CAR_Public/150701.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 1, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 130


                            Headlines


1111 ROOF: "Nielsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
2 BROS: Faces "Aca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
2 BROS: Faces "Flores-Altamirano " Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
A.C.E. RESTAURANT: Faces Suit for Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ALLERGAN PLC: Teamsters File Suit Over Asacol(R)

ALLIED WASTE: Settles Class Action Over Pay Deductions
ALLSTATE CORP: No Discovery Yet on Value of Class Members' Claims
ALLSTATE CORP: Defending Against 2 Wage & Hour Actions in Calif.
ALLSTATE CORP: Trial Proceedings Begin in "Romero" Cases
AMEDISYS INC: Wants High Court to Review Class Action Ruling

AMERICAN INT'L SPECIALTY: Property Owners Sue Over Policy
AMERICAN SALES: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Bag Check Policies
APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces Suit Over Aetna Insurance Plan Terms
ARCELORMITTAL MONESSEN: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Air Pollution

ARCH COAL: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan Losses
ATWELLS REALTY: Faces "Binieda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BFC FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $36.5 Million
BLACK TOWNSHIP, IN: ACLU Files Suit Over Drug Testing
BODYPLEX INC: Faces "Stone" Suit in Ga. Over TCPA Violation

BONDS COMMERCIAL: Sued in Ala. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BP PLC: Court Refuses to Invalidate $2.7MM Johnson Settlement
BULLDOG CONNECTION: Faces Claims for Overtime Wages Under FLSA
BUTLER & HOSCH: Faces Class Action Over False Invoices
CADILLAC LOUNGE: Faces "Pizzarelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CAJUN PRESSURE: Faces Claims for Unpaid Overtime Wage Under FLSA
CALIBER HOME: Faces "Lee" Suit Over TCPA Violation
CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle With Merchant Plaintiffs
CAPITAL ONE: Settlement in Overdraft Suit Preliminarily Approved
CAPITAL ONE: TCPA Class Members File Appeal to 7th Circuit

CASEY'S GENERAL: "Hot Fuel" Plaintiffs Seek Settlement Approval
CHASE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Fee Award in "Herbison" Case
CLARK INVESTIGATIONS: Sued Over Improper Use of Company Assets
COGNATE BIOSERVICES: Sued Over Conversion Price Arrangement
D' ARCHITECT: Sued Over Failure to Complete Construction Project

DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Claim Pending
DG MECHANICAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law Violations
DIRECTV LLC: Doesn't Properly Pay Installers, "Bannett" Suit Says
DUSARA CORP: Faces Suit for Alleged Phone Call Recording
FEDEX CORP: Settles Independent Contractor Suit for $228MM

FLYING FOOD: Food Safety Practices May Pose Risk to Passengers
GENERAL MOTORS: Law Firm Accused of Conspiring to Cover Up Defect
GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Files Expanded Airbag Class Action
GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Faces "Vega-Encarnacion" False Ad Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Suit Over Disclosures

GOLDMAN SACHS: Investor Moved for Class Certification
GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Moved for Summary Judgment
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of "Force-Placed" Insurance Case Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in RALI Pass-Through Certs. Case Okayed
GOLDMAN SACHS: Contributed to MF Global Securities Case Accord

GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in FireEye Securities Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Millennial Litigation
GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Cobalt Securities Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs' Counsel Wants 2 Females to Intervene
GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaints Filed in Commodities Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Platinum Case
GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought
GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Nixed Bid to Dismiss Currencies-Related Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in Commodity Exchange Act Suits
GOLFSMITH USA: Faces "Uyehara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GVA INC: Removed "Hoffman" Class Suit to New Jersey Dist. Court
HARRIS FUNERAL: "Newton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HCC INSURANCE: Sued in Del. Ch. Over Unlawful Company Merger
HEALTH CANADA: Medical Marijuana Users File Privacy Class Action
HEALTH NET: Class Action Remains Stayed

HOLIDAY INN: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HONDA: Expects to Spend JPY45 Billion on Air Bag-Related Recalls
HOOSIER RACING: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Racing Tires
IAG: Christchurch Homeowner to Lead Earthquake Insurance Suit
IDAHO: Mental Health Services Improved Following Settlement

INSULET CORP: ATRS Alleges Violation of Securities Act
INTEGRYS ENERGY: Says Settlement to Be Presented to Court
IOWA: Adds More People to "Do-Not-Hire" List Despite Controversy
ISORAY INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
JACK'S BAR-B-Q: "Whitehead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

KEURIG GREEN: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
KLX ENERGY: Accused of Violating FLSA, Penn. Minimum Wage Act
LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Privacy Class Action for $13 Million
M & M ASPHALT: Accused of Failure to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA
MASSACHUSETTS: Prisoners File Class Action Over Hep C Treatments

MICHAEL KORS: Settles Class Action Deceptive Price Tags
MIGAR CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MINNESOTA: Set to Rule on Sex Offender Program Class Action
MISSISSIPPI: DOC Violated Eighth Amendment Rights, Court Says
MUD MASTERS: Faces "Saenz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

NATIONAL HOCKEY: Settles Class Action Over TV Blackouts
ORIENTAL BAKERY: Faces "Castaneda" Suit for Unpaid Wages
PAPA JOHN'S: Trial Scheduled for August 2015 in "Perrin" Action
PERKINS COIE: De Graff's Employment Suit Back in State Court
PGA TOUR: July 23 Hearing on Motion to Transfer Venue of Suit

PFIZER INC: Can See Expert Report in Zoloft Birth Defect Case
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Judge Allows Civil Forfeiture Suit to Proceed
PIZZA 18: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law
POLLO OPERATIONS: Sued in Fla. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
REGIS CORPORATION: Fong Gets OK to File 2nd Amended Complaint

RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
ROSS STORES: Faces "Jacobo" Suit Over False Merchandise Prices
SANOFI: Faces ERISA Class Action in New Jersey
SOLID BUILDERS: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV: May Join Higher Educ Segregation Suit

SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SOUTHEAST FORMWORK: Faces Suit for Violation of Overtime Wage Law
SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Court Denied Motion Seeking Leave to Amend
SUMMIT NURSING: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TABLE FOR EIGHT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Wang" Suit Says

TACO & BURRITO: Face "Pedroza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TAKATA CORP: Airbag Likely Involved in Car Crash in Louisiana
TBC CORPORATION: Faces "Desimoni" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Class Cert. Hearings Set for Nov. 30 to Dec. 2
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Canada Class Actions in Preliminary Stage

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: To Contest Products Liability/ Warranty Claim
THAXTON INVESTMENT: Accused of Violating FLSA, S.C. Wages Act
TOTAL MERCHANT: Faces "Detore" Suit Over Unlawful Company Sale
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Gillette" and "Mohamed" Suit May Proceed
UNITED AIR: Ct. Rules on Bid for More time to File Amended Case
UNITED FURNITURE: Court Appeal Uphold Class Action Dismissal
UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies DHS Medicare Appeal Class Action
UNITED STATES: Immigrants Sue Border Patrol in Tucson

UNITED STATES: Immigrant Detention Policy Reforms Sought
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Faces Class Suit Over Soccer Concussions
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action
VINCENZO DI: "Tamay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VITTAL ARGENTINA: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA

WALMART STORES: May Owe Truck Drivers More $100+ Mil. in Back Pay
WARNER MUSIC: Settles Intern Class Action for $4.2 Million
WELLS FARGO: Challenges Class Action Certification
WIPRO: Overtime Class Action Transferred to Federal Court
YAHOO INC: Faces Eavesdropping Class Action in Illinois

YAHOO INC: Fights Class Action Over Email Scanning Practices
ZIRX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over FLSA Violations


                            *********


1111 ROOF: "Nielsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Nielsen, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 1111 Roof Top, LLC and Jonas Millan, Case No. 1:15-cv-
22308-UU (S.D. Fla., June 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage compensation,
reimbursement for tips illegally taken, liquidated damages, and
other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate the Juvia restaurant in Miami
Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert William Brock II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
      17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-6800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
      E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


2 BROS: Faces "Aca" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Aca, Luis Medina, Anibal Alifonso Polanco, Luciano Rosas,
and Luciano Rosas on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 2
Bros Harlem 2, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04784-LGS (S.D.N.Y.,
June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

2 Bros Harlem 2, Inc. owns and operates a chain of pizza
restaurants in various boroughs in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony R. Portesy, Esq.
      SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
      445 Broad Hollow Road
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 420-9300
      Facsimile: (631) 465-7052
      E-mail: anthony.portesy@gmail.com


2 BROS: Faces "Flores-Altamirano " Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Flores-Altamirano, et al. v. Yehoshua Halali, Eli Halali,  2
Bros 6th Ave Inc., 2 Bros Harlem 2, Inc., 2 Bros Harlem Inc., 2
Bros 8th Ave Inc. and 2 Bros Fordham Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04777-
ER (S.D.N.Y., June 18, 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 chain of pizza restaurants in
various boroughs in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett Mathew Schatz, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF BRETT M. SCHATZ
      352 7th Avenue Suite 1207
      New York, Ny 10001
      Telephone: (212) 631-7463
      Facsimile: (646) 786-3325
      E-mail: bschatz@bmsfirm.com


A.C.E. RESTAURANT: Faces Suit for Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Erica Sargent, individually and on Behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. A.C.E. Restaurant Group, Inc. d/b/a
Houlihan's and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case 1:15-cv-04013-JHR-AMD
(D.N.J., June 13, 2015) seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
unpaid wages, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

A.C.E. Restaurant is a New Jersey corporation engaged in the
restaurant business, and specifically operating "Houlihan's"
franchises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
      Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C.
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054
      Tel: (856) 751-3737


ALLERGAN PLC: Teamsters File Suit Over Asacol(R)
------------------------------------------------
Teamsters Union 25 Health Services & Insurance Plan; NECA-IBEW
Welfare Trust Fund on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Allergan, plc (f/k/a ACTAVIS, PLC), Warner
Chilcott Limited; Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cadila
Healthcare Limited, Case 1:15-cv-12730-GAO (D. Mass, June 22,
2015), alleges that Warner Chilcott employed a multi-faceted
scheme to frustrate generic competition with its name-brand drug
Asacol(R).

Defendant Allergan plc is a public limited company incorporated
under the laws of Ireland. Allergan maintains a place of business
within the United States at New Jersey.  It markets branded and
generic pharmaceuticals throughout the United States and has
commercial operations in the United States and approximately 100
countries around the world. The Company became a successor in
interest to Warner Chilcott plc and Proctor & Gamble
Pharmaceuticals Inc. when it acquired Warner Chilcott plc on
October 1, 2013.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Glen DeValerio, Esq.
      Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One Liberty Square
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 542-8300
      Fax: (617) 542-1192
      E-mail: gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com
              norenstein@bermandevalerio.com

         - and -

      Tyler W. Hudson, Esq.
      Eric D. Barton, Esq.
      David Barclay, Esq.
      WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL, LLP
      4740 Grand Avenue, Ste. 300
      Kansas City, MO 64112
      Tel: (816) 701-1100
      Fax: (816) 531-2372
      E-mail: thudson@wagstaffcartmell.com
              ebarton@wagstaffcartmell.com
              dbarclay@wagstaffcartmell.com

         - and -

     Peter J. Mougey, Esq.
     LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL,
        RAFFERTY & PROCTOR, P.A.
     316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Tel: (850) 435-7000
     Fax: (850) 435-7020
     E-mail: pmougey@levinlaw.com


ALLIED WASTE: Settles Class Action Over Pay Deductions
------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Pak-Harvey, writing for, Lowell Sun, reports that
Robert Swiderski had been working as a truck driver at Allied
Waste Services for over a decade when he noticed something
incorrect with his paycheck.

Mr. Swiderski, who works at the company's Tyngsboro location,
drives routes throughout Tewksbury, Bedford and Burlington picking
up the recycling and trash for Allied's clients.  He noticed his
salary included a deduction of $4.75 every hour for health
insurance, even though he didn't receive insurance benefits from
the company.

Six and a half million dollars later, Mr. Swiderski is one of 451
employees who will receive payment in a class-action settlement
for miscalculated deductions.

"I think it's fantastic," said Mr. Swiderski, who lives in
Hooksett, N.H. "It's drastically going to change everybody's life,
and I would say in a positive way."

Allied, part of the waste company Republic Services, also has
locations in Revere, Fall River and Plymouth.  It will pay $6.5
million to Massachusetts employees who had the faulty deductions
in a settlement that divided the recipients into two classes --
those that did not have company health insurance, and those with
company health insurance that had more than the correct amount
deducted.

The 61 employees like Mr. Swiderski who didn't sign up for
insurance will collectively take home $3.4 million, three times
more than what they were originally owed.

The other 390 will receive roughly $3 million, or 1.6 times more
than what they're due.

The increased payout conforms with a state law that mandates
triple damages in unpaid wage cases, according to Mr. Swiderski's
attorneys.

Attorney Adam Shafran said Allied was very professional throughout
the entire process and treated everyone well, but he expressed
some doubt that the miscalculations were a mistake.

"For the individuals that got health insurance, it may have been a
bit of an oversight," he said.  "For individuals like Rob that did
not get health insurance, we don't really know one way or another.
Although we do have a little bit of trouble believing it was
completely innocent."

Attorney Jonathan Friedmann, who also represented Mr. Swiderski in
the class-action suit, said the decision was a good judicial
process with professionalism on all sides.

"If this matter had not been handled as a class action, there
could've been 60 or 70 different lawsuits easily, and it would've
taken up an exorbitant amount of court time," he said.

Meanwhile, Allied Waste Services of Massachusetts said in a
statement that it remains committed to complying with wage laws.

"Because the law governing wage calculations is vague,
particularly with respect to benefits calculations, we performed
the calculations according to our best understanding of the law
and the available agency guidance," the statement read.  "We are
happy to make this right with our valued employees and to put this
matter behind all of us."

Mr. Swiderski also said Allied has treated him very fairly.

"I have no hard feelings for the company at all," he said.  "They
have treated me exceptionally well throughout this process."


ALLSTATE CORP: No Discovery Yet on Value of Class Members' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that to date no discovery
has occurred related to the potential value of the class members'
claims in the class action in Montana state court challenging
aspects of its claim handling practices in Montana.

Allstate is vigorously defending a class action lawsuit in Montana
state court challenging aspects of its claim handling practices in
Montana.  The plaintiff alleges that the Company adjusts claims
made by individuals who do not have attorneys in a manner that
unfairly resulted in lower payments compared to claimants who were
represented by attorneys.  In January 2012, the court certified a
class of Montana claimants who were not represented by attorneys
with respect to the resolution of auto accident claims.  The court
certified the class to cover an indefinite period that commences
in the mid-1990's.  The certified claims include claims for
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and punitive damages in an
unspecified amount.  Injunctive relief may include a claim process
by which unrepresented claimants could request that their claims
be readjusted.  No compensatory damages are sought on behalf of
the class.  The Company appealed the order certifying the class.

In August 2013, the Montana Supreme Court affirmed in part, and
reversed in part, the lower court's order granting plaintiff's
motion for class certification and remanded the case for trial.
The Company petitioned for rehearing of the Montana Supreme
Court's decision, which the Court denied.

In January 2014, the Company timely filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of the
Montana Supreme Court's decision.  On May 5, 2014, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.  The
case will continue in Montana state court.  The state trial court
scheduled trial for November, 2016 and ordered the parties to
mediation by May 15, 2015. To date no discovery has occurred
related to the potential value of the class members' claims.  The
Company has asserted various defenses with respect to the
plaintiff's claims, which have not been finally resolved.


ALLSTATE CORP: Defending Against 2 Wage & Hour Actions in Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
vigorously litigating two class action cases in California in
which the plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims.

One case, involving two classes, is pending in Los Angeles
Superior Court and was filed in December 2007.  In this case, one
class includes auto physical damage adjusters employed in the
state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final
judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-
clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior
to their first assignments.  The other class includes all non-
exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until
January 2010 who received pay statements from Allstate which
allegedly did not comply with California law.

The other case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in September 2010.  In April 2012,
the trial court certified the class, and Allstate appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On September 3, 2014, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision to certify the class,
and Allstate filed a motion for rehearing en banc.  Allstate's
motion for rehearing en banc was denied and on January 27, 2015,
Allstate filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court.

In addition to off-the-clock claims, the plaintiffs in this case
allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from
purported unpaid overtime.  The class in this case includes all
adjusters in the state of California from September 29, 2006 to
final judgment.  Plaintiffs in both cases seek recovery of unpaid
compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

In addition to the California class actions, a case was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly
classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  The case was filed in April 2011, and
the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.  On September 16, 2014, the court certified a
class of no-fault adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused
to decertify a Fair Labor Standards Act class of no-fault
adjusters.


ALLSTATE CORP: Trial Proceedings Begin in "Romero" Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
vigorously defending certain matters in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the Company's
agency program reorganization announced in 1999.  The current
focus in these matters relates to a release of claims signed by
the vast majority of agents who were participants in the
reorganization program.  These matters include the following:

Romero I: In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on
behalf of a putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee
agents, filed a putative class action alleging claims for age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a
claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims
constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits.

Romero II: A putative nationwide class action was also filed in
2001 by former employee agents alleging various violations of
ERISA ("Romero II"). This action has been consolidated with Romero
I. The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in
Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension
Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent
contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents
Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole"
or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result
of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor
status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and
December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged
amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits
revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents,
and attorneys' fees and costs. The court granted the Company's
initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

Romero I and II consolidated proceedings: In 2004, the court ruled
that the release was voidable and certified classes of agents,
including a mandatory class of agents who had signed the release,
for purposes of effecting the court's declaratory judgment that
the release was voidable. In 2007, the court vacated its ruling
and granted the Company's motion for summary judgment on all
claims. Plaintiffs appealed and in July 2009, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the trial court's entry of
summary judgment in the Company's favor, remanded the case to the
trial court for additional discovery, and instructed the trial
court to first address the validity of the release after
additional discovery. Following the completion of discovery
limited to the validity of the release, the parties filed cross
motions for summary judgment with respect to the validity of the
release. On February 28, 2014, the trial court denied plaintiffs'
and the Company's motions for summary judgment, concluding that
the question of whether the releases were knowingly and
voluntarily signed under a totality of circumstances test raised
disputed issues of fact to be resolved at trial. Among other
things, the court also held that the release, if valid, would bar
all claims in Romero I and II. On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved
to certify a class as to certain issues relating to the validity
of the release. The court denied plaintiffs' class certification
motion on October 6, 2014, stating, among other things, that
individual factors and circumstances must be considered to
determine whether each release signer entered into the release
knowingly and voluntarily. The court entered an order on December
11, 2014, (a) stating that the court's October 6, 2014 denial of
class certification as to release-related issues did not resolve
whether issues relating to the merits of plaintiffs' claims may be
subject to class certification at a later time, and (b) holding
that the court's October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of
the statute of limitation for any former employee agent who wished
to challenge the validity of the release. In an order entered
January 7, 2015, the court denied reconsideration of its December
11, 2014 order and clarified that all statutes of limitations to
challenge the release would resume running on March 2, 2015. On
April 21, 2015, the court granted various motions to allow
additional plaintiffs to join Romero I. There is now a total of
431 individual plaintiffs. Trial proceedings are scheduled to
commence in the second quarter of 2015 for the original named
plaintiffs in Romero I to determine the question of whether their
releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed.


AMEDISYS INC: Wants High Court to Review Class Action Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang and Ed Beeson, writing for Law360, report that
Amedisys Inc. urged the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Fifth
Circuit decision reviving a shareholder putative class action
accusing the home health care provider of defrauding investors by
hiding a Medicare scheme, saying the pleading standard for loss
causation is ripe for high court review.

In a reply brief filed on June 9, Amedisys said the Fifth Circuit
evaluated loss causation using a less-stringent plausibility
standard under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and not the
heightened pleading standard "as it was obliged to do."

"Because respondents' operative complaint fails to satisfy this
Rule 9(b) requirement, the district court's dismissal should not
have been reversed," Amedisys wrote in the brief.  "If this court
reverses the Fifth Circuit, then that court can decide on remand
whether leave to amend the operative complaint should be granted."

Amedisys said the Supreme Court's 2005 ruling in Dura
Pharmaceuticals v. Broudo left open the question of whether
heightened pleading standards should apply for loss causation in
securities fraud cases, on which it said the federal circuit
courts are split.

"Respondents are wrong to argue that the court has already
resolved the question whether Rule 9(b) requires particularized
pleading of loss causation," Amedisys said.  "And they are wrong
to argue that the court should not do so now."

An attorney for the shareholders told Law360 on June 12 they were
optimistic about their chances, in light of the Fifth Circuit
reversal and subsequent denial of an en banc hearing last
December.

"We are very confident that, as the Fifth Circuit unanimously
held, this case easily satisfies the pleading standards for loss
causation," said John Browne -- johnb@blbglaw.com -- of Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

A representative for Amedisys did not immediately respond to a
request for comment on June 12.

The recent brief is the latest in a case first filed in 2010 in
which shareholders accused Amedisys and several executives of
improperly inflating Medicare reimbursements by pressuring and
intimidating nurses and therapists to provide unnecessary
treatment to trigger higher fees.

The complaint says Amedisys also made several false and misleading
statements that artificially inflated the price of the company's
stock.

