisions to be legal, it must disclose to
drivers the disadvantages of giving up the right to a jury trial.

The two cases are Abdul Kadir Mohamed, et al. v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. C-14-5200 EMC; and Ronald
Gillette, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. C-
14-5241 EMC, both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


UBER TECH: Trial on Way in Driver Misclassification Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Cecil Caulkins, writing for Legal Broadcast Network, reports that
Uber and Lyft are the defendants in separate class action lawsuits
filed in federal court in San Francisco.  Both lawsuits are
brought by drivers for the companies, and the plaintiffs are
seeking to be declared employees rather than independent
contractors.  As employees, drivers would be entitled to a minimum
wage, reimbursement for expenses, overtime and other benefits.

Plaintiffs' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan discussed the lawsuits
in the Legal Broadcast Network report.  Ms. Liss-Riordan says that
both cases are well on their way towards trial.  Summary judgment
motions in both cases have been overruled.  The cases will turn on
factual questions whether the drivers are being treated as
independent contractors or, in fact, as employees.

Ms. Liss-Riordan points out that the most important issue will be
the amount of control each company has over its drivers.  She
opines that both companies exercise a good deal of control over
drivers.  "[The companies] give them rules, they tell them how
they want them to act, and they monitor their behavior."
Passengers provide the companies with feedback and rate the
drivers.  The drivers have to meet certain quality levels based on
passenger ratings in order to remain as drivers.  Local managers
decide the acceptable ratings levels, and the levels are high.

The companies also advise the drivers if a passenger complains or
says a driver is doing something that he or she shouldn't do.  A
driver can be deactivated from the Uber or Lyft system at any
time. That level of control, says Liss-Riordan, points to employee
status, although there are other factors as well.

Both companies use the independent contractor model and suggest
that their profitability depends on using this model.  However,
even though this model works well for the companies, it does not
necessarily work as well for the drivers.  Ms. Liss-Riordan says
that both companies are "enormously successful" and would probably
continue to be so whatever a court might rule on the independent
contractor issue.  "Uber is reportedly worth $50 billion today."
And, under California law, an employer is required to reimburse an
employee for expenses necessary to do the job, including fuel
costs, vehicle maintenance, and other related expenses.

Ms. Liss-Riordan believes that the companies will continue to be
successful if they have to treat their drivers as employees and
assure that the drivers are earning at least minimum wage.
Whether this would be true for other companies is not an issue in
this litigation.  She opines that a company should not take on the
apparent status of an employer if the company is unable to handle
the responsibilities that go along with it.

One common argument for the independent contractor model is that
drivers very much like the flexibility of being their own bosses.
But Ms. Liss-Riordan points out that employers are able to provide
this flexibility, and it is a growing trend in the business world.
And there are other things that go along with being an employee,
including unemployment benefits and workers' compensation.


ULTIMATE FIGHTING: Antitrust Suit Transferred to Nevada
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gift, writing for Bloody Elbow, reports that it took four
weeks, but a federal judge finally handed down his ruling on the
UFC's motion to change the location of its ongoing class-action,
antitrust lawsuit from Northern California to Las Vegas, Nevada.
The verdict: Vegas, baby.

This was the first major ruling in the case filed last December by
current and former fighters alleging monopolistic practices by the
UFC in the MMA industry.  The next major ruling -- on the UFC's
pending motion to dismiss the case outright -- now also moves to
and will be argued in Nevada.

The UFC presented two main arguments for transferring the case:
(1) Seven of 11 plaintiffs signed contracts (with forum selection
clauses) requiring that the case be heard in Nevada and (2) Nevada
is more convenient.  The plaintiffs disputed each position but
Judge Edward Davila was un-persuaded, finding for the UFC in both
situations.  It quickly became abundantly clear that the judge's
primary focus was on the forum selection clause signed by seven
plaintiffs:

ZUFFA and Fighter hereby (a) expressly consent to the exclusive
personal jurisdiction and venue of the state and federal courts
located in Clark County, Nevada for any action brought by either
party to interpret or enforce any provision of this Agreement.

The UFC argued that the contract terms alleged to be
anticompetitive would need to be interpreted, so the case
therefore belongs in Nevada.  The plaintiffs took the position
that contract terms would not need to be interpreted; only their
effect in the market is relevant.  Plaintiff attorney, Joseph
Saveri, noticeably struggled to make this argument in the May
hearing and the judge repeatedly questioned him about it, "Don't
we have to interpret the contracts to determine their
anticompetitive effect?"

The key question was: Is the lawsuit an action "to interpret or
enforce" any provision of the seven fighter contracts? The judge's
final answer on June 2 was "yes."

The plaintiffs may have been hurt by their lack of specificity of
actual contract terms in the complaint.  In his ruling, the judge
found:

"Plaintiffs identify in the Complaints seven specific provisions
of the UFC's standard contracts which they deem 'restrictive' or
anticompetitive.  For each provision, rather than repeating the
language verbatim or attaching the contracts and then pleading by
reference, they provide their own description of the provisions'
terms as well as their own understanding of what those provisions
mean.  For example, Plaintiffs interpret the 'Exclusivity Clause'
as 'block[ing] actual or potential rival promotions from having
access to Elite Professional MMA fighters under contract with the
UFC for protracted periods of time' with 'various termination and
extension clauses that can be triggered at the UFC's sole
discretion, thereby effectively extending the exclusivity
provisions indefinitely.' Similarly, Plaintiffs describe the
'Ancillary Rights Clause' as 'grant[ing] the UFC exclusive and
perpetual worldwide personality and Identity rights not only of
the UFC fighter, but of 'all persons associated with' the athlete,
in any medium . . .'"

The UFC disputed the fighters' claims regarding exclusivity and
ancillary rights, leading the judge to find that since both sides
have differing opinions, "the court that ultimately adjudicates
this case will need to define the accused provisions according to
Nevada law so that the finder of fact can consider whether or not
they actually constitute evidence of Defendant's 'willful'
acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power . . . These cases,
therefore, are actions 'to interpret' contracts . . ."

In other words, since contract interpretation will be required,
the forum selection clauses apply and the case heads to Vegas.