The plaintiffs, led by the Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi, have pointed to a number of partial disclosures that
leaked into the market and caused the system great economic loss,
including a 2008 report raising questions about Amedisys' Medicare
billing practices, the 2009 resignation of the company's CEO and
chief information officer, and a 2010 news story indicating the
company might be taking advantage of the Medicare reimbursement
system.

The complaint also cites investigations into Amedisys' billing
practices by the Senate Finance Committee, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice in 2010.
In April 2014, the Justice Department announced that Amedisys
agreed to pay $150 million to settle False Claims Act suits that
accused some of its offices of billing Medicare for ineligible
patients and services.

U.S. District Judge Brian A. Jackson dismissed the shareholder
suit in July 2012, finding that the plaintiffs did not provide the
basis for a loss causation claim.

In resurrecting the lawsuit last October, the Fifth Circuit ruled
that the company's actions should have been considered
collectively, rather than separately.

The appeals panel criticized the district court for reviewing each
partial disclosure of Amedisys' conduct alone, then concluding
that none of them was sufficient to constitute a corrective
disclosure for a loss causation claim.  The panel endorsed a more
holistic approach instead.

"This holding can best be understood by simply observing that the
whole is greater than the sum of its parts," the panel said.  "The
district court erred in imposing an overly rigid rule that
government investigations can never constitute a corrective
disclosure in the absence of a discovery of actual fraud."

The retirement system is represented by John C. Browne of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

Amedisys is represented by Jeffrey S. Bucholtz, James P. Sullivan,
Michael R. Smith and David E. Meadows of King & Spalding LLP.
Former Amedisys executives Larry Graham and Alice-Ann Schwartz are
represented by A. Paul LeBlanc Jr. -- paul.leblanc@phelps.com --
of Phelps Dunbar LLP.

The case is Amedisys Inc. et al. v. Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi et al., case number 14-1200, in the U.S.
Supreme Court.


AMERICAN INT'L SPECIALTY: Property Owners Sue Over Policy
---------------------------------------------------------
One Belle Hall Property Owners' Association, Inc., Marvin T. Meek
and Francis E. Hill v. American International Specialty Lines
Insurance Company (AISLIC) and Trammell Crow Residential Company
A/K/A Trammell Crow Residential - CCIP a/k/a Trammell Crow
Residential a/k/a TCR, 2:15-cv-02477-RMG (D. S.C., June 19, 2015),
seeks full indemnity for AISLIC Policy.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Justin Lucey, Esq.
      Dabny Lynn, Esq.
      415 Mill Street
      PO Box 806
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
      Tel: (843) 849-8400
      E-mail: jlucey@lucey-law.com
              dlynn@lucey-law.com


AMERICAN SALES: Accused of Violating Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Lantigua Gomez, Amaury Gonzalez, Lieng Un Rey, Carlos
Zelaya, Jose E. Mora Yera, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) v. American Sales and Management
Organization, LLC d/b/a Eulen America, Eulen America, Inc., Case
1:15-cv-22327-DPG (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), requests double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants, jointly and
severally, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

American Sales And Management Organization Corporation provides
ground handling and passenger services for domestic and foreign
carriers including cargo, ramp, passenger, and security services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Over Bag Check Policies
-----------------------------------------------------
CNN reports that an Apple Store employee told Tim Cook that the
company treats its staff like "criminals."  That's according to a
recently unsealed e-mail that is part of a lawsuit filed against
Apple in 2013.  The suit, filed in federal court in California,
alleges that Apple Store employees were not paid wages for time
spent waiting while managers checked the workers' personal bags
for stolen iGizmos before they left the store.

In an e-mail sent on April 2, 2012, with the subject line
"Fearless Feedback from Apple Retail Specialist," an unnamed
employee told Cook that the bag check policies are "both insulting
and demeaning to Apple employees."

The employee said Apple Store employees are issued a card with the
serial numbers of all their personal Apple devices.  Managers ask
employees to present their iPhones and cards when they leave, and
then they perform a bag check -- often in front of "gawking
customers."

"These procedures imply that Apple doesn't trust or respect their
employees," the person wrote.  "Managers are required to treat
'valued' employees as criminals."

When Mr. Cook received the e-mail from the Apple Store employee,
he forwarded it to the executives in charge of retail and HR,
asking, "Is this true?"

The court did not unseal Mr. Cook's reply to the Apple Store
employee's email or the executive team's response to Cook.

In another email to Mr. Cook, sent on January 28, 2013, a Beijing
Apple Store employee said, "Apple treats employees as animals."
The unnamed employee noted that the Sidan Joy City Apple Store in
China's capital city has an emergency exit that's blocked by Apple
products.  The person also complained about the bag check policy
in the email.

After being forwarded the email from Mr. Cook, HR chief Denise
Young Smith wrote to Apple's strategies head Carol Monkowski that
the company should think about changing its policy.

"I don't like that practice either, but I do understand why they
believe it's necessary," Ms. Young wrote.  "I'd like to explore
other options, i.e, random checks like TSA.  If it is simply a
deterrent, there has to be a more intelligent and respectful way
to approach."

Ms. Smith proposed suspending the policy for three to six months
and tracked how many more products were stolen.

Ms. Montkowski replied that a review of the store's practices
seemed prudent

Apple still performs bag checks, but it's unclear if Apple ever
actually changed its official policy.  An Apple spokeswoman did
not respond to a request for comment.

In the lawsuit, two former Apple store employees claim that the
bag checks were performed after clocking out.  Some days the wait
was longer than five or ten minutes, which added up to $1,500 in
unpaid wages per year for one worker.  Apple Store employees
typically make between $12 and $18 per hour.

Apple also faces a separate class action lawsuit from retail
employees who say they were denied meal breaks and rest periods in
violation of California labor law.  Among other things, the
lawsuit claims Apple employees were forced to work for stretches
of five hours or more without meals, and they didn't get breaks on
shorter shifts.

As part of that lawsuit, the Apple Store employees complained that
the company restricts them from talking about Apple's labor
conditions with one another, allowing the company to "invoke fear
into the class members that if they so much as discuss the various
labor policies, they run the risk of being fired, sued or
disciplined."


APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces Suit Over Aetna Insurance Plan Terms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria and Neil Stewart, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Applied Materials, Inc., Aetna Life
Insurance Company; Aetna Health Of California, Inc. Case3:15-cv-
02632 (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2015) seek appropriate equitable and
injunctive relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 to compel Defendants to change their health insurance
plans' language, policies and practices.

Aetna Life Insurance Company ("Aetna Life") is a corporation with
its principal place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut.
Aetna Life is responsible for drafting and promulgating the
internal level of care and coverage determination guidelines.

Aetna Health of California, Inc. ("Aetna Health") is a corporation
with its principal place of business located in Walnut Creek,
California. Aetna Health is responsible for drafting and
promulgating internal level of care and coverage determination
guidelines.

Defendant Applied Materials, Inc. is a corporation with its
principal place of business located in Santa Clara, California,
authorized to transact and transacting business in the Northern
District of California. Applied Materials, Inc. is the Plan
Sponsor of the Aetna medical plans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
      Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
      Andrew M. Kantor, Esq.
      KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
      19839 Nordhoff Street
      Northridge, CA 91324
      Tel: (818) 886-2525
      Fax: (818) 350-6272
      E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
              trozelle@kantorlaw.net
              akantor@kantorlaw.net


ARCELORMITTAL MONESSEN: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged Air Pollution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Viktoryia Maroz & Edward Tolliver, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Arcelormittal Monessen LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of Arcelormittal USA, Inc., Case 2:15-cv-00770-
AJS (W.D. Fla., June 12, 2015) was brought because of the alleged
release of noxious odors and air particulates onto Plaintiffs'
property, causing property damage through negligence, gross
negligence, public and private nuisance and trespass.

Arcelormittal Monessen constructed, operate and maintain the
ArcelorMittal Monessen Coke Plant in Monessen, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      James E. Depasquale, Esq.
      1302 Grant Building
      310 Grant Building
      310 Grant Street
      Pittsburg, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 471-1415

         - and -

      Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
      Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
      Brandon T. Brown, Esq.
      LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
      975 E. Jefferson Avenue
      Detroit, MI 482017
      Tel: (313) 392-0015
      Fax: (313) 392-0025
      E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
              ncoulson@ldclassaction.com
              bbrown@ldclassaction.com

                           *     *     *

Chris Buckley, writing for TribLive, reports that two Mon Valley
residents are pursuing a federal class-action lawsuit against the
owner of the Monessen coke plant, citing alleged odors emanating
from the facility.  The suit against the ArcelorMittal-Monessen
LLC Coke Plant was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of Viktoryia Maroz of
Donora, Edward Tolliver of Monessen "and all others similarly
situated."

The complaint claims the residents of more than 100 nearby
households have spoken with the plaintiffs' attorneys about their
experiences.  It notes that, based on the 2010 U.S. Census, more
than 2,700 households are within a mile of the 345 Donner Ave.
plant.  The suit seeks to represent a class of residents living
within 1-1/2 miles of the plant.

The complaint claims ArcelorMittal "failed to install and maintain
adequate technology to properly control its emissions."
The suit states the plant "has been the subject of frequent
complaints from residents."  It claims noxious odors and air
particulates emanate from the plant to neighboring homes "on
occasions too numerous to identify."

Ms. Maroz told The Valley Independent in February that she that
she had been in contact with the state Department of Environmental
Protection for months and that it had installed a monitoring
device in her backyard.  That month, the DEP acknowledged the
plant was under investigation because of "continued unlawful
emissions."

DEP spokesman John Poister said at the time that the coke plant
had been cited six times in 2014 for illegal emissions that
potentially could cause health problems.  At that time,
ArcelorMittal spokeswoman Mary Beth Holdford said the company "has
been working to continuously improve the environmental performance
of our Monessen coke plant since the facility restarted operations
last year."

Reached by email on June 12, Ms. Holdford said, "ArcelorMittal has
not been served with a lawsuit and, in any event, we do not
comment on pending litigation."

The suit seeks in excess of $75,000.


ARCH COAL: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan Losses
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Kirn, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reports that a
former Arch Coal employee is suing the trustees of the company's
retirement plan, alleging they invested retirement savings in Arch
stock though they should have known it was a risky investment.

Douglas Roe's suit, which was filed on June 9 in U.S. District
Court and seeks class-action status, says Arch Coal employees'
mismanagement of the Arch Coal Inc.  Employee Thrift Plan violates
the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

The suit comes as Arch, like other coal companies, is dealing with
the effects of a depressed coal market; it reported a first-
quarter loss of $113.2 million on revenue of $677 million and was
recently warned by the New York Stock Exchange that it is out of
compliance with the market's rule requiring an average price of $1
per share of common stock for 30 consecutive trading days.

During the period covered by the lawsuit, from the beginning of
2012 to the present, Arch Coal has seen its stock price drop
roughly 97 percent, from $13.87 per share to its current price of
about 44 cents per share.  From 2012 through 2014, the company
reported losses totaling nearly $1.9 billion.  The St. Louis-based
company, which employed 5,000 full- and part-time employees as of
Dec. 31, is headquartered at 1 CityPlace Drive in Creve Coeur.


ATWELLS REALTY: Faces "Binieda" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Binienda, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Atwells Realty Corp., and Gerard Disanto II, d/b/a all
Club Desire and Lust VIP,  Case No. 1:15-cv-00253 (D.R.I., June
20, 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 strip club located in Providence,
Rhode Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq.
      Brant Casavant, Esq.
      BIANCHI & BROUILLARD, P.C.
      The Hanley Building
      56 Pine Street, Suite 250
      Providence, RI 02903
      Telephone: (401) 223-2990
      Facsimile: (877) 548-4539
      E-mail: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com
              brant@fairworklaw.com


BFC FINANCIAL: Settles Shareholder Class Action for $36.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bandell, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that BFC Financial Corp. and its Woodbridge subsidiary agreed to
pay former minority shareholders of Bluegreen Corp. $36.5 million
after settling a class action lawsuit.

Fort Lauderdale-based BFC announced a deal to acquire full control
of timeshare developer Bluegreen in 2011.  It closed the deal for
$150 million, or $10 per share to the minority shareholders, in
2013.  It previously owned 54 percent of Bluegreen and the other
shares were on the public market.

BBX Capital Corp. retained a 46 percent interest in Bluegreen in
exchange for financing the deal.  The other 54 percent belongs to
BFC subsidiary Woodbridge.

Soon after the Bluegreen deal was announced, multiple shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed in Florida and Massachusetts
courts.  The suits alleged that the directors of Bluegreen and BFC
breached their fiduciary duties by not obtaining fair compensation
for selling Bluegreen and engineered a deal that allegedly
benefited the directors at the expense of minority shareholders.
Alan B. Levan is the chairman and CEO of both BFC and BBX and he
was the chairman of Bluegreen as well.  Mr. Levan and Vice
Chairman John "Jack" E. Abdo had substantial voting control of all
three companies through their stock ownership.


BLACK TOWNSHIP, IN: ACLU Files Suit Over Drug Testing
-----------------------------------------------------
Greensburg Daily News reports that a disabled, indigent Posey
County woman has sued a local official who denied her access to
necessary financial assistance because she could not take a drug
test required by the official to submit an application for
assistance, claiming the drug testing requirement violates the
United States Constitution.

The lawsuit against Black Township and Lindsay Suits, the Black
Township Trustee, was filed on June 12 by the American Civil
Liberties Union of Indiana on behalf of Mary Neale, a resident of
the township.  Ms. Neale previously received aid from the trustee
only after submitting a urine sample and passing a drug test.
Last year, when Neale's physical disabilities made submitting the
sample impossible, she was unable to apply for benefits.

The Black Township Trustee's policy of requiring applicants for
assistance to take a urine drug screen violates the Fourth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Further, the trustee's
failure to accommodate Neale's disability when she sought to apply
for assistance violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.

"The Constitution prohibits this type of suspicionless search and
seizure," said Ken Falk, ACLU of Indiana legal director.  "It is
wrong to condition the receipt of government benefits on the
waiver of fundamental rights that protect all of  us."

The class action lawsuit, Mary Neale, et al., v. Black Township,
Posey County, Ind.; Lindsay Suits, 3:15-cv-82-RLY-WGH, was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana on
June 11, 2015.


BODYPLEX INC: Faces "Stone" Suit in Ga. Over TCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Devin Stone, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bodyplex, Inc. and Does 1-10 (inclusive),
Case No. 1:15-cv-02220 (N.D. Ga., June 19, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
      LEMBERG & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      3rd Floor, 1100 Summer Street
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 653-2250
      E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com


BONDS COMMERCIAL: Sued in Ala. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmy Armstrong v. Michael Bonds, and Bonds Commercial Services,
LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01033-VEH (N.D. Ala., June 19, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime rates
for the hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Based in Boaz, Alabama, Bonds Commercial Services, LLC is a
provider of surety bond and insurance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Arciniegas, Esq.
      Jon C. Goldfarb, Esq.
      L. William Smith, Esq.
      Rachel L. McGinley, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203-3204
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dea@wigginschilds.com
              jcg@wigginschilds.com
              wsmith@wigginschilds.com
              RMcGinley@wigginschilds.com


BP PLC: Court Refuses to Invalidate $2.7MM Johnson Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has refused
to invalidate a nearly $2.7 million settlement that BP PLC reached
with a member of a boat crew who went to court to enforce the
award after he never got paid.

However, in its ruling on May 15, the panel determined that
claimant Elton Johnson will need to provide evidence to a lower
court that he didn't exaggerate injuries sustained in the 2010
blast that caused the Deepwater Horizon oil spill.

The case presents a rare window into the process BP set up to
compensate dozens of workers who were injured and the families of
the 11 who were killed from the blowout.  Most of those workers
and their relatives have settled their claims confidentially out
of court.

It also is the latest circumstance in which BP has insisted that
fraud has tainted the spill's claims process.  BP has spent
several years challenging its own $9.2 billion settlement for
economic damages on grounds that fraudulent claims allowed
businesses to receive inflated awards.

"The issue of how to deal with claimant fraud remains a recurring
and highly significant one in Deepwater Horizon litigation," wrote
BP attorney Richard Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- a
partner at Chicago's Kirkland & Ellis, in a July 11 appeals brief
in Johnson's case.

In that case, BP has asserted that Johnson didn't sign a release
waiving his right to sue and that his employer, Tidewater Marine
LLC, part of New Orleans-based Tidewater Inc., had provided
evidence that he exaggerated the extent of his injuries.
U. S. District Judge Carl Barbier.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans upheld
the settlement, which came out to more than $3.6 million with
interest.  The Fifth Circuit on May 15 affirmed Judge Barbier's
decision but remanded the case so that he could "determine whether
Johnson fraudulently induced BP into" agreeing to the settlement.

"We are pleased with the Fifth Circuit's decision vacating the
judgment awarding Mr. Johnson more than $3 million in damages,"
wrote BP spokesman Geoff Morrell.

Mr. Johnson's lawyer, Kurt Arnold of Arnold & Itkin in Houston,
disputed any allegations of potential fraud.

"They can throw around words like 'fraud' really easy in a legal
pleading, but the reality is they know this isn't a fraud case,"
Mr. Arnold said.  "They just dispute the extent of his injuries
and the amount they're paying for it."

The case shows the back-and-forth communications involving
Mr. Johnson, his employer and the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, set
up by BP and administered by Kenneth Feinberg to compensate for
monetary damages, including for physical injuries, arising from
the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Mr. Johnson was aboard a vessel that was roped to the Deepwater
Horizon rig for offloading drilling mud.  He claimed the explosion
threw him against a bulkhead, causing injuries to his back and
shoulder, a herniated disc and post-traumatic stress disorder.
The Gulf Coast Claims Facility sent Mr. Johnson a letter in 2011
stating he was entitled to nearly $2.7 million, which included
loss of income and medical expenses.
Soon afterward, Tidewater wrote a letter to the Gulf Coast Claims
Facility stating that the award was "excessive and unreasonable,"
according to the Fifth Circuit opinion.  Tidewater later sent
statements of other crew members indicating that Johnson might
have exaggerated his injuries.

Upon further investigation, the Gulf Coast Claims Facility denied
Johnson's claim in 2012.

On appeal, BP argued there was no agreement because Johnson hadn't
signed a release.  Mr. Johnson countered that BP never sent him
the release.  He also disputed potential fraud in a claim based on
numerous medical records.

"The only reason it's gotten to this point is Tidewater would have
had to pay for it under indemnity obligations," Mr. Arnold said.
"This is just an attempt of having to get out of paying the
settlement they reached."

The Fifth Circuit agreed that there was a settlement agreement but
ordered that Judge Barbier conduct an evidentiary hearing on the
fraud allegations.  "Because BP's evidence suggests that Johnson
may have submitted a wholly fabricated claim to the GCCF, BP may
raise fraudulent inducement as a defense to enforcement of the
settlement," the panel wrote.

In a dissent, Circuit Judge Priscilla Owen concluded that there
never had been a settlement because Mr. Johnson could have chosen
not to sign the release had it been sent.


BULLDOG CONNECTION: Faces Claims for Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Jaso, Jr., Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bulldog Connection Specialists, LLC, Case 2:15-cv-
00269 (S.D. Tex., June 16, 2015), seeks to recover overtime wages
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Bulldog Connection Specialists LLC is a Texas limited liability
providing business services industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      Craig M. Sico, Esq.
      SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP
      802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: 361/653-3300
      Fax: 361/653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com
              csico@swhhb.com

         - and -

      Timothy D. Raub
      RAUB LAW FIRM, P.C.
      814 Leopard Street
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: 361/880-8181
      Fax: 361/887-6521
      E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com


BUTLER & HOSCH: Faces Class Action Over False Invoices
------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reports that
Robert Hosch, the attorney that oversaw the collapse of the Butler
& Hosch law firm, created false billing and invoices to hide the
firm's financial trouble, according to allegations filed in
federal civil court on June 11.

Mr. Hosch, of Dallas, formerly lived in the Orlando area where he
ran the firm.  The firm closed suddenly on May 14, throwing 700
employees out of work with little notice.  Hundreds of employees
in Florida and thousands of foreclosure cases were affected.

Sudden collapse of Butler & Hosch law firm

The sudden collapse of the Butler & Hosch law firm is already
causing delays in some home foreclosure sales in Florida courts,
including Orange and Collier counties.

Mr. Hosch's name was added as a defendant on June 11 to a proposed
class action lawsuit filed in South Florida by two former
employees.

"False client invoices were intended to create the appearance to
the firm's lenders, and prospective lenders, that the firm's
accounts receivables were millions of dollars more than the actual
amount," the lawsuit states.  Later, it continues, "Hosch
orchestrated or, at a minimum, had knowledge of each of the four
fraudulent billing schemes . . . "

The South Florida suit was filed in the name of two former Butler
employees as plaintiffs, Stephen Regal and Gianna Hills.  The new
allegations against Mr. Hosch personally allege that he had almost
total control over the firm and its finances, and was a virtual
alter ego for the firm.

Attempts to reach Mr. Hosch or his spokeswoman about the new
allegations were not successful on June 11.  Mr. Hosch claimed the
firm ran out of money, and he handed over the reins to a fiduciary
who is responsible for trying to work out the firm's debts.

Source close to the firm said Mr. Hosch was pulling at least $1.2
million annually from the firm and its related companies as a
draft, and had an additional salary of $178,000.

Further allegations against the firm and Mr. Hosch are as follows:

Created more than $7 million in fictitious receivables through
false invoices that were never delivered to clients.

Mr. Hosch directed the firm to bill clients a bogus transfer fee
of $350 per file when taking over other firms, including The Korn
Firm, Pactific RTS and Morris Schneider Wittstadt.  For MSW, there
were 21,690 bogus invoices totaling more than $7.5 million.

Mr. Hosch created a series of time entries in the firm billing
system for senior partner year-end reviews, but did not perform
any year-end review of the case files.

The lawsuit in South Florida is handled by Fort Lauderdale-based
Farmer Jaffe Weissing.


CADILLAC LOUNGE: Faces "Pizzarelli" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Pizzarelli, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. The Cadillac Lounge, L.L.C., Nancy Shappy, and Richard
Shappy, all d/b/a The Cadillac Lounge, Case No. 1:15-cv-00254
(D.R.I., June 20, 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 strip club located in Providence,
Rhode Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen J. Brouillard, Esq.
      BIANCHI & BROUILLARD, P.C.
      The Hanley Building
      56 Pine Street, Suite 250
      Providence, RI 02903
      Telephone: (401) 223-2990
      Facsimile: (877) 548-4539
      E-mail: sbrouillard@bbrilaw.com


CAJUN PRESSURE: Faces Claims for Unpaid Overtime Wage Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cruz Ramirez, Ricardo Pena, Individually and On Behalf of All
Similarly Situated Persons v. Cajun Pressure Control, LLC, Case
2:15-cv-00264 (S.D. Tex., June 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cajun Pressure is a Louisiana limited liability engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: 713-868-3388
      Fax: 713-683-9940


CALIBER HOME: Faces "Lee" Suit Over TCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Wilmaleeta Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Caliber Home Loans, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01212 (C.D.
Cal., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

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


CAPITAL ONE: Agrees to Settle With Merchant Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that merchant
plaintiffs and Capital One have agreed to settle all matters filed
in Canada as to Capital One, subject to court approval.

In March 2011, a furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed a
proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One
(the "Watson Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts, among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount
fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation
of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages
and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as
a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other
jurisdictions in Canada. In March 2014, the court granted a
partial motion for class certification. Both parties appealed the
decision to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia, which heard
oral argument in December 2014. In April 2015, the merchant
plaintiffs and Capital One agreed to settle all matters filed in
Canada as to Capital One, subject to court approval.


CAPITAL ONE: Settlement in Overdraft Suit Preliminarily Approved
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in the checking
account overdraft litigation.

In May 2010, Capital One Financial Corporation and Capital One
Bank (USA), National Association ("COBNA") were named as
defendants in a putative class action named Steen v. Capital One
Financial Corporation, et al., filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Plaintiff challenges
practices relating to fees for overdraft and non-sufficient funds
fees on consumer checking accounts. Plaintiff alleges that our
methodology for posting transactions to customer accounts was
designed to maximize the generation of overdraft fees, supporting
claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, unconscionability, conversion, unjust
enrichment and violations of state unfair trade practices laws.
Plaintiff seeks a range of remedies, including restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

In May 2010, the case was transferred to the Southern District of
Florida for coordinated pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-
district litigation ("MDL") involving numerous defendant banks,
captioned In re Checking Account Overdraft Litigation. In January
2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against CONA in
the MDL court. In February 2011, CONA filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint. In March 2011, the MDL court granted
CONA's motion to dismiss claims of breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing under Texas law, but denied the motion to
dismiss in all other respects. In June 2012, the MDL court granted
plaintiff's motion for class certification. The parties reached an
agreement to resolve the class claims in October 2014, and the
court preliminarily approved the proposed settlement in January
2015.


CAPITAL ONE: TCPA Class Members File Appeal to 7th Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation, some class members
filed Notices of Appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in
February and March 2015.

In December 2012, the Capital One Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") Litigation Multi-district Litigation matter was
created as a result of a transfer order issued by the U.S.
Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation ("TCPA MDL"), which
consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois three pending putative class
actions-Bridgett Amadeck, et al. v. Capital One Financial
Corporation, et al. (W.D. Washington); Nicholas Martin, et al. v.
Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D. Illinois); and Charles
C. Patterson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al. (N.D.
Illinois) and several individual lawsuits. In February 2013, the
putative class action plaintiffs in the TCPA MDL filed a
Consolidated Master Class Action Complaint alleging that COBNA
and/or entities acting on its behalf violated the TCPA by
contacting consumers on their cellular telephones using an
automatic telephone dialing system and/or artificial or
prerecorded voice without first obtaining prior express consent to
do so. The plaintiffs seek statutory damages for alleged negligent
and willful violations of the TCPA, attorneys' fees, costs, and
injunctive relief. In June 2014, the parties filed a settlement
agreement resolving the litigation. The court granted preliminary
approval of the class settlement in July 2014, and granted final
approval in February 2015. Some class members filed Notices of
Appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in February and
March 2015.


CASEY'S GENERAL: "Hot Fuel" Plaintiffs Seek Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Oller, writing for CSP Daily News, reports that the
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit over "hot fuel" have filed a
motion requesting final approval of the proposed $24.5 million
settlement.

U.S. District Court Judge Kathryn H. Vratil recently began
reviewing the proposed settlements.  More than two dozen fuel
retailers denied any wrongdoing but had settled on the case, which
alleged that they were shortchanging customers who got less fuel
than they paid for because of temperature changes.  Plaintiffs
alleged that because the volume of gasoline rises along with its
temperature, consumers were paying a full gallon price for less
than a gallon of fuel.

These retailers' pumps did not have automatic-temperature-
compensation (ATC) devices that would adjust the price based on
the fuel volume.

In the settlement, six of the defendants -- including major oils -
- agreed to establish a $22.925 million fund to reimburse
retailers for installing ATC equipment.

Four of the defendants, including Casey's General Stores and
Valero, agreed to install ATC devices on their fuel dispensers at
their branded sites over time.  The other 18 defendants --
including CITGO and Thorntons -- agreed to pay into a $1.577
million fund that would help state weights and measures agencies
ensure ATC upgrades were done lawfully.

Plaintiffs filed a motion arguing that the settlement is effective
and ready for approval, according to class-action news source Top
Class Actions.  In the motion, they noted the retailers that have
chosen to install ATC devices, which also include Sam's Club and
Dansk Investment Group.

"That relief is substantive, tangible and designed to benefit
retail consumers by providing a fairer method of distribution of
motor fuel," the motion states.  "Temperature compensation is
already systemic in the petroleum industry but ends at the station
level; retail consumers are neither sold a gallon that accounts
for the effects of temperature, nor told they are not receiving a
uniform gallon."

"Through this litigation, plaintiffs are making headway on
changing the status quo," it concludes.

The plaintiffs also note in the motion that out of 28 class-action
settlements, four of the defendants are installing ATC equipment
and 24 are paying into the two funds.  More than 100 companies
opted out of the settlement and there were three objections.

In March, a group of large chains including 7-Eleven, QuikTrip,
Circle K, Kum & Go, Sheetz and Wawa filed an objection to the
proposed settlement, arguing that it created a "de facto slush
fund" that would financially reward state governments for changing
their laws to meet the plaintiffs' wishes. Another objection was
filed by Theodore Frank, founder of the Center for Class Action
Fairness, representing consumers.

Despite this, plaintiffs argue that the settlements are fair.

"Not a single federal or state official, which have been
specifically informed about the details of the settlements, has
voiced concerns or objections," the motion states.  "That response
speaks volumes about the fairness of the settlements."

The Hot Oil Class Action Lawsuit MDL is In re: Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, Case No. 2:07-md-01840, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas.


CHASE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Fee Award in "Herbison" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In In re: Chase Bank USA, N.A. "CHECK Loan" Contract Litigation.
Daniel J. Herbison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-15637, Daniel Herbison was held in
civil contempt by the district court for violating an order
approving a class action settlement. He appealed from the contempt
finding the fee award, but dismiss the appeal from the contempt
finding for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Chase argued that the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review the fee award because the
stipulated order fixing the fee amount was not mentioned in the
notice of appeal.

According to a June 12, 2015 memorandum entered by the Ninth
Circuit, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1InVMcT
from Leagle.com, the decision to impose fees was explained in the
earlier contempt order, which is named in the notice of appeal,
and Herbison challenged the fee award in his opening brief.  Thus,
there was no abuse of discretion in awarding fees.

However, the Ninth added that it lacks jurisdiction to review the
contempt finding.

The district court ruling is therefore affirmed in part, and
dismissed in part, the Ninth Circuit concluded.


CLARK INVESTIGATIONS: Sued Over Improper Use of Company Assets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Feliciano, individually and derivatively on behalf of Clark
Investigations and Security Corp. v. Joseph J. Finn, Jr., Michael
Accardi, Joseph J. Finn, Sr., Kaitlyn Finn, Clark Investigations &
Security Corp., and Clark Security Services LLC d/b/a Tutis Group,
Case No. 706410/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 18, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants concealed the fact that Clark was improperly
permitting Tutis to utilize Clark's assets and resources in the
operation of its business, to support the growth and development
of Tutis.

The Defendants operates an investment company having a principal
place of business at 34-10 56th Street, Woodside Queens, NY 11377.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Macklowitz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL L. MACKLOWITZ
      299 Broadway, Suite 1405
      New York, NY 10007
      Facsimile: (212) 732-6972
      Telephone: (212) 227-6655
      E-mail: Law299@aol.com


COGNATE BIOSERVICES: Sued Over Conversion Price Arrangement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teerrice Tharp and Clarence Henkel, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cognate Bioservices Inc., et al., Case No.
11179 (Del. Ch., June 19, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
minority stockholders of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc., to
remedy the improper Conversion Price Arrangement and self-dealing
Conversions, that was not entirely fair to NWBO and its minority
stock holders.

Cognate Bioservices Inc. provides full support to companies and
institutions engaged in the development of cell-based products and
therapies.

Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused
in developing immunotherapy products to treat cancers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com


D' ARCHITECT: Sued Over Failure to Complete Construction Project
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuanhua Tom Tang v. Chang Jie Lu, individually and d/b/a D'
Architect, Inc. and Does 1 - 10, inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV-
282071 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 19, 2015), is an action for damages
as a proximate result of the Defendant's breach of contract,
specifically by failing to complete the construction project
before or upon 8 months, performing work in a substantially
defective and lower than standard workmanship manner, and
demanding funds for the Project not agreed to in the contract and
continuously prior to the schedule of the contract.

D' Architect, Inc. is a California licensed construction company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kit V. To, Esq.
      Nathan C. Long, Esq.
      Chesterfield A. Spahr, Esq.
      TO, LONG & ASSOCIATES
      311 9th Avenue
      San Francisco, CA 94118
      Telephone: (415) 386-8136
      Facsimile: (415) 386-8180
      E-mail: lawoffice@sfjurist.com


DAVITA HEALTHCARE: Wage and Hour Claim Pending
----------------------------------------------
Davita Healthcare Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a wage and hour
claim, which has been styled as a class action, is pending against
the Company in the Superior Court of California. The Company was
served with the complaint in this lawsuit in April 2008, and it
has been amended since that time. The complaint, as amended,
alleges that the Company failed to provide meal periods, failed to
pay compensation in lieu of providing rest or meal periods, failed
to pay overtime, and failed to comply with certain other
California Labor Code requirements. In September 2011, the court
denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Plaintiffs
appealed that decision. In January 2013, the Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's decision on some claims, but remanded
the case to the trial court for clarification of its decision on
one of the claims. The Company reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle the claim that was remanded to the trial
court, and that settlement has been finalized. The amount of the
settlement is not material to the Company's consolidated financial
statements. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend
against the remaining claims. Any potential settlement of the
remaining claims is not anticipated to be material to the
Company's consolidated financial statements.


DG MECHANICAL: Faces Suit Over FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Espinosa v. DG Mechanical Heating Inc., and David Goutman,
Case 1:15-cv-03433 (E.D.N.Y., June 12, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, and the New York Labor Law.

Defendant DG Mechanical is a corporation organized under the laws
of the State of New York.  It is engaged in the commercial heating
contracting business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Building 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Tel: (201) 687-9977
      Fax: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


DIRECTV LLC: Doesn't Properly Pay Installers, "Bannett" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Bennett, individually and on behalf of the general public and
all aggrieved employees v. DirecTV, LLC and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. RG15774823 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 19, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Installers
the applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked in
violation of the California Labor Code.

DirecTV, LLC provides direct-to-home digital television services
and multi-channel video programming distribution services
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcvin E. Krakow, Esq.
      ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
      401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 394-0888
      Facsimile: (310) 394-0811
      E-mail: mkrakow@akgllp.com


DUSARA CORP: Faces Suit for Alleged Phone Call Recording
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Paredes, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dusara Corporation and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
Case 2:15-cv-04470 (C.D. Cal., June 12, 2015) seeks damages and
monetary relief on behalf of all persons located in California
whose cellular telephone conversations were allegedly
intentionally recorded without disclosure by the Defendant.

Dusara Corporation is a Texas corporation that does business in
California.  It is a medical supplies facility.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDEX CORP: Settles Independent Contractor Suit for $228MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Chu, writing for San Francisco Business Times, reports
that Fedex has agreed to pay $228 million to settle litigation
claiming the company short-changed its drivers on pay and benefits
by improperly labeling them as independent contractors.

The settlement disclosed on June 12 is directly related to a
decision against the Memphis, Tenn.-based package delivery company
in August, when a federal appeals court in Oakland found that
FedEx Corp. misclassified 2,300 FedEx Ground and FedEx Home
Delivery drivers working in California from 2000 to 2007 as
independent contractors. After that ruling, Fedex immediately
sought a judicial review.

The case was widely followed by tech entrepreneurs and lawyers
because of implications for companies operating in the so-called
"sharing economy," which provide services ranging from on-demand
transportation to food delivery, maid service, grocery shopping
and errand running.

Beth Ross -- bross@leonardcarder.com -- of the Oakland law firm
Leonard Carder says the FedEx settlement "sends a powerful message
to employers in California and elsewhere."

Uber, Lyft, Instacart, Homejoy, Taskrabbit and many similar
businesses, most headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area, have
become household names and have prospered by using a low-cost
labor force staffed by hundreds of thousands of independent
contractors.  The startling amount of the settlement and
capitulation by a well-established corporate giant such as Fedex
shows the legal and operational challenges these newer smartphone
app-driven companies may face in potential and current class-
action lawsuits by their workers across the country.


FLYING FOOD: Food Safety Practices May Pose Risk to Passengers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy Siegner, writing for Food Safety News, reports that
conditions earlier this year at a food production facility
operated by Flying Food Group at the Los Angeles International
Airport (LAX) could have posed a food safety risk to international
airline passengers who consumed meals prepared there.

That's according to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
inspector's report from two unannounced January inspections made
public by a LA-based union representing airline food workers.
UNITE HERE reportedly got the inspection results through a Freedom
of Information Act records request.

At the time, the FDA inspector found temperature problems with
prepared foods and machines used to sanitize equipment, dirty
employee restrooms, and clutter in a storage area, which could
possibly harbor pests without anyone noticing.  However, the
inspector added that there was no evidence of pests on the
premises when the inspections took place.

UNITE HERE said some Flying Food Group workers had reported seeing
rodents and insects in an airline food production kitchen and had
been ordered to change dates on food products.

"Flying Food's employees report practices that may pose potential
health risks to themselves and the flying public alike," the union
stated.  "Based on worker testimony and health inspection reports
filed by the (FDA), Flying Food's sanitation record raises
concerns for an airline caterer serving high-end airlines at a
world-class airport."

Flying Food Group responded by saying that the problems cited in
the January FDA inspection had been fixed and that the report was
part of the union's effort to cause problems for its business.

"This so-called report is just the latest example of labor union
UNITE HERE making false allegations and exploiting our employees
in a desperate attempt to disrupt our business and advance their
union agenda," the company said in a statement.  "Ensuring the
quality and safety of our food is of the utmost importance to us."

The company noted that its LAX food production facilities had
scored 96 out of 100 in a surprise two-day inspection last month
done by a third party hired by some of its airline clients.

The union would like to organize the 550 Flying Food Group workers
at LAX with the stated goal of increasing wages and improving
working conditions.  A class-action lawsuit was filed earlier this
year by nine LAX workers against the company alleging wage and
health insurance theft.

Flying Food Group prepares meals for 70 airlines in about 20
production kitchens around the country, including these carriers
with international flights scheduled out of LAX: British Airways,
Air France, Japan Airlines, China Southern Airlines and Etihad
Airways.

The company has had several food safety-related problems in recent
years.  It recalled food prepared at its facility in
Lawrenceville, GA, in July 2011 after tests confirmed the presence
of Listeria monocytogenes.  There was another recall in December
2011 involving the same facility.

In January 2012, FDA sent the company a warning letter noting that
seafood HACCP-related problems were observed during 2011
inspections at its airline catering facility in Newark, NJ.  The
agency sent another letter to Flying Food Group in July 2013
stating that the problems at the Newark facility appeared to have
been fixed.

In 2014, Flying Food Group recalled 41 appetizer meals prepared
for a British Airways flight from Miami because of possible
Listeria contamination.


GENERAL MOTORS: Law Firm Accused of Conspiring to Cover Up Defect
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Burden and David Shepardson, writing for The Detroit News,
report that a Texas lawyer representing plaintiffs who are suing
General Motors Co. over its ignition switch has filed a motion
accusing the Detroit automaker and its outside law firm King &
Spalding of conspiring to cover up the defect.

Lawyer Bob Hilliard filed a motion on June 11 in the class-action
lawsuits consolidated in U.S. District Court in Manhattan seeking
additional documents from GM and Atlanta-based King & Spalding,
accusing them of "burying what they knew" and settling cases that
could have shed light on the deadly defect.

The motion accuses King & Spalding of violating professional
conduct rules after it learned of alleged "ongoing fraudulent
concealment" regarding the ignition switch issue from GM.
Mr. Hilliard wants documents that typically wouldn't be
disclosable under attorney-client privilege rules.

GM spokesman Jim Cain said the motion "is largely a rehash of
issues discussed publicly over a year ago and previously reported
in the media.  Moreover, GM already has produced to plaintiffs
substantial amounts of privileged material, including many of the
very communications sought in their current motion. We strongly
deny the accusations in the motion and will file an appropriate
response."

King & Spalding did not immediately comment.

The automaker learned of issues with ignition switches in older
Chevrolet Cobalts and other cars more than a decade ago, but only
recalled 2.59 million Cobalts, Saturn Ions and other vehicles
early last year.  The ignition switch, which can turn to the
"accessory" or "off" position while driving, has been linked to
111 deaths.

GM admitted wrongdoing and paid a record $35 million fine to the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration over the delayed
recall.  It faces investigations by the Justice Department, 50
state attorneys general, the Securities and Exchange Commission
and Transport Canada.  The Justice Department is expected to seek
criminal charges against GM and may seek a settlement topping the
$1.2 billion paid by Toyota Motor Corp. to settle a felony wire
fraud charge.

GM CEO Mary Barra fired 15 and disciplined five, including many
company lawyers, after an internal report blamed the delayed
recall on a culture of incompetence and neglect.  GM's general
counsel, Mike Millikin, came under withering criticism from
Congress -- as did its entire legal team -- and he opted to
retire.

The report found lower level lawyers kept large settlements from
Mr. Millikin's attention and he wasn't informed of reported deaths
linked to GM ignition switches.  Employees told lawyer Anton
Valukas -- who led the GM internal investigation -- that GM
lawyers didn't want them to take notes in some safety meetings.


GENERAL MOTORS: Hagens Berman Files Expanded Airbag Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers represented by co-lead counsel Hagens Berman and Lieff
Cabraser on June 12 filed an expanded class-action complaint
against General Motors, bringing RICO (Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations) claims against New GM based on new
information from the lawsuit's discovery phase that indicates New
GM committed mail and wire fraud in connection with the ignition
switch defect that causes cars to stall unexpectedly and disables
the cars' airbags.

Attorneys from the consumer-rights law firms allege that New GM's
outside counsel, King and Spaulding, and its retained risk-
assessment and claims management company, ESIS, were complicit in
New GM's scheme to conceal the ignition switch defect that has
been linked to hundreds of crashes and more than 100 fatalities.
Neither ESIS nor King and Spaulding are defendants in the
complaint.

The amended lawsuit claims that, in part as the result of
information New GM learned in defending personal injury claims
resulting from the ignition switch defect, New GM was well aware
of the defect and its deadly consequences many years before
finally instituting a recall in February and March of 2014.

The February and March ignition switch recalls were the first in a
never-ending series of recalls affecting roughly 27 million
vehicles.  Some 12 million of the affected cars had ignition
switch defects, and the remainder of the cars had many other
defects, including serious safety defects affecting power
steering, brakes, seatbelts, airbags and virtually every safety
system in GM vehicles.

The suit affects more than 20 million vehicle owners and seeks
damages estimated in excess of $10 billion against GM, which
factors damages at $500 per car -- a conservative estimate
considering diminution of value has reached as high as $4,000 for
certain vehicles, according to attorneys.

The new information is the basis for the complaint's RICO charges,
brought on behalf of a nationwide class of all persons who owned
or leased a GM vehicle at the time New GM took over in July of
2009 and held onto their vehicles through 2014, and all persons
who purchased GM-branded vehicles after the date New GM took over.
The suit also alleges state law claims for the same class of
owners.