The June 3 ruling wasn't a shock to me, having left the May
hearing with this tweet.  Perhaps more surprising, the judge also
ruled that convenience factors dictate the case be moved.  But he
didn't find overwhelming support to move the case to Nevada as
much as he found strong support that witnesses and non-party
witnesses will be "equally inconvenienced" in Nevada and Northern
California, and Nevada is "especially suited to Plaintiffs'
claims."

This is not the death knell to the fighters' case that it may seem
to some.  The federal antitrust laws are the same in Nevada as
they are in California.  Expert witnesses will eventually produce
the same reports they would've produced, supporting their side and
attacking the other.  The main differences are the judge, location
and jury pool -- in the unlikely event of a trial. T his is not to
suggest that location doesn't matter, but a strong antitrust case
is strong anywhere and a weak case is weak anywhere.

The ruling could affect the upcoming motion to dismiss but more
likely may play a role in driving leverage points that lead to a
(probable) settlement down the line.  Bloody Elbow has led the
coverage of this case from the beginning and will keep readers
updated with all future developments.


UNILEVER UNITED: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Product Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Brown, et al. v. Unilever United States, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03563-ENV-RML (E.D.N.Y., June 18, 2015),is brought on
behalf of all the consumers who purchased Degree(R) and Dove(R)
deodorants and antiperspirants that were falsely labeled and
packed by the Defendant.

The Products' at issue were labeled with a false net weight of
actual usable deodorant and antiperspirant and were placed in a
misleading packaging with excessive empty space and non-functional
slack-fill.

Unilever United States, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures and sells food, refreshments, home, and personal care
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNION PACIFIC: Faces Richard Bagdasarian Trespassing Suit in Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Bagdasarian Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et al., Case
No. 8:15-cv-00986-AB-PJW (C.D. Cal., June 18, 2015), is an action
that seeks to recover to the class of California property owners
unpaid rents, damages, and interest, as a result of the
Defendant's trespass upon the class's real property and wrongful
occupation with the railroad to use the subsurface of the railroad
right-of-way.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNION PACIFIC: Faces New Mexico Smelter Trespassing Suit in N.M.
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Mexico Smelter and Refining, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00514-LAM-GBW (D.N.M., June 17, 2015), is an
action that seeks to recover to the class of New Mexico property
owners unpaid rents, damages, and interest, as a result of the
Defendant's trespass upon the class's real property and wrongful
occupation with the railroad to use the subsurface of the railroad
right-of-way.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clyde A. Pine Jr., Esq.
      MOUNCE GREEN MYERS SAFI & GALATZAN
      PO Box 1977
      El Paso, TX 79999-1977
      Telephone: (915) 532-2000
      Facsimile: (915) 541-1597
      E-mail: pine@mgmsg.com

         - and -

      John W. Cowden, Esq.
      Paul Penticuff, Esq.
      Angela M. Higgins, Esq.
      BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, L.L.C.
      2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 471-2121
      Facsimile: (816) 472=0288
      E-mail: cowden@bscr-law.com
               penticuff@bscr-law.com
               higgins@bscr-law.com


UNITED STATES: Tucson Immigration Jails Called Inhumane, Punitive
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Tim Hull reports that Border
Patrol jails in its busy Tucson sector are overcrowded, dirty and
cold, lacking food, water, medical care and basic sanitation and
hygiene, a federal class action alleges.

Norlan Flores, a Nicaraguan twice detained in the Tucson sector,
and two Jane Doe plaintiffs still in immigration jail, sued the
Secretary of Homeland Security and other federal officials on
June 9.

About 18 percent of the 479,371 Border Patrol arrests on the
Mexico border were in the Tucson sector in 2014.  Thousands of
undocumented immigrants caught crossing the often deadly desert
are kept in short-term holding centers the plaintiffs call
"inhumane and punitive."

"They have been packed into overcrowded and filthy holding cells
with the lights glaring day and night; stripped of outer layers of
clothing and forced to suffer in brutally cold temperatures;
deprived of beds, bedding, and sleep; denied adequate food, water,
medicine and medical care, and basic sanitation and hygiene items
such as soap, sufficient toilet paper, sanitary napkins, diapers,
and showers; and held incommunicado in these conditions for days,"
the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs, represented by Morrison & Foerster and four civil
rights groups, say that many of them "fled dangerous conditions in
their home countries, and are seized following a lengthy,
difficult, and perilous journey."

"They arrive exhausted, thirsty and hungry, and often are
suffering from dehydration, heat stroke, diarrhea, bleeding and
blistered feet, and other health conditions requiring medical
attention," the complaint states.  "A substantial number of the
women are recent victims of sexual assault.  Many other adults and
children arrive traumatized by the dangers they have escaped and
the harms they have suffered during their journey to the United
States.  The conditions in the holding cells -- including the
inadequate supply of water and food, the extremely cold
temperatures and the lack of access to medical care and medicines
-- further endanger those already suffering from exposure-related
medical impairments and other pre-existing conditions."

Immigration jails were not designed, originally, for punishment,
but to ensure that immigrants would appear for their immigration
hearings.

The plaintiffs say that detainees are often denied the basic
"ability to get adequate sleep -- if any at all."

"Defendants do not equip holding cells with beds and generally do
not provide detainees mattresses or other bedding," the lawsuit
states.  "Defendants leave holding cell lights on at all hours,
and detained individuals must attempt to sleep on cold concrete
floors and hard benches.  The cells are often so overcrowded that
not all detainees are able to lie down and instead must sit or
stand through the night."

The plaintiffs say they are often denied clean drinking water and
food, and that Border Patrol agents regularly ignore their pleas
and complaints.

"The inhumane and dangerous conditions in the Tucson Sector
facilities result in irreparable, ongoing physical and
psychological harm to plaintiffs and putative class members and
serious risk of future harm," the lawsuit states.

"The overall conditions of defendants' holding cells deny the
humanity of those held within their walls, with such intolerable
results as the denial of prescribed pain medication to a pregnant
woman with a broken foot; the failure to provide medical attention
to another woman suffering heavy vaginal bleeding; children as
young as four years old stripped of warm clothing and left crying
through the night from cold and hunger; detainees sick, exhausted,
and shivering, pleading for guards to turn up the temperature; and
the repeated response of agents that these conditions are the
price to be paid for coming to United States."