"This complaint shines a spotlight on New GM's deplorable
conduct," said Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman.
"In 2014, GM CEO Mary Barra stated that no one at GM knew of a
safety defect related to the ignition switch -- which is false.
Senior executives at GM, along with its outside lawyers and
others, knew of safety issues and concealed them."

"New GM knew the day it was created that contrary to its promises
of safety and reliability, its manufacturing process and company
culture meant that GM could not produce safe and reliable cars,
and that in fact GM was actively concealing safety defects,"
Mr. Berman added.

Based on this new information, the suit states that New GM's
responsibility upon its inception was to immediately issue a
recall for the cars with defective ignition switches.

"By delaying a recall concerning the ignition switch defect,
New GM placed millions of owners at ongoing risk of crashes and
injuries for years, and effectively barred millions of vehicle
owners from making claims in Old GM's bankruptcy for billions of
dollars in reimbursement they rightfully deserve.  Those consumers
would have still had time to make claims in the bankruptcy, as the
deadline for filing bankruptcy claims had not yet passed," noted
Elizabeth Cabraser, co-lead counsel.

The lawsuit also states that New GM promised in the sale agreement
it signed in taking over Old GM that it would comply with the
federal Safety Act with respect to Old GM vehicles -- a promise
the suit says New GM broke by failing to conduct timely, effective
or comprehensive recalls.

The suit affects owners of all GM models regardless of their
having a defect, due to the brand's diminished value, according to
the complaint.  The complaint includes multiple examples of GM-
branded vehicles that have suffered loss in value, including the
2011 GMC Denali that has a diminished value of $2,965 as of April
2015.  Additional models named in the complaint include 2010 and
2011 Chevrolet Camaro, 2009 Pontiac Solstice and 2010 Cadillac
STS, among others, which have diminished values ranging from
$1,235 to $2,900.

Attorneys state that a protective order requires the new complaint
to be filed under seal with a redacted version being filed in
public.

"We believe that the public deserves to see what has been redacted
in the filed complaint, but have abided by the requirement that it
be filed under seal," Mr. Berman stated.  "We believe the Court
will require GM to explain its reasoning as to why this important
information should be withheld from public eye."

The Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint will be
filed on June 12, 2015 and posted on the GM Ignition Switch
Litigation official website, gmignitionmdl.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities.

                     About Lieff Cabraser

Described by The American Lawyer as "one of the nation's premier
plaintiffs' firms," Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP --
http://www.lieffcabraser.com-- is a national plaintiffs' law firm
with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville.  U.S. News
and Best Lawyers have selected Lieff Cabraser as their national
"Law Firm of the Year" in the category of plaintiffs' mass torts
and class actions for 2015.


GHIRARDELLI CHOCOLATE: Faces "Vega-Encarnacion" False Ad Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Vega-Encarnacion, Individually on his own behalf and others
similarly situated, v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Company, Case 3:15-
cv-01821-CCC (D.P.R., June 16, 2015), arises for alleged
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, false advertising,
violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and fraud, deceit and/or
misrepresentation.

Ghirardelli is a manufacturer and marketer of premium chocolate
products under the laws of the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Manuel L. Morales-Schmidt, Esq.
      Urb. Sta. Cruz
      Esteban Padilla #47 Ste. 1-A
      Bayamon, P.R. 00961
      Tel: (787) 993-2109
      Fax: (787) 946-1767
      E-mail: lcdo.manuelmorales@delgado-morales.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Class Cert. Bid Filed in Suit Over Disclosures
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on January 30,
2015, the plaintiffs moved for class certification in the lawsuits
challenging the adequacy of Group Inc.'s public disclosures.

Beginning in April 2010, a number of purported securities law
class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York challenging the adequacy of Group
Inc.'s public disclosure of, among other things, the firm's
activities in the CDO market, the firm's conflict of interest
management, and the SEC investigation that led to Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.), entering into a consent agreement with the SEC,
settling all claims made against GS&Co. by the SEC in connection
with the ABACUS 2007-AC1 CDO offering (ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction), pursuant to which GS&Co. paid $550 million of
disgorgement and civil penalties. The consolidated amended
complaint filed on July 25, 2011, which names as defendants Group
Inc. and certain officers and employees of Group Inc. and its
affiliates, generally alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and seeks unspecified damages.

On June 21, 2012, the district court dismissed the claims based on
Group Inc.'s not disclosing that it had received a "Wells" notice
from the staff of the SEC related to the ABACUS 2007-AC1
transaction, but permitted the plaintiffs' other claims to
proceed. On January 30, 2015, the plaintiffs moved for class
certification.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Investor Moved for Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an investor moved
for class certification in the lawsuit related to mortgage pass-
through certificates and asset-backed certificates issued by
various securitization trusts established by the firm and
underwritten by Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company and
GS Mortgage Securities Corp. and three current or former Goldman
Sachs employees are defendants in a putative class action
commenced on December 11, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York brought on behalf of purchasers of
various mortgage pass-through certificates and asset-backed
certificates issued by various securitization trusts established
by the firm and underwritten by GS&Co. in 2007. The complaint
generally alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
supplements for the certificates violated the federal securities
laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and rescission or
rescissionary damages.

By a decision dated September 6, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of
plaintiff's claims with respect to 10 of the 17 offerings included
in plaintiff's original complaint but vacated the dismissal and
remanded the case to the district court with instructions to
reinstate the plaintiff's claims with respect to the other seven
offerings. On October 31, 2012, the plaintiff served an amended
complaint relating to those seven offerings, plus seven additional
offerings (additional offerings).

On July 10, 2014, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss as to the additional offerings. On March 23, 2015, the
plaintiff moved for class certification.

On June 3, 2010, another investor filed a separate putative class
action asserting substantively similar allegations relating to one
of the additional offerings and thereafter moved to further amend
its amended complaint to add claims with respect to two of the
additional offerings. On March 27, 2014, the district court
largely denied defendants' motion to dismiss as to the original
offering, but denied the separate plaintiff's motion to add the
two additional offerings through an amendment. On March 20, 2015,
the separate plaintiff moved for class certification. The
securitization trusts issued, and GS&Co. underwrote, approximately
$11 billion principal amount of certificates to all purchasers in
the offerings at issue in the complaints.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Defendants Moved for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants have
moved for summary judgment in a class action filed on behalf of
investors in $823 million of notes issued in 2006 and 2007 by two
synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1 and 2006-2).

On September 30, 2010, a class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Group Inc. and two former GS&Co.
employees on behalf of investors in $823 million of notes issued
in 2006 and 2007 by two synthetic CDOs (Hudson Mezzanine 2006-1
and 2006-2). The amended complaint asserts federal securities law
and common law claims, and seeks unspecified compensatory,
punitive and other damages. The defendants' motion to dismiss was
granted as to plaintiff's claim of market manipulation and denied
as to the remainder of plaintiff's claims by a decision dated
March 21, 2012. On May 21, 2012, the defendants counterclaimed for
breach of contract and fraud. On June 27, 2014, the appellate
court denied defendants' petition for leave to appeal from the
district court's January 22, 2014 order granting class
certification. On January 30, 2015, defendants moved for summary
judgment.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of "Force-Placed" Insurance Case Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the defendants
have moved to dismiss a putative class action challenging the
procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard insurance
arranged by Litton.

Group Inc., Litton, Ocwen and Arrow Corporate Member Holdings LLC,
a former subsidiary of Group Inc., are defendants in a putative
class action pending since January 23, 2013 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York generally challenging
the procurement manner and scope of "force-placed" hazard
insurance arranged by Litton when homeowners failed to arrange for
insurance as required by their mortgages. The complaint asserts
claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
misappropriation, conversion, unjust enrichment and violation of
Florida unfair practices law, and seeks unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages as well as declaratory and injunctive relief.
An amended complaint, filed on November 19, 2013, added an
additional plaintiff and RICO claims. On September 29, 2014, the
court denied without prejudice and with leave to renew at a later
date Group Inc.'s motion to sever the claims against it and
certain other defendants. On February 20, 2015, the defendants
moved to dismiss.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settlement in RALI Pass-Through Certs. Case Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has
preliminarily approved the settlement among Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(GS&Co.), the other underwriter defendants and the plaintiffs in
the RALI Pass-Through Certificates Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among numerous underwriters named
as defendants in a securities class action initially filed in
September 2008 in New York Supreme Court, and subsequently removed
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
As to the underwriters, plaintiffs allege that the offering
documents in connection with various offerings of mortgage-backed
pass-through certificates violated the disclosure requirements of
the federal securities laws. In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Residential Capital, LLC (ResCap), Residential
Accredit Loans, Inc. (RALI), Residential Funding Corporation
(RFC), Residential Funding Securities Corporation (RFSC), and
certain of their officers and directors.

On January 3, 2013, the district court certified a class in
connection with one offering underwritten by GS&Co. which includes
only initial purchasers who bought the securities directly from
the underwriters or their agents no later than ten trading days
after the offering date. On April 30, 2013, the district court
granted in part plaintiffs' request to reinstate a number of the
previously dismissed claims relating to an additional nine
offerings underwritten by GS&Co. On May 10, 2013, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint incorporating those nine additional
offerings. On December 27, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification as to the nine additional offerings
but denied the plaintiffs' motion to expand the time period and
scope covered by the previous class definition.

On October 17, 2014, the plaintiffs and defendants moved for
summary judgment. On February 19, 2015, the court preliminarily
approved the settlement among GS&Co., the other underwriter
defendants and the plaintiffs. The firm has paid the full amount
of its contribution to the settlement.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Contributed to MF Global Securities Case Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. has paid the full amount of its contribution to the
settlements in the MF Global Securities Litigation.

GS&Co. is among numerous underwriters named as defendants in class
action complaints and an individual action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York commencing
November 18, 2011. These complaints generally allege that the
offering materials for two offerings of MF Global Holdings Ltd.
(MF Global) convertible notes (aggregating approximately $575
million in principal amount) in February 2011 and July 2011, among
other things, failed to describe adequately the nature, scope and
risks of MF Global's exposure to European sovereign debt, in
violation of the disclosure requirements of the federal securities
laws. On December 12, 2014, the court preliminarily approved a
settlement resolving the class action, and on January 5, 2015, the
court entered an order effectuating the settlement of all claims
against GS&Co. in the individual action. GS&Co. has paid the full
amount of its contribution to the settlements.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in FireEye Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated amended complaint in the FireEye Securities
Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in several putative securities class actions, filed
beginning in June 2014 in the California Superior Court, County of
Santa Clara. In addition to the underwriters, the defendants
include FireEye, Inc. (FireEye) and certain of its directors and
officers. The complaints generally allege misstatements and
omissions in connection with the offering materials for the March
2014 offering of approximately $1.15 billion of FireEye common
stock, assert claims under the federal securities laws, and seek
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On
March 4, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. GS&Co. underwrote 2,100,000 shares for a total offering
price of approximately $172 million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Millennial Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Millennial Media
Securities Litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) is among the underwriters named as
defendants in a putative securities class action filed on
September 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. In addition to the underwriters, the
defendants include Millennial Media, Inc. (Millennial Media) and
certain of its directors, officers and shareholders. As to the
underwriters, the complaint generally alleges misstatements and
omissions in connection with Millennial Media's $152 million March
2012 initial public offering and the October 2012 offering of
approximately $163 million of Millennial Media's common stock,
asserts claims under the federal securities laws, and seeks
compensatory damages in an unspecified amount and rescission. On
March 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. GS&Co. underwrote 3,519,000 and 3,450,000 shares of
common stock in the March and October 2012 offerings,
respectively, for an aggregate offering price of approximately $95
million.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Cobalt Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated amended complaint in the Cobalt International
Energy Securities Litigation.

Cobalt International Energy, Inc. (Cobalt), certain of its
officers and directors (including employees of affiliates of Group
Inc. who served as directors of Cobalt), shareholders of Cobalt
(including certain funds affiliated with Group Inc.), affiliates
of these shareholders (including Group Inc.) and underwriters
(including GS&Co.) for certain offerings of Cobalt's securities
are defendants in a putative securities class action filed on
November 30, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. The complaint asserts claims under the federal
securities laws, seeks compensatory and rescissory damages in
unspecified amounts and alleges material misstatements and
omissions concerning Cobalt in connection with a $1.67 billion
February 2012 offering of Cobalt common stock, a $1.38 billion
December 2012 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes, a $1.00
billion January 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, a $1.33
billion May 2013 offering of Cobalt's common stock, and a $1.30
billion May 2014 offering of Cobalt's convertible notes. The
complaint alleges that Group Inc., GS&Co. and the affiliated funds
are liable as controlling persons with respect to all five
offerings. The complaint also seeks damages (i) from GS&Co. in
connection with its acting as an underwriter of 14,430,000 shares
of common stock representing an aggregate offering price of
approximately $465 million, $690 million principal amount of
convertible notes, and approximately $508 million principal amount
of convertible notes in the February 2012, December 2012 and May
2014 offerings, respectively, for an aggregate offering price of
approximately $1.66 billion, and (ii) from Group Inc. and the
affiliated funds in connection with their sales of 40,042,868
shares of common stock for aggregate gross proceeds of
approximately $1.06 billion in the February 2012, January 2013 and
May 2013 common stock offerings. On May 1, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Plaintiffs' Counsel Wants 2 Females to Intervene
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs'
counsel has requested that two female individuals be permitted to
intervene as plaintiffs in employment-related class action.

On September 15, 2010, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by three
female former employees alleging that Group Inc. and Goldman,
Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) have systematically discriminated against
female employees in respect of compensation, promotion,
assignments, mentoring and performance evaluations. The complaint
alleges a class consisting of all female employees employed at
specified levels in specified areas by Group Inc. and GS&Co. since
July 2002, and asserts claims under federal and New York City
discrimination laws. The complaint seeks class action status,
injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of compensatory,
punitive and other damages.

On July 17, 2012, the district court issued a decision granting in
part Group Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike certain of
plaintiffs' class allegations on the ground that plaintiffs lacked
standing to pursue certain equitable remedies and denying Group
Inc.'s and GS&Co.'s motion to strike plaintiffs' class allegations
in their entirety as premature.

On March 21, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit held that arbitration should be compelled with one of the
named plaintiffs, who as a managing director was a party to an
arbitration agreement with the firm.

On March 10, 2015, the magistrate judge to whom the district judge
assigned the remaining plaintiffs' May 2014 motion for class
certification recommended that the motion be denied in all
respects. On March 24, 2015, plaintiffs moved for reconsideration
of that recommendation. On April 13, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel
requested that two female individuals, one of whom was employed by
the firm as of September 2010 and the other of whom is a current
employee of the firm, be permitted to intervene as plaintiffs.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaints Filed in Commodities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that remaining
plaintiffs have filed amended complaints in the commodities-
related litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), Goldman Sachs International (GSI),
J. Aron & Company and Metro International Trade Services (Metro),
a previously consolidated subsidiary of Group Inc. that was sold
in the fourth quarter of 2014, are among the defendants in a
number of putative class actions filed beginning on August 1, 2013
and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaints generally allege violation of
federal antitrust laws and other federal and state laws in
connection with the management of aluminum storage facilities. The
complaints seek declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief
as well as unspecified monetary damages, including treble damages.
On August 29, 2014, the court granted the Goldman Sachs
defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain plaintiffs appealed on
September 24, 2014, and the remaining plaintiffs filed proposed
amended complaints on October 9 and 10, 2014. On March 26, 2015,
the court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motions
for leave to amend their complaints, rejecting their
monopolization claims and most state law claims but permitting
their antitrust conspiracy claims and certain parallel state law
and unjust enrichment claims to proceed, and the remaining
plaintiffs filed amended complaints on April 9, 2015.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Amended Complaint Filed in Platinum Case
-------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Goldman Sachs
International (GSI) is among the defendants named in putative
class actions relating to trading in platinum and palladium, filed
beginning on November 25, 2014, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws and the
Commodity Exchange Act in connection with an alleged conspiracy to
manipulate a benchmark for physical platinum and palladium prices
and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble
damages in an unspecified amount. On April 21, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Goldman, Sachs &
Co. (GS&Co.) is among the defendants named in several putative
class actions relating to trading in interest rate derivatives,
filed beginning in September 2014 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York. The second consolidated amended
complaint, filed on February 12, 2015, asserts claims under the
federal antitrust laws and state common law in connection with an
alleged conspiracy to manipulate the ISDAFIX benchmark and seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief as well as treble damages in an
unspecified amount. Defendants moved to dismiss the second
consolidated amended complaint on April 13, 2015.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Court Nixed Bid to Dismiss Currencies-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has
denied defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated action in
the currencies-related litigation.

Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.) and Group Inc. are among the
defendants named in several putative antitrust class actions
relating to trading in the foreign exchange markets, filed
beginning in December 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaints generally allege
that defendants violated federal antitrust laws in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate the foreign currency exchange
markets and seek declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
treble damages in an unspecified amount. On February 13, 2014, the
cases were consolidated into one action, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed on March 31, 2014. On January 28,
2015, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated action.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Named as Defendant in Commodity Exchange Act Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that beginning in
February 2015, Goldman, Sachs & Co. (GS&Co.), and Group Inc. were
named as defendants in separate putative class actions filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal
antitrust laws and the Commodity Exchange Act in connection with
an alleged conspiracy to manipulate foreign exchange benchmark
rates, which caused artificial foreign exchange futures prices.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief and treble
damages in an unspecified amount.


GOLFSMITH USA: Faces "Uyehara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lloyd Uyehara, on behalf of himself all others similarly situated
v. Golfsmith USA, LLC, Case No. BC585579 (Cal. Super. Ct., June
18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Golfsmith USA, LLC owns and operates 15 golf and tennis retail
stores in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Hoffman, Esq.
      HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
      580 California Street, Suite 1600
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 362-1111
      Facsimile: (415) 362-1112


GVA INC: Removed "Hoffman" Class Suit to New Jersey Dist. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Harold M. Hoffman, individually
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. GVA, Inc. and David
D. Townsend, Case No. BER-L-02834-15, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey Bergen County to the U.S. District
Court District of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned
2:15-cv-04188-CCC-JBC to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts claims for Defendants fraudulent business
practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raphael Mark Rosenblatt, Esq.
      ROSENBLATT LAW PC
      21 Main Street, Court Plaza South, #305
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (551) 444-8100
      E-mail: Raphael@rosenblattlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Wayne D. Meehan, Esq.
      FREEHILL, HOGAN & MAHAR, LLP
      549 Summit Avenue
      Jersey City, NJ 07306
      Telephone: (201) 623-5514
      E-mail: meehan@freehill.com


HARRIS FUNERAL: "Newton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Currie Newton v. Harris Funeral Home, II, P.A., Harris Funeral
Home, P.A., Joanne Harris, and Cullen Harris, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01809-JKB (D. Md., June 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a funeral home in Baltimore City,
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Lanier, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com


HCC INSURANCE: Sued in Del. Ch. Over Unlawful Company Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Paskowitz, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 11171-
CB (Del. Ch., June 18, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
entities who purchased or acquired shares of the common stock of
HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc., to enjoin the acquisition of HCC by
Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. for unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

HCC Insurance Holdings, Inc. is a specialty insurer with offices
in the United States, the United Kingdom, Spain and Ireland.

Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc. is the insurance holding company for
Tokio Marine Group, which undertakes Domestic Non-Life insurance,
Domestic Life insurance, International business, and Financial and
General Businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

         - and -

      Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
      Samuel J. Adams, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      E-mail: gbruckner@pomlaw.com
              sadams@pomlaw.com


HEALTH CANADA: Medical Marijuana Users File Privacy Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clare Mellor, writing for Herald News, reports that lawyers
representing plaintiffs in a proposed class action, claiming
Health Canada breached privacy rights and jeopardized the safety
of medical marijuana users, will be seeking damages of up to
$20,000 per person, a court in Halifax heard on June 10.

Federal Court Justice Michael Phelan is hearing a certification
application for a proposed class action, put forward by medical
marijuana users and growers across Canada, who were licensed under
the previous federal medicinal marijuana program.

The claim alleges that in November 2013 the department sent
letters to about 40,000 people explaining changes to the federal
medical marijuana access program, and because the return address
on the envelopes clearly stated they came from the Health Canada
medical marijuana program anyone who may have seem them knew the
recipient was either licensed to possess or grow marijuana for
medical purposes.

The claim alleges that Health Canada was reckless, careless and
negligent in sending the mail-out, which breached confidentiality
and the personal security of medical marijuana program users.

The allegations have not been proven in court and Health Canada
has not yet filed a defense.

The lead plaintiffs, a Nova Scotia man and an Ontario woman, are
identified by the pseudonyms John Doe and Suzie Jones because a
confidentiality order protects their identities.

In court on June 11, Ted Charney, one of several lawyers
representing the plaintiffs, read aloud copies of Health Canada
emails, which he said indicate the federal department's use of the
over-sized, non-discreet, envelopes in the mail-out, was not a
simple clerical error.  Instead, they indicate the decision
received approval at "the director level" within the federal
department, he said.

The emails show a Health Canada staffer first asked a Canada Post
employee for a quote for the cost of sending the envelopes by
registered mail, however, it was decided not to send them that
way, said Mr. Charney, of Charney Lawyers in Toronto.

Health Canada sent its own envelopes to Canada Post to be used for
the mail-out but they were damaged when they arrived there.  An
email from a Health Canada staffer to a Canada Post employee
refers to a time pressure to get the mail-out done and in a
subsequent email, the staffer, whose name is redacted from the
emails, gives Canada Post the go-ahead to use the envelopes for
the mail-out.

About 1,800 people have registered with the proposed class action.
Two hundred and forty one of those have reported a home invasion
or security breach since the mail-out and 341 have reported they
have changed residences because of the mail-out, Mr. Charney said

One of the lead plaintiffs is a health professional in a small
community in Nova Scotia.  Following the mail-out, he believed
that people in the community were aware he was licensed to use
medicinal marijuana.  He feared a home invasion and suffered
anxiety and stress about possible career repercussions,
Mr. Charney said.

McInnes Cooper in Halifax and three other law firms, one in
British Columbia and two in Ontario are jointly representing
affected users.

If the case moves forward, lawyers will argue that there was a
breach of security of person under the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, David Fraser, of McInnes Cooper told the court.

"It will be alleged and argued . . . that Health Canada knew about
the risks that would be presented by disclosing this information."

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada received more
than 300 complaints about the mail-out, with recipients citing
concerns such as job loss and damage to their reputations and
safety.  The commissioner's office investigated and, in March,
released a finding that Health Canada violated the federal Privacy
Act and mishandled personal information.

Phelan has not yet decided whether the commissioner's report or
parts of it, can be used in the certification application.

Lawyers for Health Canada were expected to argue against the class
action certification in court on June 12.


HEALTH NET: Class Action Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a suit will remain
stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court's disposition of the Company's
June 10, 2015 petition for writ of certiorari.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in three related litigation
matters pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Northern District of
California") relating to the independent contractor classification
of counselors ("MFLCs") who contracted with our subsidiary, MHN
Government Services, Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non-
medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the
country under our Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly
Military and Family Life Consultants) program."

"On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County
against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN
Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have
performed services as independent contractors in the state of
Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim
that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under
Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that
they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt
employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. We moved to compel the
case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on September
30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The Washington Supreme Court
affirmed the trial court's decision on August 15, 2013. On
February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act.

"On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington
action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed
collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former
MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors
nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege
misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek
penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has
since transferred the case to the Northern District of California
to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2,
2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also
a subsidiary).

"The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the
FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state
laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico,
Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October
24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations
for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

"On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel arbitration in the
Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion
on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8,
2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to
allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The
court stayed all other proceedings pending an outcome in the Ninth
Circuit appeal. On December 17, 2014, a divided (2-1) Ninth
Circuit panel affirmed the district court's decision denying our
motion to compel arbitration. On January 14, 2015, we petitioned
for rehearing en banc, and the Ninth Circuit denied the petition
on February 9, 2015. On February 13, 2015, the Ninth Circuit
granted our motion to stay the proceedings, and the proceedings
will remain stayed until the final disposition by the U.S. Supreme
Court of our petition for a writ of certiorari. The petition for
writ of certiorari is due on June 10, 2015.

"On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred
to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two
FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the
suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two
alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to
arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California
Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court
granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative
motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted.
This suit will also remain stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court's
disposition of our June 10, 2015 petition for writ of certiorari.
We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims;
however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties."


HOLIDAY INN: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concepcion Hernandez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated former and current non-exempt employees
v. Holiday Inn of Burbank Media Center, Intercontinental Hotels
Group, and DOES 1-20 inclusive, Case No. BC585657 (Cal. Super.
Ct., June 18, 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 hotel and resort in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Grant Joseph Savoy, Esq.
      Lindsay Veronika, Esq.
      SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
      316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Telephone: (213) 814-4940
      E-mail: grant@soloukisavoy.com
              lindsay@soloukisavoy.com


HONDA: Expects to Spend JPY45 Billion on Air Bag-Related Recalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that the Japanese carmaker Honda has said it
expects to spend almost 45 billion yen (GBP234 million; US$363
million) on recalling cars fitted with potentially dangerous
airbags.

The firm has been forced to recall millions of vehicles worldwide,
to replace faulty airbag inflators made by automotive parts
manufacturer, Takata.  Six deaths have been linked to Takata
airbags -- all in Honda cars.  Honda says the costs will not
affect its dividend or profit forecasts for the current year.

In April, Honda cut its profit growth forecast after missing the
mark last year on recalls and other issues.

Several car manufacturers, including Toyota, Nissan, Daihatsu,
Mazda and Mitsubishi, have recalled models fitted with Takata
airbags, which have been connected to more than 100 injuries.  The
fault has led to 34 million cars being recalled in the US, the
biggest auto-safety recall in US history, and Takata faces
multiple class action lawsuits and criminal and regulatory
investigations in North America.

Globally, the number of vehicles affected is thought to be 53
million.  Investigations found that Takata airbag inflators were
not properly sealed and could be damaged by moisture.  Some
airbags burst under pressure, spraying shrapnel inside the car.
Some scientists suspect that the ammonium nitrate propellant may
have been part of the problem, because it can become unstable over
time, particularly in extreme heat and humidity.

Takata is working to replace all the faulty airbag kits.


HOOSIER RACING: Faces "Horton" Suit Over Defective Racing Tires
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Horton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., Case No. 8:15-cv-01453-EAK-
TGW (M.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
consumers who purchased defective Hoosier D.O.T-Radial Racing
Tires that caused massive vibration and ultimately blowout
failure, leaving the car nearly uncontrollable.

Headquartered in Indiana, Hoosier Racing Tire Corp. is a
manufacturer and seller of tires throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C St NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
      E-mail: charles@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Craig S. Davis, Esq.
      Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
      Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
      Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
      100 South Washington Ave, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: csdavis@locklaw.com
              erodette@locklaw.com
              rapeterson@locklaw.com
              rkshelquist@locklaw.com

         - and -

      D. Michael Campbell, Esq.
      CAMPBELL LAW
      1861 N Crystal Lake Dr
      Lakeland, FL 33801
      Telephone: (863) 292-9929
      Facsimile: (863) 292-9949
      E-mail: dmcampbell@campbelllaw.com


IAG: Christchurch Homeowner to Lead Earthquake Insurance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cecile Meier, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that after years of
delays and heartache with her earthquake insurance claim,
Christchurch homeowner Pip Coory has decided to take a stand.  She
wants to lead a class action against insurer giant IAG.

The business analyst has created the Facebook group IAG class
action lawsuit where Canterbury homeowners can register their
interest in the action.  Within nine days, she already had nearly
200 members.

"These people are broken and have no energy left to fight," she
said.

She was in discussions with lawyers about leading the class action
but was waiting to gather more members before proceeding.

The Springston homeowner fought for more than three and a half
years after the September 2010 quake to convince the Earthquake
Commission (EQC) and her insurer State (part of IAG) that her
house could not be repaired for less than the commission's
$100,000 coverage cap.

EQC first assessed the damage at $30,000.

After years of delays and reports, the parties agreed the damage
was over cap in May last year.

Ms. Coory then decided to move into a caravan because her house
was "damp, not watertight" and had a "horrible electrical pulse"
running through it that made her sick.  Vibrations running through
the house woke her up every night with loud banging, she said.
She thought the move would be temporary while she reached an
agreement with IAG.

But a year later she is still in the caravan, waiting for a
resolution on her case.

IAG initially assessed the repairs at $120,000 but Ms. Coory said
her quantity surveyor had assessed the costs at more than
$900,000.

IAG spokeswoman Renee Walker said that the company was aware of
the Facebook group and monitored its membership.

"Our experience is that claims are progressed and settled much
more quickly and successfully when we are able to engage with
customers directly, and in person.  If any member of the Facebook
group, or any other IAG customers, would like to meet to progress
their claim they should request this via their case manager or
loss adjuster."

Ms. Coory challenged IAG's additional engineering report done last
year at her request and arranged her own engineer, who provided a
report in April 2015, Ms. Walker said.

IAG had since costed both the repair and rebuild of the property
and a meeting was recently set up on site to agree scope,
methodology and cost.

"While IAG believe the home to be habitable, we were aware that
[Coory] felt unsafe and so paid her her accommodation allowance to
enable her to purchase the caravan that she moved into",
Ms. Walker said.


IDAHO: Mental Health Services Improved Following Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Johnson, writing for KMVT-TV, reports that an estimated 9,000
Idaho children with serious emotional disturbances could have
better access to community-based mental health services as a
result of the settlement of a federal class action lawsuit
initially filed in 1980, known as the Jeff D. lawsuit.

Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter applauded the leadership and staff at
all the State agencies impacted by the Jeff D. case for their
perseverance and dedication to doing the right thing for the
children of Idaho throughout a long and difficult legal process.

"I'm proud of our people. I'm proud of the processes and
priorities they have put in place. And I'm very pleased that their
hard work and determination has brought us to this day," the
Governor said.  "The Jeff D. case has been part of Idaho's
political and public policy landscape for decades.  Changing
cultures and overcoming tough challenges often takes time, but we
understand that realizing success will mean a continuing
commitment to upholding the letter and spirit of this agreement."

The settlement provides an opportunity for the state of Idaho to
resolve the long-standing lawsuit.  "The settlement gives Idaho a
clear path in delivering needed community-based mental health
services," said Ross Edmunds, administrator of the Division of
Behavioral Health at the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
(DHW).  "Most importantly, it provides an effective system to
treat youth with serious emotional disturbances and their
families.  Our success with this settlement will ultimately bring
an end to the Jeff D. lawsuit."

"The Governor should be applauded for supporting collaborative
improvement of Idaho's children's mental health system," said
Patrick Gardner, an attorney with Young Minds Advocacy Project who
helped negotiate the settlement.  "Idaho is a model for other
states in its commitment to serve children in need using a
coordinated system of care."

The settlement aims to address the gaps in Idaho's mental health
system, making it more effective and efficient in meeting the
needs of children with serious emotional disturbances and their
families.  The settlement commits the state to taking a number of
concrete steps to develop and implement a sustainable,
coordinated, and comprehensive mental health system, including:

   -- Creating a statewide process, across all child-serving
systems, to identify and screen youths for unmet mental health
needs

   -- Providing a comprehensive array of community-based services
and supports to children when medically necessary

   -- Delivering services using a consistent approach that engages
families, youths, and their support systems

   -- Monitoring and reporting on service quality and outcomes for
youths

"The settlement outlines a plan for Idaho to create an effective
and meaningful system of care," said Howard Belodoff, the attorney
for the children.  "When successfully implemented, the agreement
will lead to children throughout the state having access to a
comprehensive array of mental health services and supports in
their own homes and communities."

The settlement is the result of more than a year of negotiations.
Participants include key community stakeholders representing
parents, advocates and private providers, along with
representatives from DHW, the Idaho Department of Juvenile
Corrections (IDJC), the Idaho State Department of Education (SDE),
as well as attorneys representing the class members.

"This is a positive step forward for coordinated community based
mental health services," said Sharon Harrigfeld, Director of the
Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections.  "We know that
collaborative efforts at the community level have positive
outcomes for youth and we look forward to continuing these efforts
to meet the needs of youth with serious emotional disturbances and
their families through this Agreement."

Access to appropriate mental health services is a critical
component of children's healthcare systems.  Research shows that
half of all lifetime cases of mental illness begin by age 14 and
three-quarters by age 24.  The Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare estimates that 20 percent of all youths will have a
diagnosable mental disorder during childhood.

Studies have shown that many children can experience long delays
before their mental illness is identified and treated, which often
result in negative outcomes for children.  Early assessment,
intervention and the delivery of community-based services and
treatment will allow children to remain at home with their
families, lessen the need for hospitalization resulting from a
mental health crisis, and lead to improved functioning for
children in their communities and schools.

"When mental illness is treated, it can have a positive impact on
all areas of a child's life, including their ability to learn,
play, interact with others and handle emotions," Mr. Edmunds said.
"Serious emotional disturbance in children can be treated
effectively, especially when identified early.  With treatment,
these children can lead productive lives and succeed in school, at
home, and in their adult lives. "

Family members with children who suffer from mental illness
praised the settlement as an important step forward in Idaho.

"Our family experienced a lot of challenges and frustration as we
tried to get our daughter appropriate care," said Jennifer
Griffis, parent and chairwoman of the Idaho Behavioral Health
State Planning Council. "The agreement provides a promising
structure for Idaho's mental health system to be more responsive
to the needs of children and families."

"This settlement offers a service array that is broad enough to
allow mental health service providers to better tailor treatment
plans to their clients' individual strengths and needs," said
Kelly Keele, president of the Mental Health Providers Association
of Idaho.  "We expect that, over the long run, the number of
children hospitalized or needing expensive out-of-home placements
will decrease."

Advocates offered similar praise: "Working with parents of
children with complex health disorders is often heartbreaking as
Idaho has not had the services to support these families," said
Carol Dixon, family support specialist for the Idaho Federation of
Families.  "The Federation of Families views the Jeff D.
settlement as a very promising solution that has the potential to
create a new and effective children's mental health system in
Idaho.  It will have the capacity to address the challenging
mental health needs of our children and provide needed support to
families."

The settlement anticipates implementation over a four year period
with three additional years of monitoring to ensure sustained
performance of the service delivery system.  Upon successful
completion of implementation and monitoring, the lawsuit will be
dismissed.  The settlement agreement must be approved by the
federal district court.


INSULET CORP: ATRS Alleges Violation of Securities Act
------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Insulet Corporation, Duane Desisto,
Patrick J. Sullivan, Allison Dorval, and Brian Roberts, Case 1:15-
cv-12345 (D. Mass., June 16, 2015), was brought on behalf of
purchasers of Insulet's publicly traded securities from May 7,
2013 to April 30, 2015, alleging violations of the U.S. Securities
Exchange Act.

Defendant Insulet is incorporated in Delaware and maintains its
principal executive offices at Billerica, Massachusetts. Insulet's
primary business is the development, manufacture, and sale of its
proprietary OmniPod Insulin Management System.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glen DeValerio, Esq.
      Leslie R. Stern, Esq.
      BERMAN DEVALERIO
      One Liberty Square
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 542-8300
      Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
      E-mail: gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com
              lstern@bermandevalerio.com

         - and -

      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 554-1400
      Fax: (212) 554-1444
      E-mail: avi@blbglaw.com


INTEGRYS ENERGY: Says Settlement to Be Presented to Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Integrys Energy Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company
anticipates that a Stipulation of Settlement will be presented to
the Court for approval after the merger closes.

The Company said, "Since the announcement of the merger agreement
with Wisconsin Energy Corporation (Wisconsin Energy), we and our
board of directors, along with Wisconsin Energy, have been named
as defendants in ten separate purported class action lawsuits
filed in Brown County, Wisconsin (three of the cases - Rubin v.
Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.; Blachor v. Integrys Energy
Group, Inc., et al.; and Albera v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et
al.), Milwaukee County, Wisconsin (two of the cases - Amo v.
Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al. and Inman v. Integrys Energy
Group, Inc., et al.), Cook County, Illinois (two of the cases -
Taxman v. Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., and Curley v.
Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al.), and the federal court for
the Northern District of Illinois (three of the cases - Steiner v.
Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., Tri-State Joint Fund v.
Integrys Energy Group, Inc., et al., and Collison v. Integrys
Energy Group, Inc., et al.)."

"In the Tri-State Joint Fund case, Wisconsin Energy's Chief
Executive Officer was also named as a defendant. The cases were
brought on behalf of proposed classes consisting of shareholders
of Integrys Energy Group. The complaints allege, among other
things, that our board members breached their fiduciary duties by
failing to maximize the value to be received by our shareholders,
that Wisconsin Energy aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary
duty, and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus contains
material misstatements and omissions. The complaints seek, among
other things, (a) to enjoin defendants from consummating the
merger; (b) rescission of the Merger Agreement; and (c) to direct
the defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to obtain the
highest value possible for Integrys Energy Group's shareholders.
The Brown County and Cook County cases have been dismissed in
favor of the Milwaukee County actions.

"On November 12, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, which provides the basis for a complete settlement
of these actions. We anticipate that a Stipulation of Settlement
will be presented to the Court for approval after the merger
closes."


IOWA: Adds More People to "Do-Not-Hire" List Despite Controversy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Clayworth, writing for The Des Moines Register, reports that
Iowa has added 67 people to its "do-not-hire" list in the past
year through a process that a legislator and some public employee
advocates believe is unethical or illegal.  The state now
maintains a list of 943 people who are ineligible to work for some
or all executive branch departments or agencies, records obtained
last week by The Des Moines Register show.

State officials insist the list is important to help protect the
public and keep problematic employees off Iowa's payroll.  But
critics contend the process leads to arbitrary and inconsistent
decisions that create inherent inequities among some former
employees.

"I really think we're getting ourselves set up for a lawsuit,"
said Sen. Janet Petersen, D-Des Moines, who this year led an
unsuccessful legislative effort to limit Iowa's use of the so-
called "blacklist."

The debate centers on due process.

Some former workers have said they didn't know their separations
from the state would result in being added to the list preventing
them from being eligible for future state employment.  In some
cases the former employees had voluntarily resigned and maintain
that leaving their jobs was not the result of final disciplinary
action.

State leaders for months denied such lists existed, despite
widespread allegations that worker rights were being consistently
violated.  After ongoing pressure from media and some legislators,
the Iowa Department of Administrative Services -- better known as
DAS -- released in April 2014 the list of 975 names of workers
disqualified since 1990 from future state employment because they
were fired or resigned.

The publication of the list was followed by government oversight
hearings and a lawsuit filed by Des Moines attorneys Roxanne
Conlin and Tom Duff on behalf of three former employees.

Seventy-seven others last year expressed interest in joining the
lawsuit had it become a class-action complaint against the state.

As a result, Iowa yanked 91 names from the list less than a month
after the lawsuit, dozens of them because the DAS determined their
separations from the state didn't meet the legal criteria.

The lawsuit was dismissed in October, but Ms. Conlin and Duff
contend that future litigation is possible, particularly if the
state's practices continue.

Ms. Conlin and Mr. Duff have argued that people who are found to
be guilty of serious crimes or professional malfeasance deserve to
be on the list.  But they also believe that many -- if not the
majority -- of the people on the list were added for relatively
innocuous reasons, such as tardiness that might be explained, or
might be undeserving of a lifetime unemployment ban.

"It's draconian that an innocuous workplace issue could follow you
forever in every job in the state," Mr. Duff said.  "And there
also ought to be some uniformity about what sort of offense gets
you put on the list."

Newton resident Sarah Zaruba told the Register that she
voluntarily resigned her position as a correctional officer at
Iowa's prison in Newton for personal reasons following the
February death of her husband.

She was added to the state's do-not-hire list in April, which she
believes is unjustified.

Ms. Zaruba, who had worked for the state for 17 years, noted that
the general process to launch an administrative appeal of an Iowa
do-not-hire listing involves first applying for a job and waiting
for the state to reject the application.  It's unlikely the
position would remain open throughout an appeal, which means lost
opportunity for someone who was unfairly added to the list, she
said.

Iowa's do-not-hire list began in 1987, during Gov. Terry
Branstad's first term as governor.  The practice essentially
remained the same since, Michelle Minnehan, a human resources
officer, testified before lawmakers last year.

Caleb Hunter, a spokesman for the Iowa DAS, said last week that
the department will review anyone's status on the list upon
request.  The list is part of data drawn from personnel files and
is intended to protect the public, he said.

"It's important for DAS to protect taxpayers' interest and not
pass around employees that have a known malfeasance from one
agency to another," Hunter said.

LEGISLATIVE SOLUTION FAILS TO PASS HOUSE

The Iowa Senate this year passed a measure in a 35 to 11 vote to
limit the use of the state's do-not-hire list.  The bill, Senate
File 332, died in the House where it failed to make its way
through the legislative process.

Here are a few of the highlights of the bill:

  -- A person may be considered ineligible to apply for a state
job for set reasons.  Some of those reasons include if the
applicant knowingly misrepresented facts on such documents as a
job application, have been terminated for creating a hostile work
environment in a previous state position, or convicted of a crime
that would have a direct relationship to the position they desire.

  -- Iowa's state government would be required to notify a person
within five business days following their designation on the do-
not-hire list.

  -- The state must provide information to applicants placed on
the do-not-hire list about how they may appeal.

SUPREME COURT IMPLICATIONS

A judge in October dismissed the lawsuit against the state's do-
not-hire list, saying workers must appeal through the executive
branch.

But more options to seek damages from the state might be made
available pending an ongoing case involving Iowa's former workers'
compensation commissioner Chris Godfrey.

In the Godfrey case, the Iowa Supreme Court is being asked whether
he can invoke the Iowa Constitution to win monetary damages
following Gov. Terry Branstad's decision to cut his annual salary
by roughly $40,000.

If Godfrey is successful, the case could open the door for people
who believe they've been wrongly added to Iowa's do-not-hire list
to seek damages from the state, Godfrey's attorney Roxanne Conlin
said.


ISORAY INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman on June 11 disclosed that a class action against
IsoRay, Inc. has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington on behalf of
purchasers of IsoRay 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, Hagens Berman at
206-623-7292 or via e-mail at ISR@hbsslaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action.  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 percent success rate in local control
(meaning control of the tumor in the lung) and 100 percent
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 percent, 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 Hagens Berman, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

Investors who purchased ISR stock during the period between
May 20, 2015, and May 21, 2015, can contact a Hagens Berman
attorney about this case by emailing ISR@hbsslaw.com or by calling
206-623-7292.