The plaintiffs seek class certification and an injunction to stop
the Border Patrol from subjecting them to "illegal and
unconstitutional conditions."

They ask the court to order DHS and Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement to provide, among other things:

   -- "bed and bedding to all detainees held overnight in any
      Tucson Sector CBP facility";

   -- "access to soap, toothbrushes and toothpaste, paper towels,
      sanitary napkins, diapers, showers and towels if held
      overnight, and sanitation";

   -- "clean drinking water and nutritionally adequate meals";

   -- "standards with respect to cell occupancy rates,
      temperature control, and all federal fire, health and
      safety standards";

   -- adequate screening for "medical, dental, and mental health
      conditions that need immediate treatment";

   -- and "timely and competent responses to health care
      emergencies."

Lead attorney Harold McElhinny with Morrison & forester is
assisted by attorneys with the ACLU Foundation of Arizona, the
American Immigration Council, the National Immigration Law Center,
and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco
Bay Area.

Border Patrol officials in Washington, D.C., and in the Tucson
sector did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


UNITED STATES: NSA to Resume Data Collection Amid Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Julian Hattem, writing for The Hill, reports that the National
Security Agency (NSA) is taking steps to turn its massive
collection of Americans' phone records back on.

After President Obama signed legislation to end the controversial
program, the Justice Department submitted a legal memorandum to
the secretive federal court justifying authorization for the NSA
collection for another six months, as the new law allows.

"[T]he government respectfully submits that it may seek and this
court may issue an order for the bulk production of tangible
things" under the law, "as it did in . . . prior related dockets,"
the Justice Department said in its memo.

The legal analysis was submitted on June 2, less than an hour
after the White House announced that the president had signed the
USA Freedom Act into law.  The memo was not revealed to the public
until June 8.

Until the passage of the USA Freedom Act, the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court (FISC) routinely granted the NSA the ability to
collect "metadata" about millions of Americans' phone calls,
including the numbers people dial and the length of their calls,
but not their actual conversations.  Passage of the USA Freedom
Act ended the metadata program, and creates a new system that
forces the NSA to get a narrower set of records from private phone
companies. But the law gives the agency six months to transition
to the new system.

In its new filing, the Obama administration said that it should be
allowed to continue the program for those extra six months, even
after a top federal court ruled earlier this year that the program
was illegal.  The FISC "may certainly consider" the ruling in that
appeals court case, the government said, however the court's
rulings "do not constitute controlling precedent."

The legal analysis does not amount to a formal request to renew
the program, even though one is expected shortly.  Instead, the
memo outlines the legal rationale for restarting the NSA program.
The court demanded that explanation in its February order renewing
the NSA program, expecting that the law would change around a June
1 deadline for Congress to renew or reform parts of the Patriot
Act undergirding the NSA data collection.

But the court is coming under pressure to block the government's
request and prevent the NSA from renewing its powers.  On June 5,
the advocacy group FreedomWorks and former Virginia Attorney
General Ken Cuccinelli (R) filed a joint 41-page motion telling
the secretive spy court that the NSA program is not only illegal
but also unconstitutional.  People "have a reasonable expectation
of privacy in their personal telephone metadata," they wrote.
"[T]he court should deny the government's request to
reinstitute/renew metadata collection."

Another reform in the USA Freedom Act will add a new panel of
experts to occasionally provide advice to the FISC, which
otherwise only hears arguments from the government.

In his filing on June 5, Mr. Cuccinelli suggested that he could be
able to play that role, since he is "experienced in addressing
privacy matters, civil liberties issues and is a constitutional
lawyer."  Mr. Cuccinelli had previously filed a class action
lawsuit against the NSA over the phone records program, along with
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who is now running for president.

Mr. Cuccinelli lost the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial race to
Democrat Terry McCauliffe.


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Wrongfully Fires Two Employees, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two former employees claim in a lawsuit that the University of
Phoenix made recruiters lie to prospective students about credits,
attend military job fairs to recruit secretly and work without
overtime pay, reports Kevin Lessmiller at Courthouse News Service.

Marlena Aldrich and Kristen Nolan filed a class action against
The University of Phoenix Inc. in Jefferson County, Ky. court on
June 9.  They sued for wrongful termination and state labor law
violations.  Aldrich and Nolan were military liaisons for the
university's Louisville, Ky. campus, according to the lawsuit.
They claim they were asked to make "substantial
misrepresentations" to meet recruitment goals and were fired when
they did not meet their goals.

Misrepresentations made by recruiters to prospective students
included saying credits will transfer when they will not, not
disclosing the university's allegedly inferior accreditation, and
telling potential recruits that certain employers endorse the
university when they actually do not, according to the complaint.
Aldrich and Nolan say the University of Phoenix required
recruiters to engage in a sales technique called "poking the
pain," which involves playing to a potential student's
insecurities about career and financial concerns.

"In truth there is no guarantee, indeed no evidence, that the UP
degree will result in a better job, better wages, or otherwise
operate as a 'fix' for the prospective student's income concerns,"
the complaint states.  "In fact the opposite is true . . .
'gainful employment' statistics reflect that a UP degree likely
will have little or no impact, indeed perhaps a negative impact,
on the student's employability."

The class action also alleges that recruiters were required "to
gain access to military bases surreptitiously" through job fairs
by claiming to have job openings for soldiers and veterans when
they were really just recruiting students.  One such job fair was
held by the Hiring Our Heroes organization and another was
sponsored by Wounded Warriors, according to the complaint.

"In spite of its express agreement that UP would not utilize its
participation in the job fair to recruit students it required its
liaisons such as plaintiffs to do just that.  Plaintiffs were
required to conduct these recruitment activities stealthily
because if caught they risked removal from the base," the lawsuit
states.  "Effectively liaisons such as plaintiffs were required to
participate in these unlawful schemes, inclusive of schemes that
rise to the level of criminal trespass, to meet recruitment goals
or face termination."

Aldrich and Nolan further claim that they worked more than 40
hours per week but were not paid overtime wages in violation of
Kentucky law.  Their hours were not recorded and they were not
paid all wages due, the lawsuit states.

Mark Brenner, senior vice president of external affairs at Apollo
Education Group Inc., the university's parent company, called
Aldrich and Nolan's allegations fictitious and baseless.