                    About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in nine cities.
The firm has been named to the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs'
Hot List eight times.


JACK'S BAR-B-Q: "Whitehead" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donathan Whitehead v. Jack's Bar-B-Q Smokehouse, Inc. and Jackie
Mays, Case No. 0:15-cv-61302-JIC (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), seeks
to recover  unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 780-8228
      Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


KEURIG GREEN: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Blasco, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Brian P. Kelley, and
Frances G. Rathke, Case No. 5:15-cv-02766-RMW (N.D. Cal., June 19,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
produces and sells specialty coffee, coffeemakers, teas, and other
beverages in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


KLX ENERGY: Accused of Violating FLSA, Penn. Minimum Wage Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Carpenter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KLX Energy Services, LLC and Blue Dot Energy
Services, LLC, Case 2:15-cv-00807-LPL (W.D. Penn., June 19, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages owed to Defendants' salary
and day rate employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Blue Dot Energy Services, LLC and KLX Energy Services, LLC are
enterprises engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: 412-766-1455
      Fax: 412-766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

         - and -

      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Pennsylvania Bar No. 308410
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS&JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com


         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: 713-877-8788
      Fax: 713-877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


LINKEDIN CORP: Settles Privacy Class Action for $13 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that LinkedIn Corp.
has agreed to pay $13 million to settle a proposed privacy class
action claiming the company used site users' names and likenesses
to shower their contacts with repeated spam-like invitations to
join the professional networking site.  The proposed settlement
filed on June 11 is subject to approval from U.S. District Judge
Lucy Koh.

If approved, the deal would rank among the largest payouts to
settle a privacy case filed in the Northern District of
California.

The June 11 settlement comes after Judge Koh twice last year
denied LinkedIn's attempts to knock out the LinkedIn privacy
lawsuit.  Plaintiffs first sued LinkedIn in September 2013
claiming the company violated the federal Wiretap Act, the Stored
Communications Act, and California privacy and right of publicity
laws by harvesting email addresses from users' contacts to send
repeated invitations through its "Add Connections" feature.

Plaintiffs claimed that the reminder emails, which included
information and images users shared as part of their LinkedIn
profiles, appeared as if they were sent directly by users rather
than from the company.  Although Judge Koh denied the claims
brought under federal laws, which carry statutory penalties of up
to thousands of dollars per violation, plaintiffs were still
pursing right-of-publicity claims under California law when the
settlement was reached.

According to settlement papers, the parties agreed to the $13
million figure after a session with San Francisco mediator Antonio
Piazza in January but didn't finalize the full terms of the deal
until June 10.  The settlement figure could go up by as much as
$750,000 to increase the per-plaintiff payment to $10 depending on
the number of claims filed.  Settlement papers indicate that there
are more than 20 million potential class members.

Privacy class actions, by and large, have fizzled or settled for
smaller sums in the Northern District.  But there have been a few
notable exceptions.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg signed off on the largest such
settlement in August 2013, a $20 million deal Facebook Inc.
entered to settle privacy claims stemming from its "sponsored
stories" feature.  Google Inc. has paid out a pair of $8.5 million
settlements in the past few years and Netflix Inc. agreed to pay
$9 million in 2013 to settle claims the company improperly held
onto records of customers who canceled their accounts.

In seeking approval of the LinkedIn deal, plaintiffs counsel say
the Facebook settlement is a "relevant point of comparison."  The
Facebook case also settled after the case survived a motion to
dismiss but before class certification. Seeborg approved a $20
million cash payout for an estimated class of 124 million members
-- or about 16 cents per potential class member.  The proposed
LinkedIn settlement provides about $6.25 per class member.
As part of the deal, LinkedIn also agreed to revise its
disclosures related to the "Add Connections" feature, and to allow
LinkedIn members to stop reminder emails from inadvertently being
sent.

Plaintiffs counsel at Russ August & Kabat; Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein and Olavi Dunne are asking for up to 25 percent of the
settlement, or $2.35 million, in attorney fees.  Lieff Cabraser's
Michael Sobol didn't respond to messages on June 12.

LinkedIn is represented in the case by Munger, Tolles & Olson.  A
spokesperson said in an email that the company is "pleased to
resolve this case, and we will continue to look for additional
ways to improve our members' experiences on LinkedIn."


M & M ASPHALT: Accused of Failure to Pay OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth A. Dyer, Jr., Henry L. Kemp, Jr., Marquis D. Grooms, and
Kirk Sandy, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. M & M Asphalt Maintenance Inc. d/b/a All County
Paving, Case 6:15-cv-00959-RBD-KRS (M.D. Fla., June 12, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant fails to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

M & M Asphalt maintains and operates an asphalt paving, repair and
sealcoating business in Orlando, Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Scott C. Adamas, Esq.
      N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
      LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
      2300 East Concord Street
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Tel: (407) 835-8968
      Fax: 835-8969
      E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com
              rlabar@labaradams.com


MASSACHUSETTS: Prisoners File Class Action Over Hep C Treatments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob McGovern, writing for Boston Herald, reports that two Bay
State prisoners are suing the state for allegedly withholding
potentially lifesaving Hepatitis C treatments from hundreds of
inmates suffering from the virus.

"Over 1,500 state prisoners in Massachusetts have Hepatitis C, but
as of the present time only three are being treated for it,"
attorney Jonathan Shapiro wrote in a 17-page complaint.  "For many
of them, including plaintiffs and the members of their class, the
illness may progress toward end stage liver disease and death."

Emilian Paszko and Jeffrey Fowler, two currently incarcerated
prisoners, filed the class action in federal court on June 10.
Their suit accuses the Department of Corrections and the
Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional Healthcare -- the
health-care provider for the DOC -- are violating prisoners'
constitutional rights.

Lawyers for the National Lawyers Guild and Prisoners Legal
Services brought the suit on the prisoners' behalf.

"It is the responsibility of the state, which spends millions to
incarcerate thousands of people, to provide adequate medical care
for them," Urszula Masny-Latos, executive director of the
Massachusetts chapter of the NLG, said in a statement.  "Without
such care, many of them will develop serious complications of this
disease, and some will die.  These people were sentenced to
incarceration, not to death."

The DOC's protocol for selecting what prisoners get treatment has
long been flawed, according to the suit.  Prisoners "too close to
their release date would not receive treatment" and others "who
received certain types of disciplinary reports" would also be
deemed ineligible, according to the complaint.

The number of prisoners receiving Hepatitis-C treatment fell from
81 in 2009 to three currently, according to the lawsuit.

"Hepatitis C afflicts over 1,500 of the Department of Correction's
10,000 prisoners," said Leslie Walker, executive director of
Prisoners' Legal Services, in a statement.  "The Department used
to treat up to 100 prisoners at a time with the best available
medication.  Today that number is two or three, even though the
new regimens are superior in every way to the old medications."


MICHAEL KORS: Settles Class Action Deceptive Price Tags
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Michael Kors
Holdings Ltd. agreed to pay U$S4.88 million and change its sales
practices to settle a class action lawsuit claiming it used
deceptive price tags at its outlet stores to fool shoppers into
believing they were getting big bargains.  The preliminary
settlement was filed on June 12 in Manhattan federal court, and
requires court approval.

Michael Kors was accused of creating an "illusion" of deep
discounts by using tags containing made-up "manufacturer's
suggested retail prices," or MSRP, and offers to sell the products
at lower prices, termed "our price."  Shoppers said the suggested
retail prices were artificial because the tagged products had been
made exclusively for Michael Kors outlets, and the London-based
fashion house never intended to sell them at those prices.

As part of the settlement, Michael Kors will replace "MSRP" with
"Value" on its price tags and display signage explaining that
term, or stop using reference prices for products made exclusively
for its outlets.

In a court filing, the plaintiffs' lawyers said the lawsuit is
among several accusing well-known retailers of deceptive marketing
in outlet and factory stores that violates state consumer
protection laws.

Michael Kors denied wrongdoing in agreeing to settle.  It did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

The June 12 settlement covers shoppers who bought products from
Michael Kors outlets in the four years ending July 25, 2014.

The plaintiffs' lawyers plan to seek legal fees of up to 30 per
cent of the settlement fund, court papers show.

The case is Gattinella v. Michael Kors (USA) Inc et al, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-05731.


MIGAR CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Heduwar Dali Colmenares Mena, a/k/a Heduwar D. Colmenares, and all
others similarly situated v. Migar Corporation, d/b/a Luis Galindo
Latin American #2 and Alberto Elias, Case No. 1:15-cv-22324-JAL
(S.D. Fla., June 19, 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 restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth Olivia Hueber, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300-71st Street, Ste 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: elizabeth.hueber.esq@gmail.com


MINNESOTA: Set to Rule on Sex Offender Program Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Serres, writing for Star Tribune, reports that Minnesotans
could see more convicted sex offenders moving into their
communities in coming months if a federal judge this week rules,
as expected, that the state's controversial system of confining
offenders indefinitely violates the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank, presiding over a class-
action suit against the Minnesota Sex Offender Program (MSOP),
already has signaled his deep-seated displeasure with the system,
calling it "clearly broken" and "draconian" in an earlier ruling.
In a lengthy and contentious trial early this year, state
officials admitted they may be detaining untold numbers of sex
offenders who no longer meet the state's legal requirement for
confinement.

The ruling, due June 17, was expected to set off a series of
monumental changes to a program that has long been criticized as
inhumane for indefinitely confining sex offenders after their
prison terms have ended and without regular reviews.

It is unlikely that Judge Frank will order the immediate release
of any offenders, though legal experts say he could demand a
prompt evaluation of the program to identify those who no longer
pose a threat to society.

Perhaps anticipating a decision against MSOP, the state of
Minnesota has been busy laying the groundwork for the transition
of more offenders into the community.  Since 2013, the Minnesota
Department of Human Services (DHS), which oversees MSOP, has
executed contracts with nine outside agencies to provide housing
and treatment to sex offenders.  The program has also moved a
record number of offenders, 67, to the final phase of treatment
within MSOP.

In two decades, no one has been unconditionally discharged from
the program, which confines about 700 rapists, pedophiles and
other offenders at prisonlike treatment centers in Moose Lake and
St. Peter.  Experts on sexual deviancy who have worked with
offenders at MSOP estimate that as many as 25 percent to 35
percent of those confined at Moose Lake and St. Peter no longer
meet the state's statutory criteria for confinement.  Those most
likely to be considered for expedited release, say these experts,
are some 60 detainees who have no adult sex-crime convictions but
were committed to the program based solely on their behavior as
juveniles; and another 70 offenders who are over age 65.

"There is a perception that offenders at MSOP represent the 'worst
of the worst' -- but that's simply a myth," said Jon Brandt, a
clinical social worker and board member of the Minnesota chapter
of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.  "These
guys have done some horrible things in the past, but that doesn't
mean they deserve to be locked up indefinitely."

Nevertheless, local opposition to any releases is likely to be
fierce.  Last year, Gov. Mark Dayton pulled the plug on plans to
move about a dozen frail and low-functioning sex offenders to a
facility in Cambridge, Minn., after hundreds of residents showed
up at community meetings protesting the plan.

"There will be tiny uprisings across the state," predicted Dr.
Budd Renier, a Cambridge resident who spoke out against the
state's plan.  "DHS will try to walk into these communities and do
a song and dance about how these guys need to be treated fairly,
but it's going to be difficult. . . . Who in their right mind
wants a sex offender moving in next to their kid?"

And early this year, after a convicted rapist, Robert Jeno, was
approved for supervised release to a group home in Le Center, a
number of upset residents called for restrictions on where sex
offenders can live. The Le Center City Council unanimously passed
an ordinance prohibiting Level 3 offenders from living near
schools and other places where children congregate.

"Of course there will be a backlash" to the ruling, said Warren
Maas, executive director of Project Pathfinder, a St. Paul
nonprofit that provides outpatient sex offender treatment.  "There
is a small but vocal minority who will argue that these are awful
people who should never be released into the community."

No exit

Minnesota has long stood out among states for confining sex
offenders indefinitely after their prison terms without conducting
periodic risk evaluations.  Most states, including Wisconsin,
require that all offenders be assessed at least annually to
determine if they still pose a serious enough risk to the public
to justify confinement.

Only three offenders have been provisionally discharged in MSOP's
history, and no offenders have been completely released without
ongoing supervision.  By comparison, Wisconsin has unconditionally
discharged 118 clients, California has discharged 181, and
Massachusetts has discharged 186, according to a 2014 survey.

Dan Gustafson, the lead attorney representing a class of offenders
in the case before Judge Frank, said MSOP's admission during the
trial that it was failing to perform regular evaluations of
offenders was "the linchpin of our case."

"If you're going to take away someone's liberty, you better be
damn sure you take it away for the proper reason and the proper
amount of time," Gustafson said.

Few reoffend

At Moose Lake and St. Peter, offenders say the mood has turned
anxiously hopeful in recent weeks as Frank nears a ruling.

"The anticipation is huge," said Leon Preston, 39, who has been
confined at MSOP for 15 years.  "There are guys here who think the
judge is going to overturn this and everyone is going to get out."

Numerous studies have shown that sex offenders who undergo
treatment pose very little risk of reoffending after being
released.  Since 2008, Florida has unconditionally discharged more
than 40 offenders, with a reoffense rate of less than 5 percent.
Only a tiny fraction of sex crimes are committed by repeat
offenders, which has caused some treatment specialists to question
the wisdom of spending money on high-security treatment centers.

In 2014, the cost of operating MSOP, including treating, housing
and feeding offenders, totaled $90.3 million -- or about $120,000
per offender.

The risk of reoffense is even lower for offenders who continue to
receive treatment after they are released into the community.
Such outpatient programs are already well-established in
Minnesota.  The state Department of Corrections contracts with
outside agencies that provide treatment to more than 2,200
offenders covering 83 of Minnesota's 87 counties.

"The embarrassing irony," said Maas of Project Pathfinder, "is
that we are professionally one of the best states to release
[civilly committed] offenders, but we have almost never done so."


MISSISSIPPI: DOC Violated Eighth Amendment Rights, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kourtney Moncure, writing for MSNewsNow, reports that U.S.
District Judge Carlton Reeves has ruled that the Mississippi
Department of Corrections is violating the Eighth Amendment rights
of the prisoners at Walnut Grove Correctional Facility by failing
to protect them from violence.

In his decision, Reeves noted that gangs controlled Walnut Grove
and that prison guards plotted with them, which lead to leaving
prisoners vulnerable to attack and fostering conditions for two
riots in the past year.  The judge ordered the department and MTC,
which is the for-profit prison corporation the State pays to
operate Walnut Grove, to implement basic safety measures to end
gang control as well as violence by guards against prisoners at
Walnut Grove.

The ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center and McDuff & Byrd
represented the prisoners in the class action suit over the
violence.

"We are very pleased with the court's decision," said Jody Owens,
managing attorney for the SPLC's Mississippi office. "This is an
important ruling for all current and future prisoners held inside
the privately operated facility.  We look forward to the continued
role the court will play to ensure that prison officials uphold
their constitutional obligations to provide a safe and humane
environment for inmates at Walnut Grove Correctional Facility."

"With this federal court ruling, the Mississippi Department of
Corrections must step up to its responsibility under the
Constitution and protect the prisoners of Walnut Grove from
violence," said Margaret Winter, Associate Director of the ACLU's
National Prison Project.  "The department can no longer sit back
and let a for-profit prison company neglect the prisoners' safety
on the state's dime.  We will make sure that this historic
judgment is enforced, and we hope its impact will be felt not only
at Walnut Grove but at prisons throughout the state."


MUD MASTERS: Faces "Saenz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Micah Saenz, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Mud Masters Group, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01762 (S.D. Tex., June
19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Mud Masters Group, Inc. owns and operates an oilfield equipment
services company in Houston, Texas.

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


NATIONAL HOCKEY: Settles Class Action Over TV Blackouts
-------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that The National
Hockey league will permit fans to watch their favorite teams play
outside their home markets, without having to pay extra for a
league-wide bundle of games, as part of a settlement of a class
action antitrust lawsuit.

The preliminary accord made public on June 11 resolves claims that
the league, several teams, Comcast Corp, DirecTV and Madison
Square Garden Co, used blackouts to limit out-of-market broadcasts
of games.

Fans said this forced them to buy costly bundles of games they did
not care about, rather than spend less to buy games "a la carte,"
if they wanted to want their preferred teams.

Under the settlement, the NHL will, for the next five years, offer
a "Game Center Live" Internet package enabling fans to buy single-
team packages for at least 20 percent below the cost of bundled
packages.

The league will also discount "early bird," renewal and full
season prices by an additional 17.25 percent for the 2015-2016
season, allowing a fan who now pays $159 for a game bundle to
instead buy a single-team package for about $105.

The June 11 settlement requires approval by U.S. District Judge
Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan.  It came after the judge on May 14
dealt fans a setback by ruling they could not pursue damages in a
class action, though they could pursue antitrust claims as a
group.

A similar lawsuit against Major League Baseball, several teams and
broadcasters has not been settled.

In a court filing, Howard Langer, a lawyer for the plaintiffs,
called the accord "fair, reasonable and adequate."  He said it was
first time in any U.S. major league sport that consumers could
choose between buying a league-wide out-of-market game bundle, or
watching only their favorite teams, on a season-long basis.

The team defendants included the Buffalo Sabres, Chicago
Blackhawks, New Jersey Devils, New York Islanders, New York
Rangers, Pittsburgh Penguins, San Jose Sharks and Washington
Capitals.

Shepard Goldfein, a lawyer for the NHL and teams, declined to
comment. The league, Comcast, DirecTV and MSG were not immediately
available for comment.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs would receive $6.5 million to cover
fees and costs under the settlement.

The cases are Laumann et al v. National Hockey League et al, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 12-01817; and
Lerner et al v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al in
the same court, No. 12-03074.


ORIENTAL BAKERY: Faces "Castaneda" Suit for Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Luis Alfonso Castaneda and other similarly situated individuals,
v. Oriental Bakery and Grocery Enterprises, Inc., Okash Abdel
Monem, and Rafat A. Monem, Case 1:15-cv-22226-JEM (S.D. Fla., June
12, 2015), seeks damages exceeding $15,000 excluding fees or costs
for unpaid wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.

Oriental Bakery is engaged in interstate commerce from its office
in Miami Dade Country, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005


PAPA JOHN'S: Trial Scheduled for August 2015 in "Perrin" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the trial is
scheduled for August 2015 in the Perrin class action.

Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA,
Inc. is a conditionally certified collective action filed in
August 2009 in the United States District Court, Eastern District
of Missouri, alleging that delivery drivers were not reimbursed
for mileage and expenses in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act. Approximately 3,900 drivers out of a potential
class size of 28,800 have opted into the action. In late December
2013, the District Court granted a motion for class certification
in five additional states, which added approximately 15,000
plaintiffs to the case. The trial is scheduled for August 2015.


PERKINS COIE: De Graff's Employment Suit Back in State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that almost
three years ago Perkins Coie successfully pushed a federal
employment suit targeting the firm into arbitration.  But now the
case is back -- this time in state court -- and it looks like the
firm will be forced to fight the battle over again.

Securities lawyer Harold DeGraff sued Perkins Coie in San Mateo
County Superior Court on June 11, claiming his former workplace
illegally forced him to foot the bill for employment expenses such
as Medicare costs, which he says Perkins Coie should have covered.

The claims echo a suit Mr. DeGraff filed in 2012 in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  Judge
Jeffrey White sent that case to arbitration, ruling Mr. DeGraff
was barred from litigating in court by the Perkins Coie
partnership agreement.  On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit determined the federal district court never had
jurisdiction to hear the case in the first place, and remanded the
case for dismissal.  Mr. White dismissed the case on June 10,
opening the door for DeGraff to try again in state court.

Mr. DeGraff is represented by Monique Olivier and Thomas Duckworth
of Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier.  Ronald McIntire, managing
partner of Perkins Coie's Los Angeles office, represented the firm
in the federal suit.  A Perkins Coie attorney hasn't entered an
appearance in the new case, and McIntire declined to comment
publicly.

Mr. DeGraff, now one of three partners at San Francisco firm
Hayden Bergman, claims Perkins Coie gave him the option in 2007 to
join the firm as a partner or an employee.  He says he chose to be
an employee, and as a result was managed by an executive committee
that could fire him at any time.  His employee status meant
Perkins Coie was prohibited from making unauthorized deductions
from Mr. DeGraff's paychecks, according to the complaint.

In a federal filing, McIntire contended Mr. DeGraff chose to join
the firm as a corporate partner, not an employee.

"Despite the repeated reference in the complaint to his purported
'employee' status, it is undisputed that Mr. DeGraff was a partner
in Perkins Coie LLP from 2007 to 2010," Mr. McIntire wrote.

Mr. DeGraff claims Perkins Coie regularly withheld money for
extraneous employment expenses, including workers' compensation
insurance, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Social Security.
In 2008 the firm took $11,803 from Mr. DeGraff's wages as a
"shareholder loan," and $20,297 for "mandatory retirement"
deductions, according to the complaint.  Mr. DeGraff claims
Perkins Coie also deducted about $1,500 a year for its charity
fund.

"Plaintiff and class members were induced by defendants by
promises of high guaranteed income to become attorneys at Perkins
Coie," Mr. DeGraff's lawyers wrote.  "Defendants hired plaintiff
and class members, deducted thousands of dollars for business
expenses and unlawfully failed to indemnify business expenses in
order to deny them wages and benefits to which they are lawfully
entitled under California law."

Mr. DeGraff's lawyers seek to represent a class of lawyers who
have been treated as shareholders or employees of Perkins Coie
California from 2008 through the suit's final judgment.

While plaintiffs were appealing White's decision on arbitration,
the lawyers for both sides realized there weren't enough class
members to keep the case in federal court.  The Class Action
Fairness Act allows claims to proceed in federal court if the
proposed class includes at least 100 people.  The Ninth Circuit
panel, made up of Judges Diarmuid O'Scannlain and Morgan Christen
and U.S. District Judge Michael Seabright of Hawaii, were
skeptical of the federal court's jurisdiction from the beginning
and asked both sides to address the issue.  Perkins Coie
determined the class could have no more than 60 members, and both
sides agreed to dismiss the case.


PGA TOUR: July 23 Hearing on Motion to Transfer Venue of Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garry Smits, writing for Jacksonville.com, reports that the next
step in a $50 million class action lawsuit filed by more than 150
caddies against the PGA Tour will be a hearing on July 23 on the
Tour's motion for a change of venue from the Northern California
U.S. District Court to the Middle Florida District, which includes
Jacksonville.

Eugene Egdorf of the Lanier Law Group, which is representing the
caddies on a contingency basis, said the Tour, whose headquarters
are in Ponte Vedra Beach, wants a home-field advantage.

"They don't dispute the filing of the lawsuit but they said it's
too inconvenient for them to have the case go forward in San
Francisco," said Mr. Egdorf, whose firm has offices in Houston and
Los Angeles.  "I find that a little preposterous.  They had a
tournament in San Francisco [the Dell Match Play last month] and
[commissioner] Tim Finchem and the rest of the Tour executives
managed to get there."

The lawsuit, filed on Feb. 3, noted that the Tour had an office in
San Francisco, owned or managed several courses in California and
operated five tournaments in the state.

The caddies are demanding compensation for being required to wear
bibs with the logos of tournament title sponsors.  The suit said
the $50 million figure is calculated by the amount of air time on
network TV and webcasts of the caddies with the logos visible.
The suit also states that the Tour "has treated caddies as second-
class participants of the game," and listed grievances such as
lack of health care coverage and access to pension plans and the
treatment at specific Tour events, including inadequate shelter
during dangerous weather situations.

The Tour does not comment on pending litigation.  However,
commissioner Tim Finchem said in an interview with the Times-Union
in May that while the Tour leaves caddie amenities and services up
to the individual tournament committees, efforts have been made
predating the lawsuit to improve conditions.

Mr. Egdorf said depositions of Tour officials were scheduled
to begin on June 26.


PFIZER INC: Can See Expert Report in Zoloft Birth Defect Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports
that lawyers bringing the case alleging that Zoloft caused birth
defects in babies born to women who took the antidepressant have
to turn over the report that their expert produced in similar
litigation over Prozac, the federal judge handling the case has
ruled.

The plaintiffs have to turn over the report and testimony given by
Dr. Nicholas Jewell in the Prozac case that is proceeding in the
Western District of North Carolina by May 21, U.S. District Judge
Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in a
short, two-page order.

Judge Rufe is handling the roughly 600 cases brought against
Pfizer, which makes Zoloft, that were consolidated in a
multidistrict litigation in her court.

The North Carolina suit was brought by a single plaintiff against
Eli Lilly & Co., which makes Prozac.

The two cases share several of the same plaintiffs lawyers.
Dr. Jewell is the second expert on causation that the plaintiffs
have offered in the Zoloft case.  The first one, Anick Berard, was
tossed after a week-long Daubert hearing last year.  It was an
unusual move for the judge to allow a second expert in the case.
Jewell is scheduled to have a Daubert hearing -- which allows
parties in a case to challenge expert testimony before the start
of trial and is named for the 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case Daubert
v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals -- starting July 7.

If he gets through that hearing, the case will likely focus on
just cardiovascular defects, since that is Dr. Jewell's area of
research.  Dr. Berard's research had tied Zoloft to a plethora of
birth defects, but Judge Rufe rejected her testimony, finding
several problems with her methodology.

"Dr. Jewell and plaintiffs' counsel, who are also counsel in the
Prozac litigation, insist that the entirety of Dr. Jewell's expert
report and deposition are confidential and thus subject to a
protective order," Pfizer said in its motion to compel the report.

"That blanket assertion is highly suspect and implausible.
Dr. Jewell is a general causation expert who presents a
statistical analysis of data.  He typically does not review or
discuss plaintiff-specific information or medical records and has
not done so in this matter.  His opinions in the Prozac
litigation, as they are in this litigation, are presumably based
primarily upon publicly available, peer-reviewed literature."

Judge Rufe agreed and ordered the plaintiffs to turn over the
report with portions that Eli Lilly has identified as confidential
redacted, as well as information that would reveal personal health
information protected by the Health Insurance Portability and
Accountability Act.

In the Prozac case, Angela Shoemake alleged her son was born with
a supracristal ventricular septal defect, a problem in the wall
between the left and right sides of the heart, because she took
Prozac while she was pregnant, according to her complaint in the
case.

About 60 percent of the more than 600 cases that are currently
part of the Zoloft MDL involve claims of cardiac defects.

"In making a blanket assertion of confidentiality over the entire
deposition and report, plaintiffs' and Dr. Jewell's motives are
transparent: They do not want the defendants or the court to
ascertain and explore whether there are any inconsistencies in his
methodologies in the different SSRI litigations," Pfizer had
argued in its motion to compel the report.

Both Zoloft and Prozac are antidepressant drugs that operate as
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, and the parties
disagree about how similarly the drugs operate.

"The real issue for this court . . . hotly debated by both sides
[is] when we're talking about birth defects, is there a difference
between SSRI drugs" or can you lump them together and treat them
as a class, Sheila Birnbaum -- sheilabirnbaum@quinnemanuel.com --
said during the Daubert hearing for Berard last year.  Ms.
Birnbaum is a partner with Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in
New York who is on Pfizer's defense team.
"They're very different," Ms. Birnbaum said, building the
defense's argument that SSRI drugs can't be treated as a class of
medicines with shared characteristics and effects.

After Judge Rufe rejected Dr. Berard as an expert and allowed the
plaintiffs to offer a second one, she emphasized that it is not to
be considered an acceptable legal strategy to petition for a
second expert after losing in a Daubert hearing, but, in this case
the lawyers for the plaintiffs had acted in good faith.

"The court in no way suggests seeking to present an additional
expert only after an unfavorable Daubert ruling is an appropriate
litigation strategy," she had said.

"However, the court has no reason to conclude that the [plaintiffs
steering committee] has acted in bad faith or that its present
predicament is the result of deliberate strategy instead of a
miscalculation as to the persuasiveness of Dr. Berard's
testimony," Judge Rufe said.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Judge Allows Civil Forfeiture Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
federal judge has allowed a civil suit to go forward against a
Philadelphia assistant district attorney and his supervisor over
their conduct during civil forfeiture proceedings.

The ruling marks the second win in as many months for critics of
the city's civil forfeiture process.

On June 11, U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania ruled an assistant district attorney and
the chief of the district attorney's Public Nuisance Task Force
Unit are not immune from claims by the administrator of an estate
that they failed to properly notify him of civil forfeiture
proceedings until after the subject property had been sold for
"pennies on the dollar."

Kevin Floyd, the administrator of the estate of Randolph Tyler and
the plaintiff in Tyler v. Grossman, is a son of a property owner
who died a year before civil forfeiture proceedings began.
Mr. Floyd alleged Fourth, Fifth and 14th amendment violations for
denial of due process and unlawful taking of property.

The ruling came a month after U.S. District Judge Eduardo C.
Robreno allowed a class action lawsuit to go forward against the
city of Philadelphia alleging that several of the Philadelphia
District Attorney's Office's practices violated their rights.
That suit, Sourovelis v. City of Philadelphia, said that, among
other things, the city's civil forfeiture procedures failed to
provide prompt post-deprivation hearings, allowed prosecutors to
"essentially act like judges in running forfeiture proceedings,"
and required property owners to surrender constitutional rights in
order to have their property unsealed, or to settle or dismiss the
forfeiture claims.

The city had contended in Sourovelis, among other things, that a
1996 decision from the Eastern District had been interpreted in
numerous other cases by the district court as holding that
district attorney offices cannot be liable for Section 1983
violations.  However, Judge Robreno said the passage the other
decisions relied on was "arguably dicta."

"This court declines to walk down this unexamined path -- a path
not supported by a close reading of Reitz [v. County of Bucks],"
Judge Robreno said.

David Rudovsky -- drudovsky@krlawphila.com -- of Kairys, Rudovsky,
Messing & Feinberg, who represented the plaintiffs in the class
action, said the rulings are an indication that the courts are
taking these claims seriously.

"I think courts are starting to look much more carefully at civil
forfeiture proceedings, particularly those in Philadelphia," he
said.  "That's because very credible allegations are being raised
concerning constitutional violations."

Noting a portion of Judge Robreno's opinion that said the District
Attorney's Office recently changed its ex parte "seize and seal"
order practice that the plaintiffs claimed failed to provide
adequate constitutional protections, Judge Rudovsky said he felt
the city should get some recognition for making recent adjustments
to some its policies.  However, he added that the changes were
likely due in large part to litigation.

Cameron Kline, spokesman for the District Attorney's Office,
declined to outline any additional internal policies that may have
changed, but said the office is taking steps to ensure that the
process is a "narrowly tailored" tool.

"Issues of forfeiture process and policy are something we take
very seriously," Mr. Kline said.

Bryan C. Hughes, a lawyer in the District Attorneys's Office who
is defense counsel in the Tyler case, added that the department
will have to evaluate whether Judge Beetlestone's opinion will
impact how the office handles these proceedings.

Noting the department's recent changes to the "seize and seal"
procedures, he said that office leaders "continue to look at
things we can do to improve our forfeiture program separate and
apart from any ongoing litigation."

Richard Long, executive director of the Pennsylvania District
Attorneys Association, said the rulings did not signal to him that
courts are viewing civil forfeiture-related claims more favorably,
but rather only suggest that the plaintiffs met certain procedural
requirements for their cases.

"While there may be some tweaking that may be appropriate [for
civil forfeiture procedures], as with many other programs,
overall, it serves an important purpose in helping to boost public
safety," Mr. Long said.

According to Judge Beetlestone, Tyler died in May 2009, but left
no will or written instructions regarding a plot of land he owned
in Philadelphia.

The District Attorney's Office commenced a civil drug forfeiture
proceeding on Tyler's property, Judge Beetlestone said.

At the time the forfeiture proceedings were begun, Tyler's estate
had not been raised.  Therefore, no legal representative was
available and no one could be served with a copy of the drug
forfeiture complaint, Judge Beetlestone said.  Notice that a suit
had been filed was likewise not served on anyone representing
Tyler's estate.

After notice of the drug forfeiture action was mailed to the
property, assistant district attorney Clarence Dupree, who had
been assigned the case, was allegedly told that Tyler was dead and
there was no estate.  Judge Beetlestone in her opinion said an
unknown individual in the District Attorney's Office allegedly
misinformed the state forfeiture court that an estate for Tyler
had been raised.

Mr. Dupree appeared several times between June 2011 and April 2012
before the Court of Common Pleas in the forfeiture proceedings,
and the property was eventually sold for $5,500, Judge Beetlestone
said.

About five months later, Tyler's estate was raised after Floyd
received letters of administration by the register for the probate
of wills regarding the property.

Floyd sued the city, the District Attorney's Office, Mr. Dupree
and Beth Grossman, the former task force chief, but the defendants
contended that the District Attorney's Office, as well as Ms.
Grossman and Mr. Dupree in their official capacities, could not be
sued. The defendants also argued that Dupree and Grossman had
absolute immunity for actions taken in their individual
capacities.

Judge Beetlestone dismissed with prejudice the claims against the
District Attorneys's Office, and Ms. Grossman and Mr. Dupree in
their official capacities, but she allowed the claims to proceed
against Grossman and Dupree in their individual capacities.

According to Judge Beetlestone, the question of whether the two
had immunity came down to the nature of the officials' allegedly
offending conduct.

Judge Beetlestone found that, although Dupree had immunity for
sending the notice of forfeiture proceedings, he was not immune
for his alleged failure to inform the court that an estate had not
been raised.

"This action was not in any way connected to the initiation or
conducting of the forfeiture trial, and cannot be considered
either judicial or quasi-judicial," Judge Beetlestone said.  "This
court concludes accordingly that Dupree's failure to notify the
forfeiture court of the fact that Tyler's estate had yet to be
raised was a purely administrative act not entitled to the shield
of absolute prosecutorial immunity."

She found likewise for Ms. Grossman's supervision of Mr. Dupree.
Geoffrey V. Seay, who represented the estate, did not return a
call seeking comment, but Judge Rudovsky said Judge Beetlestone's
ruling could impact the way these civil forfeiture cases are
processed.  "It's an important sign that they really have to be
more careful in the way they can proceed in these cases," Judge
Rudovsky said.


PIZZA 18: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juventino Ambros, Fidel Flores, Gabriel Castillo Garcia, and Nabor
Jara Villegas, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated known and unknown v. Pizza 18, LLC
d/b/a Benny's Pizza and Benny's Pizza II, Enrique Salcido,
individually, Juan C. Fajarado Macedo, individually, and Octavio
Rodriguez, individually, Case: 1:15-cv-05315 (N.D. Ill., June 16,
2015) lawsuit arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendant Pizza 18, LLC is an Illinois limited liability company
doing business within this judicial district.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Carlos G. Becerra, Esq.
      Perla M. Gonzalez, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW GROUP, LLC
      332 South Michigan, Suite 1020
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312)753-6967
      Fax: (888)826-5848
      E-mail: cbecerra@law-rb.com
              pgonzalez@law-rb.com


POLLO OPERATIONS: Sued in Fla. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Pollo Operations, Inc. d/b/a
Pollo Tropical, Case No. 1:15-cv-22312-KMM (S.D. Fla., June 18,
2015), asserts that the Defendant's website does not provide
screen reader software or other means to accommodate the visually
impaired, nor does it interface with screen reader software in
order that visually impaired individuals can comprehend the
website.

Pollo Operations, Inc. owns and operates a fast food restaurant
chain that conducts business within the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
      E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


REGIS CORPORATION: Fong Gets OK to File 2nd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria signed a joint stipulation allowing
the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint in the case
captioned MELISSA FONG, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees and all aggrieved employees of Defendants in
the State of California, Plaintiff, v. REGIS CORPORATION d.b.a.
MINNESOTA REGIS CORPORATION, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants,
CASE NO. 13:CV:004497-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff wishes to amend her First Amended Complaint to amend
previous allegations and assert new allegations, class action
claims, causes of action, to add Christina L. Salas as an
additional Plaintiff, and to add Regis Corp. as an additional
Defendant.

The Defendant has reviewed Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended
Complaint and contends that Plaintiff's new allegations, class
action claims, and causes of action are without factual or legal
merit, but agreed, in the interests of efficiency, to the
Plaintiff's filing of her proposed Second Amended Complaint.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation dated June 12, 2015
is available at http://bit.ly/1LQIsNgfrom Leagle.com.

GRAHAMHOLLIS APC, Marta Manus -- mmanus@grahamhollis.com -- Graham
S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- San Diego, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiff MELISSA FONG.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Catherine M. Dacre -- cdacre@seyfarth.com --
Michael W. Kopp -- mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Ari Hersher --
ahersher@seyfarth.com -- San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Defendant REGIS CORPORATION.


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Sued Over Breach of Fair Debt Collection Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kyun Bum Oh, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a American Medical
Collection Agency and John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-04194
(D.N.J., June 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROSS STORES: Faces "Jacobo" Suit Over False Merchandise Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Jacobo, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ross Stores, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04701-MMM-AGR (C.D. Cal., June 20, 2015), is a
class action against Defendants for labeling the products it sells
in its California stores with false and misleading comparative
prices and corresponding false discounts and savings for its
apparel and other merchandise.

Ross Stores, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that owns and operates
approximately 240 Ross stores throughout the state of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SANOFI: Faces ERISA Class Action in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
stockholders in drugmaker Sanofi's group savings plan claim in a
putative class action that the plan's administrators violated the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by providing misleading
information about Sanofi's alleged payment of kickbacks to health-
care professionals to induce purchases of its drugs.

The suit, filed in federal court in Newark, claims the company's
stock price dropped 20 percent in December 2014 when a company
paralegal accused Sanofi of making at least $34 million in illegal
payments to induce purchases of the company's drugs.

The defendants in the suit are the U.S. Pension Committee,
Administrative Committee and Investment Committee of the Sanofi US
Group Savings Plan.  Also named as defendants are Richard Johnson,
the plan administrator and senior director of compensation and
benefits for Sanofi, and Edgar Grass, treasurer for Sanofi.  The
plaintiff is Joseph Forte of Ambler, Pennsylvania, a former
employee of a company acquired by Sanofi and a participant in the
plan.  He held shares of the stock fund in a retirement savings
account.

The suit concerns allegations that the company paid illegal
kickbacks to get Walgreen Co., Rite-Aid Corp. and other companies
to buy Sanofi's products, and that it contracted with consulting
firms Deloitte and Accenture to illegally promote the use of the
company's drugs.

The suit was brought on behalf of participants and beneficiaries
in the Sanofi US Group Savings plan who invested in company stock
between March 21, 2013, and Dec. 4, 2014.  During that time, as a
result of past violations of federal health-care laws, Sanofi was
subject to a corporate integrity agreement with the Office of the
Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, which required it to comply with federal health care
laws, and which prescribed mandatory investigation and reporting
of illegal activities by the company, the suit says.

The former company paralegal, Diane Ponte, filed a whistleblower
suit in Essex County Superior Court in December 2014, claiming she
was fired after raising concerns about the alleged kickbacks.  The
savings plan suit says Sanofi's stock began to trade at an
artificially inflated price due to the company's
misrepresentations to the public regarding corruption in its
business.

Mr. Ponte claims in her suit that Sanofi had a policy that no
employee could sign contracts on behalf of the company unless the
contracts were first reviewed by the finance, purchasing and legal
departments.  Mr. Ponte claims that she determined Christopher
Viehbacher, the then-CEO of Sanofi, either directly or through
instructions to others, ensured that such illegal payments were
miscoded on the company computer system so they could be executed
without approval of the finance, purchasing and legal departments.
According to the savings plan suit, the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under ERISA for continuing to allow employees to
buy company stock through the group savings plan even after they
knew it had become an imprudent investment.

The suit says Sanofi publicly announced in October 2014 that it
was investigating allegations that the company made improper
payments to health-care professionals in Africa and the Middle
East from 2007 to 2012.  But the announcement was a "woefully
incomplete disclosure" because it did not mention the allegations
by Ponte concerning payments to U.S. pharmacies or the lack of
internal controls to ensure legal compliance, the suit claims.
The savings plan had approximately $3.9 billion in various
investments, including $102 million in the stock fund, the suit
says.  Sanofi, headquartered in Paris, has its U.S. base of
operations in Bridgewater.

The class suit brings claims for failure to prudently and loyally
manage the plan's assets, and failure to adequately monitor the
plan fiduciaries and provide them with accurate information.  The
suit seeks a declaration that the defendants breached ERISA
fiduciary duties owed to the plan and its participants, an order
compelling defendants to make good to the plan all losses
resulting from breaches of the defendants' fiduciary duties, and
imposition of a constructive trust on any amounts by which
defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of the plan as
the result of breaches of fiduciary duty.

The savings plan suit is the third filed in New Jersey over the
alleged kickback scheme.  In addition to Mr. Ponte's whistleblower
suit, a putative class action was filed in federal court in
February on behalf of consumers and third-party payors, who claim
the company engaged in unjust enrichment and consumer fraud.  That
suit includes the company as well as Accenture and Deloitte as
defendants.

Mr. Forte and the class are represented by Jacob Zamansky and
Justin Sauerwald of Zamansky in New York, who did not return
calls.  Sanofi said in a statement issued by spokeswoman
Mary Kathryn Steel, "These allegations are without merit, and
Sanofi will vigorously defend the suit."


SOLID BUILDERS: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leonardo Cruz Torres and all others similarly situated v. Solid
Builders, Inc. and Ignacio Hernandez, Case No. 1:15-cv-22326 (S.D.
Fla., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

Solid Builders, Inc. owns and operates a construction company that
regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rivkah Fay Jaff, Esq.
      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300-71st Street, Ste 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      E-mail: Rivkah.Jaff@gmail.com
              ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SOUTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV: May Join Higher Educ Segregation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith, writing for The Associated Press, reports that South
Carolina State University will be part of a lawsuit alleging the
state still has a segregated system of higher education.  The only
question is whether the school will be a plaintiff or a defendant,
the attorney who filed the suit said on June 12.

Current and former S.C. State students have sued the state and the
Commission on Higher Education, saying duplication of S.C. State
programs at other public universities has hurt enrollment and the
bottom line at the Orangeburg school.  The suit alleges that if
white students can receive the courses elsewhere, they are not
likely to attend the state's only historically black public
university.