"University of Phoenix intends to vigorously defend itself against
the fictitious allegations of these former employees," Brenner
said in a statement provided to Courthouse News.  "Their false
accusations and baseless legal claims will not distract us from
delivering a high quality, career relevant education for working
adults, including all those who have so admirably served our
country in the military."

The lawsuit claims that University of Phoenix is the nation's
largest for-profit college.  SEC filings from last year show that
the university is facing investigations from attorney generals in
Florida and Massachusetts.

Aldrich, Nolan and the class are represented by Kirk Hoskins in
Louisville.  They seek punitive damages, past due wages including
overtime pay, civil penalties and class certification.  The
proposed class includes Kentucky employees of the University of
Phoenix that currently work there or have within the last five
years.


US AIRWAYS: Faces Class Action in California Over Ticket Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that US Airways has been sued over
allegations it advertised certain prices for its airline tickets
online but did not honor the prices.

Schuyler Hoffman filed the lawsuit June 1 in U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of California against US Airways,
alleging the ticket prices online were made "incompletable" after
he tried to purchase the tickets.

The lawsuit alleges the website told consumers they weren't
charged for the attempted purchase but the airline still charged
Hoffman's card and held onto the funds.  The suit says Mr. Hoffman
attempted to purchase two tickets on U.S. Airways' website for
$1,372 but an error message popped up stating the transaction
could not be completed.  He said he attempted the transaction two
other times, receiving the same message both times.

When he called the airline, a representative said his card wasn't
charged but couldn't determine why the purchase hadn't gone
through, the suit says, and when Mr. Hoffman later contacted his
bank, he found he was charged for the first attempted purchase of
the tickets.

The suit says the plaintiff then contacted the airline again,
which told him the price for the tickets had risen between when he
selected the tickets and when he entered his payment information.

Mr. Hoffman seeks class action status and more than $5 million in
damages, plus courts costs.  He is represented by attorneys Abbas
Kazerounian of Kazerouni Law Group in Costa Mesa, Calif., and
Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego.

U.S. District Court Southern District of California case number:
3:15-cv-01214


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: 8th Cir. Revives TCPA Violation Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eighth Circuit has revived a class action claiming
presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee was part of a group that
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, reports Joe Harris
at Courthouse News Service.

Ron and Dorit Golan filed the class action in 2012 after receiving
two unsolicited, recorded messages on their home phone in May,
stating: "Liberty.  This is a public survey call.  We may call
back later."  Had the Golans answered, they would have heard a
recorded message from Huckabee conducting an anti-Hollywood survey
that asked how the person felt about "traditional American
values."

The Golans, who were among the 4 million people who received the
call, claimed the survey was a guise promoting the movie, "The
Last Ounce of Courage."  They claimed the movie promoters and
Huckabee violated the TCPA by placing robo calls, and sought
certification of a subclass who were on the Missouri do-not-call
list, but still received calls.  The 2012 movie centers on a man
named Bob Revere who feels the government and a liberal group are
attacking his freedom of religion.

A federal court dismissed the Golans' claims in 2014, finding they
did not demonstrate sufficient injury to give them standing under
a law designed to curb robo calls.

A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court reversed the
decision June 8.

Judge Diana E. Murphy wrote: "Although the campaign appeared to
survey whether recipients had 'traditional American values,'"
movie promoters were "more concerned with getting viewers to see
'Last Ounce of Courage' than gathering information about them."

The Eighth Circuit also reversed the ruling that the Golans were
not adequate class representatives because they didn't hear the
entire survey.

"Because the purpose of the calls is the critical issue in this
case, the Golans were not subject to a unique defense," Murphy
wrote.  "Nor did they suffer a different injury than class members
who heard the entire message.  What matters for all class members,
including the Golans, is that each call was initiated for the
purpose of promoting 'Last Ounce of Courage.'"

Whether Huckabee could be held vicariously liable for the calls
was left for the district court to consider.

Judges Bobby E. Shepherd and Timothy L. Brooks concurred.

Huckabee, a former two-term governor of Arkansas, is seeking the
Republican nomination for president.

The case is Ron Golan; Dorit Golan, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Veritas
Entertainment, LLC, et al., Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-
2484, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit.  The lawsuit is appealed from U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri - St. Louis.


VESUVIO LLC: Faces "Drouillard" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Drouillard, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Vesuvio LLC, d/b/a Charleston Bagel Co., and Jolanda
Mazzocchi, Case No. 2:15-cv-02444-PMD (D.S.C., 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 Charleston Bagel Co restaurants
located at 656 Long Point Rd Mount Pleasant, SC and 121 South Main
Street in Summerville, SC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW, LLC
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (800) 385-8160
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


WASHINGTON: No Bias in Having Female Guards, 9th Cir. Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
It was not discriminatory for the Washington Department of
Corrections to designate 110 female-only guard positions in its
two women prisons to combat sexual abuse of prisoners, the Ninth
Circuit ruled June 12, reports Katherine Proctor at Courthouse
News Service.

A 2007 Jane Doe class action lawsuit brought by female inmates at
the Washington Corrections Center alleged a pattern of sexual
abuse by male prison guards, including incidents where guards
assaulted and fondled female inmates and forced them to perform
oral sex and masturbate in front of them.

In response, the Washington DOC implemented a series of reforms,
which included prehiring psychological testing, training programs
to enhance "gender awareness" and -- leading to the case at issue
-- "aggressive recruitment" of female prison guards, of which
there was a shortage at the state's two women's prisons in Gig
Harbor and Belfair.

In September 2011, a local union of Teamsters filed a lawsuit
alleging that the department's designation of 110 female-only
positions violated the civil rights of male prison guards and
constituted sex discrimination.

The female-only positions encompass such "sensitive" job
responsibilities as conducting pat and strip searches and
observing inmates while they shower and use the restroom.

A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed judgment for the
state June 12, saying the "well-researched decision to designate
discrete sex-based correctional officer categories" was justified
because sex is a "bona-fide occupational qualification," or BFOQ,
for those positions.

"BFOQs are few and far between," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for
the panel. "In many industries, it is difficult to imagine any
jobs that would qualify as BFOQs.

"However, the 'unique context of prison employment' is one area
where courts have found sex-based classifications justified."

The DOC did not designate the female-only positions as a
"panacea," but as part of an "exhaustive" set of reform measures,
according to the 31-page opinion.

McKeown also found that the DOC's staffing policy was not "broad
or overreaching," nor was it "a blunderbuss approach to the
issue," as the Teamsters had claimed.

"Instead of a blanket ban on male prison personnel, the department
crafted the staffing needs to fit each specific facility and guard
post," she wrote.

McKeown rejected claims that the DOC implemented sex-based
staffing "during a time of departmental crisis," and in a "panic,"
that was little more than a "desperate attempt" to settle the Jane
Doe class action.

"If sordid details of sexual abuse and constitutional violations
do not inspire a 'crisis' and feelings of 'panic,' then what
does?" she wrote.  "The state shouldn't be demonized for kicking
into gear to find a remedy for its long-running challenges."

The Teamsters actually hurt their own case, the court found, when
one of their own experts made the "startling" assertion that
preventing abuse does female inmates a disservice.

"Female inmates cannot be shielded from the world in which we
live," that expert had said, as quoted by McKeown.  "If they are
to reintegrate into society, they have to be taught how to deal
with abusive staff. . . .  Just as females have to be taught how
to deal with those abuses in the larger society, female inmates
must be taught as part of the rehabilitation process how to deal
with all abusive staff."

McKeown's outrage with the theory was palpable.  "To state
something so obvious we never imagined it would need to be
written: we reject any suggestion that female prisoners would
benefit from being subjected to abusive prison guards as 'part of
the rehabilitation process' so that they may better 'reintegrate
into society,'" she wrote.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Spencer Nathan Thal, Esq., General Counsel
          Daniel A. Swedlow, Esq., Senior Staff Attorney
          Teamsters Local Union No. 117
          14675 Interurban Ave. S., Suite #307
          Tukwila, WA  98168
          Toll free: 1-888-872-3489
          Telephone: (206) 441-4860
          Facsimile: (206) 441-3153

The Appellee is represented by:

          Robert W. Ferguson, Esq., Attorney General
          Ohad M. Lowy, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
          Kara A. Larsen, Esq., Senior Counsel
          Peter B. Gonick, Esq.
          WASHINGTON STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
          1125 Washington Street SE
          PO Box 40100
          Olympia, WA  98504-0100
          Telephone: (360) 753-6200

The Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Nicholas B. Straley, Esq.
          Melissa R. Lee, Esq.
          COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
          Institutions Project
          101 Yesler Way, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98104
          Telephone: (206) 464-0838
          E-mail: Nick.Straley@Columbialegal.org
                  Melissa.Lee@Columbialegal.org

The appellate case is Teamsters Local Union No. 117, a Washington
corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Washington Department of
Corrections, Defendant-Appellee, Jane Doe Class, Intervenor-
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 13-35331, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The District Court case is Teamsters Local Union No. 117 v.
Washington Department of Corrections and Jane Doe Class, Case No.
3:11-cv-05760-BHS, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Washington.


WASHINGTON: DSHS Class Judgment Fund Checks Set for Distribution
----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by the law firms of
Livengood Alskog and Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala regarding the
Washington State In-Home Care Provider Shared Living Rule
Litigation:

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THURSTON COUNTY, STATE OF WASHINGTON
REKHTER V. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES
CASE NO. 07-2-00895-8
NOTICE OF JUDGMENT

A court authorized this notice. This is not a solicitation from a
lawyer.

IF YOU ARE A CARE PROVIDER WHO PERFORMED IN-HOME CARE SERVICES
BETWEEN APRIL 2003 AND JUNE 2008, AND HAD HOURS ELIMINATED BY THE
SHARED LIVING RULE, YOU ARE ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE A PROPORTIONATE
SHARE OF THE MONETARY AWARD FROM THIS JUDGMENT.

A judgment in the above case has been entered in favor of the care
providers.  The Washington Department of Social and Health
Services (DSHS) has paid the money judgment for the Shared Living
Rule class action lawsuit.

The Order Approving Plan of Administration and Distribution was
entered on January 30, 2015.

Under this plan, there will be a dual phase distribution process.
In the first phase, pro rata awards will be sent to each class
member.  The second phase will commence after a period of two
years.  Any monies that go unclaimed from the first phase will be
pro rata allocated to those members that cashed their first
checks.

Payment checks from the Class Judgment Fund are scheduled to be
mailed to the eligible providers in July or August, 2015.

BASIC INFORMATION

1. What is the Judgment about?
The judgment from this class action lawsuit stems from the
Washington Department of Social and Health Services' (DSHS)
implementation in 2003 of the Comprehensive Assessment and
Reporting Evaluation (CARE) process.  Part of the CARE process was
the shared living rule, which automatically reduced assistance for
in-home care by 15 percent for clients that lived with their
providers.

When DSHS reduced the authorized hours of support for a client
pursuant to the shared living rule, it did not change or reduce
the service plan's list of services the provider was required to
perform.  As a result, live-in providers were required by contract
to perform necessary services without compensation.  The structure
of the agreements also resulted in DSHS requiring live-in
providers to perform the same services as live-out providers for
less compensation.

Several lawsuits regarding this matter were consolidated in 2009.
In this class action lawsuit, a jury found that the DSHS violated
the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing in its contracts
with individual providers who lived with the DSHS clients for whom
they provide care.  After appeals, the verdict was upheld for the
providers.

2. Who is entitled to payment under the Judgment?
Care providers who performed in-home care services between April
2003 and June 2008, and had hours eliminated by the Shared Living
Rule are eligible to receive a proportionate share of the monetary
award.

3. When will checks be mailed to eligible individuals?
Payment checks from the Class Judgment Fund are scheduled to be
mailed to the eligible providers in July or August, 2015.

GETTING MORE INFORMATION

4. How do I get more information?
For more information please contact the Rekhter v. Washington DSHS
Judgment Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co., LLC.

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8060, San Rafael, CA 94912.
Phone: 877-308-5024
E-Mail:  info@rekhter-dshs-classaction.com
Website: www.rekhter-dshs-classaction.com

Date: June 5, 2015
Olympia, Washington

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
THURSTON COUNTY


WESTMOUNT, CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Sexual Abuse
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global News reports that Westmount has been targeted in a
potential class action lawsuit related to the alleged sexual abuse
of at least 50 boys, apparently referred to as "Johnny's pets."

A Los Angeles resident is hoping to launch a class-action lawsuit
against the city of Westmount alleging negligence that resulted
"in the repeated sexual assault of many children" in the city's
sports programs.

Benedict Matthew Bissonette filed a motion requesting permission
to authorize the class action in the Quebec Superior Court on
June 5.  Mr. Bissonette alleges that the city of Westmount "turned
a blind eye to disturbing and illegal behavior" of their long-time
employee, John Garland, while he acted as Superintendent of the
Westmount Parks and Recreation Department from 1953 to 1987.

Compensation is sought for all those who suffered due to the
"trauma they experienced at the hands of John Garland."

Why is Westmount being targeted?

At the time of the alleged faults, the Department of Parks and
Recreation supervised 40 hockey teams on which 600 children
played.  Mr. Bissonette alleges that the city of Westmount was
aware or should have been aware of the faults committed by its
employee John Garland in the performance of his duties as
Superintendent of the department.  According to the claim, while
working for the city, Mr. Garland consistently took a special
interest in one or two boys each year who participated in the
department's programs.

The motion to institute the class action alleges that department
participants and employees referred to these boys as "Johnny's
pets."  It suggests Mr. Garland would regularly allow these boys
special access to the arena, including his personal locker.  It
also alleges that he would invite these boys to his apartment in
Westmount, where he lived alone, and would drive them home from
the arena by car, claiming these apartment visits were common
knowledge among department participants and employees.

According to the motion, as many as 50 boys were victims of
Mr. Garland's abuse.  The statement of claim says that many of
these children would later develop serious psychological problems
including but not limited to depression and drug or alcohol abuse.

Mr. Bissonette's lawyer, Annabel Busbridge, told Global News that
"we don't have to know all the members of the class until a final
judgment is rendered."

Why is Mr. Bissonette coming forward today?

Global News spoke with Mr. Bissonette, who explained the sequence
of events that led up to the motion deposed in court on June 5.

"In 1993, I went to [police] station 12 in Westmount to file a
report. The police didn't believe me.  They thought I fabricated
the story."

Mr. Bissonette said he later learned that the cops also did not
keep a record of him filing the complaint.  He said the police, by
denying the existence of the problem, made it such that there
would be no way to detect a pattern of abuse.

"I was lucky enough to have a great therapist and family around me
to help me out."

After struggling with alcohol, Mr. Bissonnette began to come to
terms with what had happened.

"Getting sober, I later realized how unhealthy the situation in
Westmount was.

"When I decided to re-open the matter and decided that I would
bring the charges again, the pedophile, John Garland, died."

This prevented Mr. Bissonette from being able to proceed with the
criminal charges.

"It's been a long road with some times when you wish it could have
been dealt with earlier."

"Hopefully the city will view this as a way to correct a past
wrong, to apologize to the victims and the Westmount community,
and to the people who suffered abuse."

"I hope it creates a climate where victims feel comfortable to
come forward."

What are the legal arguments?

Primarily two legal claims are made in the motion.  First, Mr.
Bissonette alleges that the city of Westmount, by keeping Garland
in a position of authority, permitted him to regularly and
consistently maintain unusual and inappropriately close
relationships with the boys he supervised.  Second, Mr. Bissonette
alleges that the city of Westmount failed to prevent Garland from
assaulting the participants in its programs.  Accordingly, Mr.
Bissonette claims that the city of Westmount is liable to
compensate the victims for injuries caused by the faults of its
employee, Garland, in the performance of his duties.

Even though Mr. Garland is deceased, Mr. Bissonette's lawyer told
Global News that "his testimony is not directly pertinent to the
allegations."

"We are not suing Garland," said Ms. Busbridge.

"We simply need to determine whether or not Westmount knew about
his actions."

What damages are sought?

Mr. Bissonette seeks $100,000 in damages for psychological and
moral injuries, and $25,000 in punitive damages.  The motion also
seeks that an amount (to be determined) be paid to all victims who
are members of the class action.

Mr. Bissonette told Global News that the amount requested is low,
relative to other similar lawsuits.  Suppose there really are 50
victims and all of them suffered similar levels of harm compared
to Mr. Bissonette.  This would imply the city of Westmount could
be facing a bill of approximately $5 million (assuming that the
quantum of damages calculated by Mr. Bissonette's lawyer is
accurate).  Of course, for this bill to be paid, the class action
would have to be authorized, and the judge would have to award all
members of the class the sums requested by the motion.

For now, we are a long way from that possibility.  As Mr.
Bissonette's lawyer noted: "This is not about the money. It's
about recognizing something that went wrong and how to make it
right going forward."


WHITING-TURNER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Duane Govan, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, Shields Inc.,
Molina Construction Inc., and Baltazar T. Molina, Case No. 2:15-
cv-02443-DCN (D.S.C., June 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and reasonable
attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Whiting-Turner Contracting Company is a construction management
and general contracting company based in Baltimore, Maryland.

Shields Inc., Molina Construction Inc. is commercial construction
company based in Winston-Salem North Carolina that specializes in
the installation of custom walls, as well as ceilings and floor
systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW, LLC
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (800) 385-8160
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


WILLMARK COMMUNITIES: Renters File Class Action Over Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Mecija, writing for ABC10 News, reports that a class-
action lawsuit was filed on behalf of renters who lived in
properties owned by Willmark Communities.

Jill lived at La Jolla Del Rey for several months before moving
out.  "The condition of the apartment was the same when we moved
in," Jill said, who did not want to use her last name.  She
couldn't believe it when the management took her $880 deposit and
more.

"We're talking about close to $2,000 here," Jill said.  She was
"pretty shocked" after she received the bill.

Willmark Communities owns several properties. The lawsuit names:

-- Alpine Creekside, Inc.
-- Alpine Woods Apartments
-- La Jolla Nobel I
-- North Park Properties, Inc.
-- Rancho Hillside, Inc.
-- Prominence Willmark Communities, Inc.
-- Pavlov, Inc.
-- Shadowridge Park, Inc.
-- Willmark Communities University Village, Inc.
-- Willmark Communities UTC Finance I, Inc.

Dozens wrote about similar complaints on Yelp.  One person said
the management requested an "additional $600+" for cleaning.
Another said she left the apartment "in nearly perfect condition"
and was charged the entire deposit.

Willmark Communities has a "D-" rating on the Better Business
Bureau.

The California Civil Code says deposits can be used for damage,
beyond normal wear and tear.  It can also be used to "return the
unit to the same level of cleanliness" as when the person moved
in.

Lawyer Jimmie Parker showed Team 10 items on the bill.  "They were
charged for full painting at $476," Mr. Parker said, even though
the tenant "did nothing to the walls."

The lease that renters sign show a list of what they'll be charged
for when they move out.  Even if you live in the apartment for one
month, the contract says you could be charged 100 percent for
painting.

"A lot of this stuff can be unenforceable," Mr. Parker said.
"They just do it as a matter of practice to charge for painting
when it doesn't need to be done."

Team 10 went to the main office and was told to call their lawyer,
who did not call back.  Team 10 returned the following day.
Attorney Lane Webb returned the call on June 5, saying the charges
to the tenants were "justified" and "appropriate."  Mr. Webb said
one of the apartments was a "complete disaster."  He also said he
does not believe the lawsuit will be certified as a class-action
lawsuit.  He added that under the California Civil Code renters
can be charged up to two months rent for security deposit.

"I'm being treated unfairly and so are a lot of other people,"
Jill said.

Team 10 asked Mr. Webb where renters are supposed to go for help
to dispute charges on their bill, but have not heard back.


WOODLANDS LANDSCAPING: Fails to Pay Assistants OT, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Meyer, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Woodlands Landscaping, LLC, and Sara Manore, Case No. 4:15-cv-
01728 (S.D. Tex., June 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay their former hourly administrative
assistant overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping company that focuses
on providing yard maintenance and irrigation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Must Face Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore and Ed Beeson, writing for Law360, report that a
South Carolina federal judge has denied loan provider World
Acceptance Corp.'s motion to dismiss a securities class action
against it, saying the complaint met the high pleading standards
for such actions.

WAC, a top provider of short-term loans to low-income borrowers,
was slapped with the action in April after the disclosure of a
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau probe caused its stock to
tumble.

U.S. District Judge Mary G. Lewis said on May 18 that the amended
complaint in the suit met the heightened pleading standards for
securities class actions, in which plaintiffs must allege specific
facts and problems with particularity.

"The court has analyzed the amended complaint in great detail
. . .  The amended complaint specifically identifies several
alleged misrepresentations and omissions concerning World's
lending practices, loan growth and revenue, and company health,
and sets forth the time, place and content of the statements and
why the statements were material, as well as false or misleading
when made," Judge Lewis said.

In the complaint, plaintiff Edna Selan Epstein took aim at current
and former World Acceptance executives, including chief executive
A. Alexander Mclean III, accusing them of violating the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
about the company's lending practices and its compliance with
related federal laws.

Her complaint cites both corporate disclosures and public comments
made by World Acceptance executives prior to the CFPB probe as
evidence of her charges "because defendants knew that World was
non-compliant with government regulations and guidance."

In March, the Greenville, S.C.-based lender said it had received a
Civil Investigative Demand from the CFPB and that the regulator
was investigating possible wrongdoing by finance companies and
others.  Ms. Epstein said the stock suffered a nearly 20 percent
drop, falling to $78.25 on March 13 -- the day it disclosed the
probe -- from $97.32 a day earlier.

Ms. Epstein maintains that the company downplayed any risks, with
the CEO allegedly telling investors on an earnings call that he
anticipated a CFPB visit at some point but expected no problems to
arise, according to the complaint.

The complaint also notes that the company's statements were made
against the backdrop of a May 2013 investigative report by
ProPublica.  In it, the media outlet described how World
Acceptance's installment loans -- which are paid back over time --
and other products effectively trapped many customers in a cycle
of spiraling debt.

World Acceptance operates more than 1,200 locations in 13 states
and in Mexico and specializes in lending to people who may not
otherwise qualify for financing.

Edna Selan Epstein and the prospective class are represented by
Marlon Kimpson -- mkimpson@motleyrice.com -- and David Abel of
Motley Rice LLC, Joseph E. White III and Lester R. Hooker of
Saxena White PA, Katherine M. Ryan and Richard A. Maniskas of Ryan
& Maniskas LLP, and Jack Reise -- JReise@rgrdlaw.com -- of Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

The defendants are represented by Benjamin Johnson --
bjohnson@rbh.com -- of Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson and Emily Newton
of King & Spalding.

The case is Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et al., case
number 6:14-cv-01606, in the U.S. District Court of South
Carolina.


XUNLEI LIMITED: Rosen Law Firm files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 8
disclosed it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Xunlei Limited American Depository Shares: (1)
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial public offering
on or about June 24, 2014; and/or (2) on the open market between
June 24, 2014 and May 20, 2015, inclusive.  The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Xunlei investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Xunlei class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-624.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

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

According to the lawsuit, Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose the material risk that Xunlei's
strategic focus on Project Crystal and its mobility initiative
would have a detrimental impact on the Company's financial
condition.  When the true details entered the market, the
Company's stock fell $1.69 per share or almost 15% to close at
$9.71 per share on May 21, 2015, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 7, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-624.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

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


* Class Actions Listed as Top Litigation Issue Globally
-------------------------------------------------------
Claims Journal reports that class action lawsuits were listed as
the top litigation issue by respondents in the U.S., Canada and
Australia, according to the latest 2015 Litigation Trends Annual
Survey.  The UK ranked an overall increase in litigation --
including frivolous lawsuits -- as the top issue, the report
issued by global legal practice Norton Rose Fulbright noted.

This year's survey is the 11th overall and the most extensive in
its history, polling more than 800 corporate counsel representing
companies across 26 countries on disputes-related issues and
concerns.  Survey respondents -- primarily general counsel --
indicated that the increasing number of class action lawsuits and
a more litigious business environment were the most important
issues impacting their companies.

The survey was conducted by Acritas, a global legal services
market business research firm.

"What we are seeing is a direct response to the ever-broadening
array of legal and regulatory challenges that companies face
today.  As the business environment becomes more complex,
companies are spending more out of necessity to protect their
interests and ensure that they are represented properly," said
Gerry Pecht, global head of Dispute Resolution and Litigation at
Norton Rose Fulbright.

A quarter of all respondents reported at least one class or group
action against their companies in the preceding 12 months, with
survey participants from the U.S. comprising 80 percent of that
number.  And 71 percent of those who reported a class action had
more than one filed against their companies in the previous 12
months.

U.S. based respondents also reported a more litigious business
environment than their peers, with 55 percent facing more than
five lawsuits filed against their companies in the previous 12
months, compared with 23 percent in the UK and 22 percent in
Australia.  Just 18 percent of US companies reported no lawsuits,
compared with 42 percent in the UK and 36 percent in Australia.

Regulatory and investigations matters are a focus for in-house
counsel, with 39 percent of respondents citing those issues as
their top concern.

Among companies with revenues of $1 billion or more, 51 percent
indicate they have one or more regulatory proceeding pending
against them.  Half of respondents indicate their company has
retained outside counsel for assistance in a government or
regulatory investigation.  Across the entire sample, 44 percent of
respondents indicate they have had at least one internal
investigation requiring assistance of outside counsel in the
previous 12 months.

In general, respondents expect the legal environment to continue
to grow in complexity.  Overall, 25 percent of respondents
anticipate litigation against their companies increasing in the
next 12 months, compared with just 14 percent who predict it will
decrease. Twenty-two (22) percent increased the number of outside
firms on their rosters in the past year. And half of all
respondents have spent more time during the last three years
addressing regulatory requests or enforcement proceedings.

Respondents were given a list of more than 20 categories of
pending litigation their companies faced over the past 12 months,
and asked to select the top three to five.  Contracts,
labor/employment and regulatory/investigations received the most
selections from respondents, followed by personal injury and
IP/patents.


* Thailand Civil Procedure Code Amended to Allow Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chinnawat Thongpakdee, Janaki Tampi and Chotika Voravongsakul of
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, in an article for Lexology, report
that the Thai Civil Procedure Code has been amended to allow for
class action suits to be brought by large groups of plaintiffs for
breach of civil wrongs, including breach of tort, breach of
contract and breach of labor rights.  The amendment is the product
of a 14-year class-action amendment consultation process,
involving collaboration between Thailand and the United States.
The resulting Thai class action law is heavily based on United
States class action civil procedure laws.

1. The new class action law

Forty-nine new provisions will be incorporated into the Civil
Procedure Code enabling class action suits to be brought for
wrongful acts and for breach of any right protected under the law.
This includes rights under environmental law, consumer protection
law, securities and exchange law, competition law as well as
labour law.

This is a significant development in Thai civil procedure law; it
is the first time that plaintiffs in Thailand will have the right
to bring civil action in large classes.

Proclaimed in the Thai Royal Gazette on April 8, 2015, the
amendment will take effect on December 4, 2015.

Key elements of the new class action law

The amendment defines a 'class' to include one or more persons
having similar characteristics to each other as against the
defendant, where each member of the class possesses the same
rights in relation to the same 'common facts'.  A person may fall
within a class even if that person suffers a different kind of
damage to another member of the class.

Members of a class will be notified of a class action being
initiated through a publication and notice procedure.

All Thai Courts, except for the District Court, which ordinarily
have jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by a single plaintiff,
will have jurisdiction to hear a related class action.  For
example if the class action claim relates to breach of labor
rights, the competent court will be the Labour Court as it is
empowered with the jurisdiction to hear individual labor law
cases.

A prescription period (limitation period) for class members will
stop running when the class action suit is filed, to prevent
potential class members from being time-barred.

Competent courts hearing class actions will have inquisitorial
powers to summon qualified persons or experts to testify as
witnesses in courts, in the role of an amicus curie.

Unlike US law on class actions, the amendment only permits
sub-division of classes on the ground of differing nature of
damages, and not where there are differences within in the class
with respect to points of facts or points of law.  The explanatory
memorandum attached to the amendment provides an example to
explain permitted subdivision of classes.  The example is a class
of plaintiffs who are injured by contaminated wastewater emitted
from an industrial plant into a river.  The explanatory memorandum
explains that subdivision of class members would be permissible as
between plaintiffs who suffered injuries as a result of water
extraction for agricultural purposes and plaintiffs who suffered
injuries from ingesting contaminated drinking water.

Class members only have a right of appeal in respect of judgement
debt, and no right of appeal to the Appeal Court or to the Supreme
Court on the grounds of error of law or fact.

2. An extensive amendment consultation process

The amendment is the product of a long consultation process, which
began in 2001 when the Securities Exchange Commission of Thailand
(SEC) submitted to the Office of the Council of State, a draft law
on Class Actions for Securities Proceedings (draft law).  The
draft law proposed to enable the SEC to file a lawsuit on behalf
of classes of injured debenture holders. The draft law was heavily
based on Rule 23 of the United States Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

The Office of Council of State referred the draft law to the Civil
Procedure Code Revision Committee (CPCR) for consideration.  The
CPCR undertook extensive consultations, and determined that the
right of class action suit should not be limited to debenture
holders only, and should be extended to enable class actions to be
brought in situations of extensive loss as a result of breach of
tort, breach of contract or other civil rights protected under the
law.  The CPCR appointed a Subcommittee to undertake further
consultations and draft the text of a broad class action law.

The Subcommittee's consultation and drafting process was supported
by USAID, under the 'Accelerating Economic Recovery in Asia'
program, which enabled dialogue to be established between lawyers
in Thailand and lawyers in the United States.  These dialogues
were further supported by the Kenan Institute Asia and the
American Bar Association and the US Embassy in Thailand.
Unsurprisingly, the new draft law is heavily based on US class
action procedural law.

3. The dawn of a new era of civil litigation in Thailand

Companies and business operators should be prepared for the
potential of increased exposure to litigation after the amendment
comes into effect in December 2015.

Especially in the context of labor law disputes, Thailand already
is an employee friendly jurisdiction and the amendment will likely
be received well by labor unions and employee groups.  Employers
should be cautious as the new amendment takes effect, and ensure
that their labor law practices and procedures comply with Thai
minimum requirements to avoid the risk of a class action being
brought by aggrieved employees.


                            *********

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  * * *