The debt at the financially troubled school is expected to reach
almost $24 million by month's end.  State lawmakers earlier this
year removed its board of trustees and a new board was put in
place.  The lawsuit, filed earlier this year in federal court in
Columbia, seeks monetary damages for the plaintiffs and a special
mediator to recommend a remedy for what it calls a segregated
higher education system.

Orangeburg attorney Glenn Walters said if the university doesn't
join as a plaintiff because the school isn't getting adequate
state funding, he will name the school as a defendant.

"We certainly want S.C. State University joining our lawsuit" as a
plaintiff, he said.

Charles Way, the chairman of the new S.C. State board, said the
board has been handling other matters and has not been briefed on
the case.

If the school is named as a defendant, Mr. Walters said, "the
students will argue their degrees were diminished by negligence
and improper management of the school by the university itself."

Attorneys for the state and the commission have responded to the
lawsuit saying South Carolina was required decades ago to
dismantle its segregated system of higher education.  They argue
in court documents that the U.S. Justice Department's Office of
Civil Rights determined in 1988 that the state's desegregation
complied with federal law.

Wilkes said the issue of S.C. State's role in the lawsuit must be
resolved before other matters, including whether the case will be
made a class action suit, can be addressed.  The lawsuit is not
expected to go to trial until next year.


SOUTH FLORIDA COURIER: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Eusse and all others similarly situated v. South Florida
Courier Systems, Inc. and Gonzalo Ochoa, Case No. 1:15-cv-22328-
MGC (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours weekly.

South Florida Courier Systems, Inc. operates a courier services
company that regularly transacts business within Palm Beach
County.

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


SOUTHEAST FORMWORK: Faces Suit for Violation of Overtime Wage Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Palma, and all others similarly situated v. Southeast
Formwork Construction, LLC, Clarence L. Whiteside, Case 1:15-cv-
22229-JLK (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2015), was brought for alleged
Federal Overtime Wage Violation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Southeast Formwork is a corporation that regularly transacts
business within Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


SOUTHWEST BANCORP: Court Denied Motion Seeking Leave to Amend
-------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has denied
the plaintiffs' motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to
add additional parties.

On March 18, 2011, an action entitled Ubaldi, et al. v SLM
Corporation ("Sallie Mae"), et al., Case No. 3:11-cv-01320 EDL
(the "Ubaldi Case") was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California as a putative class action with
respect to certain loans that the plaintiffs claim were made by
Sallie Mae.   The loans in question were made by various banks,
including Bank SNB, and sold to Sallie Mae.  Plaintiffs claim that
Sallie Mae entered into arrangements with chartered banks in order
to evade California law and that Sallie Mae is the de facto lender
on the loans in question and, as the lender on such loan, Sallie
Mae charged interest and late fees that violates California usury
law and the California Business and Professions Code. Sallie Mae
has denied all claims asserted against it and has stated that it
intends to vigorously defend the action.

On March 26, 2014, the Court denied the plaintiffs' request to
certify the class; however, the Court permitted the plaintiffs to
amend the filing to redefine the class. Plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion on June 23, 2014. On December 19, 2014, the Court issued a
decision on the renewed motion, certifying a class with respect to
claims of improper late fees, but denying class certification with
respect to plaintiffs' usury claims.   Plaintiffs thereafter filed
a motion seeking leave to amend their complaint to add additional
parties, which Sallie Mae opposed, and, on March 24, 2015, the
Court denied the plaintiffs' motion.

Bank SNB is not specifically named in the action.  However, in the
first quarter of 2014, Sallie Mae provided Bank SNB with a notice
of claims that have been asserted against Sallie Mae in the Ubaldi
Case (the "Notice").  Sallie Mae asserts in the Notice that Bank
SNB may have indemnification and/or repurchase obligations
pursuant to the ExportSS Agreement dated July 1, 2002 between
Sallie Mae and Bank SNB, pursuant to which the loans in question
were made by Bank SNB.  Bank SNB has substantial defenses with
respect to any claim for indemnification or repurchase ultimately
made by Sallie Mae, if any, and intends to vigorously defend
against any such claims.

Due to the uncertainty regarding (i) the size and scope of the
class, (ii) whether a class will ultimately be certified, (iii)
the particular class members, (iv) the interest rate on loans made
by Bank SNB charged to particular class members, (v) the late fees
charged to particular class members, (vi) the time period that
will ultimately be at issue if a class is certified in the Ubaldi
Case, (vii) the theories, if any, under which the plaintiffs might
prevail, (viii) whether Sallie Mae will make a claim against us
for indemnification or repurchase, and (ix) the likelihood that
Sallie Mae would prevail if it makes such a claim, we cannot
estimate the amount or the range of losses that may arise as a
result of the Ubaldi Case.


SUMMIT NURSING: "Davis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marquita Davis v. Summit Nursing Services, Inc. and Melva Barrett,
Case No. 0:15-cv-61301-BB (S.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), seeks to
recover overtime wages, liquidated damages, post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fee and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operates a living assisted facility in in
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Jay Militzok, Esq.
      MILITZOK LAW, P.A.
      4600 Sheridan Street, Suite 402
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 780-8228
      Facsimile: (954) 719-4016
      E-mail: bjm@mllawfl.com


TABLE FOR EIGHT: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Wang" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wei Ping Wang, Wei Chun Gao, Individually And On Behalf Of All
Other Employees Similarly Situated v. Table For Eight, Inc. d/b/a
M Noodle Shop, M Shanghai, LLC d/b/a M Shanghai, May Liu, John Doe
and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-03594 (E.D.N.Y., June 19,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate M Shanghai restaurant located at
292 Grand Street, Brooklyn, New York 11211.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


TACO & BURRITO: Face "Pedroza" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Placido Pedroza, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Taco & Burrito House #4,
Inc., d/b/a Taco & Burrito House, and Fermin Salinas, Case No.
1:15-cv-05483 (N.D. Ill., June 19, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant called Taco & Burrito
House, located at 3038 N. Broadway St., Chicago, Illinois 60657.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N Pulaski Rd, Ste. 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


TAKATA CORP: Airbag Likely Involved in Car Crash in Louisiana
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that the top U.S. auto safety regulator has said a
ruptured Takata air bag was probably involved in the April 5 car
crash that killed a 22-year-old Louisiana woman, which would make
her death the seventh linked to an air-bag defect.

Kylan Rae Langlinais died four days after her 2005 Honda Civic
struck a utility pole in an early morning accident, according to a
lawsuit filed by her family this week in U.S. District Court.  The
suit alleges that the vehicle's driver-side Takata air bag
exploded, sending shards of metal into the passenger compartment
and severing her carotid artery.

"After examination of the vehicle and other evidence, NHTSA has
concluded that a ruptured Takata air bag inflator is likely to
have been involved," Mark R. Rosekind, administrator for the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said in a
statement.

The lawsuit names Honda Motor and Takata as defendants. Officials
from neither company were available for comment on Rosekind's
statement.

Defective Takata air-bag inflators have been linked to six other
deaths and hundreds of injuries worldwide. All of the deaths have
occurred in vehicles manufactured by Honda.


TBC CORPORATION: Faces "Desimoni" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Corey Desimoni & James Reiter, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. TBC Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-00366-UA-
CM (M.D. Fla., June 19, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

TBC Corporation is a Delaware corporation that markets tires for
the automotive replacement market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Class Cert. Hearings Set for Nov. 30 to Dec. 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the hearing of the
Plaintiffs' certification motion will take place from November 30,
2015 to December 2, 2015 in London, Ontario, in the Canadian
Horsepower label litigation.

The Company said, "On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray
Davenport filed a lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice against us and several other
defendants (including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings
Corporation, John Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs &
Stratton Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products
Inc., The Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and
Kohler Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of
lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen
competition in lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and
to mislabel the horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers
in violation of the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy
prohibitions and the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act."

"Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons in Canada who
purchased, for their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower
containing a gas combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less
provided that either the lawn mower or the engine contained within
the lawn mower was manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or
their predecessors between January 1, 1994 and the date of
judgment. Plaintiffs seek undetermined money damages, punitive
damages, interest, costs and equitable relief. In addition,
Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the
purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and
Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim
indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock
Purchase Agreement with them.

"A settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki,
American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by
the court. It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor
is it determinative of their liability, if any.  A schedule
leading to the hearing of the Plaintiffs' certification motion has
been established. Pursuant to this schedule, the hearing will take
place from November 30, 2015 to December 2, 2015 in London,
Ontario.

"At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount
of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential
future settlement, but the amount could be material to our
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows."

           Cert. Motion in Quebec Action Not Scheduled

Tecumseh also said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the certification
motion in the Quebec action has not been scheduled.

"On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior
Court of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against us and several other defendants (including those listed
above) advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately
above," the Company said. "Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary
damages, punitive damages, interest, costs, and equitable relief.
As stated above, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum
Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its
subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us
that they claim indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under
our Stock Purchase Agreement with them."

"As was the case with the Ontario litigation described above, a
settlement involving all but three of the defendants (Kawasaki,
American Honda and Tecumseh) has been negotiated and approved by
the court.  It is not binding on the non-settling defendants, nor
is it determinative of their liability, if any.

"The certification motion in the Quebec action has not been
scheduled. It is unlikely, however, that it will be heard before
the certification in the Ontario action.

"At this time, we do not have a reasonable estimate of the amount
of our ultimate liability, if any, or the amount of any potential
future settlement, but the amount could be material to our
financial position, consolidated results of operations and cash
flows."


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Canada Class Actions in Preliminary Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in Canada, the class
actions related to Compressor industry antitrust investigation
are still in a preliminary stage.

The Company said, "On February 17, 2009, we received a subpoena
from the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division
("DOJ") and a formal request for information from the Secretariat
of Economic Law of the Ministry of Justice of Brazil ("SDE")
related to investigations by these authorities into possible anti-
competitive pricing arrangements among certain manufacturers in
the compressor industry. The European Commission began an
investigation of the industry on the same day."

"We have entered into a conditional amnesty agreement with the DOJ
under the Antitrust Division's Corporate Leniency Policy. Pursuant
to the agreement, the DOJ has agreed to not bring any criminal
prosecution or impose any monetary fines with respect to the
investigation against us as long as we, among other things,
continue our full cooperation in the investigation. We have
received similar conditional immunity from the European Commission
and the SDE, and have received or requested immunity or leniency
from competition authorities in other jurisdictions. On December
7, 2011, the European Commission announced it had reached a cartel
settlement under which certain of our competitors received fines
for the conduct investigated. As a result of our conditional
immunity, we were not assessed any fine.

"While we have taken steps to avoid fines, penalties and other
sanctions as the result of proceedings brought by regulatory
authorities, the amnesty grants do not extend to civil actions
brought by private plaintiffs. The public disclosure of these
investigations has resulted in class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and numerous class action lawsuits filed in the United
States, including by both direct and indirect purchaser groups. In
Canada, the class actions are still in a preliminary stage. All of
the U.S. actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings under Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL") procedures. Our settlements with the direct and indirect
plaintiffs were approved by the court in April and June 2014."


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: To Contest Products Liability/ Warranty Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously contest Atlantic's Products Liability/Warranty Claim.

The Company said, "On July 31, 2014, Tecumseh Europe S.A. was
served a writ (on the merits) before the Commercial Court of La
Roche-sur-Yon by the five companies of the Atlantic Industrie SAS
group. The dispute alleges product failures associated with the
supply by Tecumseh Europe of evaporating units mounted on
Atlantic's thermodynamic water heaters pursuant to a November 2009
purchase agreement. The writ seeks the payment of 16,715,109 Euros
as damages alleging our failure to satisfy our obligation of
information, hidden defects, lack of conformity and breach of the
purchase agreement. We have informed our insurance company about
this dispute. Under our insurance policy, we are responsible for
the first 60,000 Euros, with our insurance covering up to the next
3.5 million Euros. Our insurance company has assumed the defense
of this claim, subject to a reservation of rights.  We intend to
vigorously contest Atlantic's claim. A judicial expert will be
appointed by the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon. The
decision should be issued in May, 2015."


THAXTON INVESTMENT: Accused of Violating FLSA, S.C. Wages Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roger DeBenedetto, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Thaxton Investment Corporation, Southern
Management Corporation, Southern Finance of South Carolina, Inc.
d/b/a Southern ) Finance, Quick Credit, Covington Credit, SoCo
Finance, Case No. 6:15-cv-02475-MGL (D. S.C., June 19, 2015),
seeks to recover for Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and the South Carolina Wages Act, and/or
equitable remedy of unjust enrichment.

Thaxton Investment Corporation, Southern Finance of South
Carolina, Inc., and Southern Management Corporation d/b/a Southern
Finance, Quick Credit, Covington Credit, and SoCo Finance is a
small loan consumer finance company with over 250 branch locations
throughout the Southeast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John G. Reckenbeil, Esq.
     Lawrence E. McNair, III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JOHN RECKENBEIL, LLC
     215 Magnolia Street (29306)
     Post Office Box 1633
     Spartanburg, SC 29304
     Tel: (864) 582-5472
     Fax: (864) 582-7280


TOTAL MERCHANT: Faces "Detore" Suit Over Unlawful Company Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Detore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Total Merchant Limited, et al., Case No. 11177-VCL
(Del. Ch., June 19, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Metalico, Inc. to enjoin the company's agreement
and plan of merger with Total Merchant Limited through an unfair
sales process.

Headquartered in Cranford, New Jersey, Metalico, Inc. is a leading
full service scrap metal recycling and processing facility
operating in the northeastern region of the U.S.

Total Merchant Limited is purportedly an investment vehicle formed
for the purpose of seeking investment opportunities in the U.S.
metals and commodities market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Isolde, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace
and James E. Perry, Case No. 3:15-cv-02093-K (N.D. Tex., June 19,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects in press
releases and filings with the SEC and in oral statements to the
media, securities analysts and investors.

Trinity Industries, Inc. owns and operates an industrial company
that owns businesses providing products and services to the
energy, transportation, chemical and construction sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Balon B. Bradley, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF BALON B. BRADLEY
      5473 Blair Road, Suite 100
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (972) 991-1582
      Facsimile: (972) 755-0424
      E-mail: balon@bbradleylaw.com

         - and -

      David C. Walton, Esq.
      Nathan R. Lindell, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON BOTTINI LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: frankj@johnsonbottini.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Kellett and David Cotoi, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No.
BC585704 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 18, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay all minimum, regular and overtime
wages in violation of the California labor Code.

Uber Technologies, Inc. owns and operates a transportation network
company headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, 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
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Gillette" and "Mohamed" Suit May Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Weber, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that a
federal judge in California allowed lawsuits by two drivers for
Uber Technologies Inc. to proceed in court, rebuffing the ride-
sharing company's attempt to resolve the actions in closed
arbitration proceedings.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen, in the Northern District of
California, ruled on June 9 that the arbitration policies Uber had
in place during 2013 and 2014 were unenforceable because, among
other things, they were overly burdensome to drivers.

The plaintiffs, Ronald Gillette and Abdul Mohamed, claim that Uber
violated federal and state background-checking laws when it
terminated them based upon information that appeared in their
credit checks.  Mr. Gillette also alleged that Uber -- currently
valued at $41 billion -- wrongly classifies drivers as independent
contractors, and not employees.

In a statement, Uber said, "We disagree with this ruling and plan
to appeal it."


Arbitration policies -- which require conflicts to be resolved by
a private third party rather than through the public courts --
have become a powerful tool for companies to keep employment
disputes confidential and avoid expensive class-action lawsuits.
Compared with lawsuits, individual arbitration tends to be
speedier and less expensive for employers, but critics say that it
puts workers at a disadvantage and rarely results in
organizational change.

In March, Judge Chen and another San Francisco judge issued
similar rulings in two other cases involving Uber and its rival
Lyft, focused on the employee-versus-contractor question.  By
determining that the drivers' claims should go before juries, the
judges may be setting the stage for trials that decide the blurry
but increasingly important question of how workers should be
classified in the so-called on-demand economy.

In the ruling, Judge Chen wrote, "It remains to be seen whether
drivers like Gillette are, or are not, Uber's employees under
California law."  In the March ruling, he had written that the
question of drivers' employment status "presents a mixed question
of law and fact that must typically be resolved by a jury."


UNITED AIR: Ct. Rules on Bid for More time to File Amended Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria issued on June 22, 2015, an order on
a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint in
the following cases:

* KEN HANEY, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00474-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1GJQq6mfrom Leagle.com

* ANTHONY MANSWELL, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00469-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1NuPs2Dfrom Leagle.com

* LEO SHERMAN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00473-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1LSrH4jfrom Leagle.com

* GLEN ROANE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00464-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1Hvvx5zfrom Leagle.com

* TERENCE HARTSFIELD, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00477-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at  http://bit.ly/1eglIuSfrom Leagle.com

* DARRYL WILSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00472-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1GJRKGrfrom Leagle.com

* RICHARD JOHN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00475-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1eXGqADfrom Leagle.com

* JOHNNIE E. JONES, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00462-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1Ns0gPLfrom Leagle.com

* LEON MILLER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00457-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1duqtQRfrom Leagle.com

* DAVID RICKETTS, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00465-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1Ns0pCEfrom Leagle.com

* SAL CROCKER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00468-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1GM6hSKfrom Leagle.com

* KARL MINTER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00470-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1GJW7B9from Leagle.com

* PAUL C. NOBLE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00461-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1HvvQ02from Leagle.com

* ELDRIDGE JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-02730-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1C4H9ucfrom Leagle.com

* LESTER TOM, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00466-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1LFBmhwfrom Leagle.com

* ERWIN WASHINGTON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00471-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1KqEgX4from Leagle.com

* XAVIER PALMER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00458-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1LFBz4pfrom Leagle.com

* ODIE BRISCOE, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC, et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00476-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1RPEsOPfrom Leagle.com

* MARIO ECUNG, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00456-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1LFBH3Vfrom Leagle.com

* FREDERICK ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIRLINES INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-00463-VC, (N.D. Cal.), a copy of which
is available at http://bit.ly/1JoahvWfrom Leagle.com

The plaintiffs in these cases requested for an extension of time
to file a Sixth Amended Complaint.

In 2012, the lawyers in these cases, Spencer Smith and Dow Patten,
filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of California on behalf
of 23 plaintiffs. The lawsuit was not a proposed class action. The
plaintiffs, mostly pilots and all African American employees of
United Airlines, alleged that United had denied them promotional
opportunities because of their race. After three years' worth of
multiple motions to dismiss, the previously-assigned judge ruled
that the Fourth Amended Complaint stated a claim for disparate
treatment discrimination on behalf of all the plaintiffs, but that
the plaintiffs were improperly joined. The previously-assigned
judge ordered the plaintiffs to file new, individualized
complaints.

Each plaintiff then filed an individual Fifth Amended Complaint.
Each plaintiff continues to be represented by the same lawyers
(except for one plaintiff who was represented by different counsel
and whose case has since been transferred to another district).
The cases were randomly assigned to various judges of this
district. Then the Chief Judge, in her capacity as chair of the
Court's Executive Committee, reassigned all the cases to Judge
Chhabria for efficiency's sake.

While the complaints were individual (in the sense that each
plaintiff was no longer improperly joined with another plaintiff),
they were not individualized. Rather, they were mostly cut-and-
paste jobs. Some plaintiffs included individualized allegations
about promotional opportunities for which they applied but which
they did not receive. But all plaintiffs included boilerplate
allegations about "unposted" promotional opportunities (and some
of the plaintiffs included only such boilerplate allegations).
These allegations bore no indicia of individual race
discrimination. Each complaint merely alleged that the plaintiff
was "precluded from participating in the filling of vacancies" for
promotional opportunities. And each complaint alleged that each
plaintiff was precluded from "participating" in the filling of
every single "unposted" promotional opportunity available for
managers at United throughout the country from 2008 to the
present. None of the complaints indicated whether any plaintiff
actually wanted any particular position, and none of the
complaints indicated whether any plaintiff had communicated to
United an interest in a particular position or a particular class
of positions.

In light of this, in each case (except a couple that were
transferred for improper venue), the Court issued an order to show
cause. In cases where a particular plaintiff's Fifth Amended
Complaint only relied on these boilerplate allegations, the Court
ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not
be dismissed for failure to state a claim. In cases where a
particular plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint also included
individualized allegations about positions to which the plaintiff
had applied, the Court ordered the plaintiff to show cause why the
boilerplate claims relating to unposted positions should not be
stricken.

In all the cases, the Court made clear that, in light of unusual
circumstances surrounding these cases, each plaintiff would
receive another opportunity to amend his complaint to state an
individualized claim for race discrimination, based on the denial
of promotional opportunities for which the plaintiff had actually
made himself available. The Court also informed counsel that the
plaintiffs could simply amend their complaints in response to the
order to show cause, rather than taking the time to brief and
argue the question.

Each plaintiff responded to the order to show cause. The responses
by the plaintiffs (as well as the defendants' brief in response to
the order to show cause) only confirmed that the boilerplate
allegations relating to unposted promotional opportunities did not
state a claim for individual race discrimination. Therefore, with
respect to the plaintiffs who relied solely on those boilerplate
allegations, the Court dismissed the Fifth Amended Complaint with
leave to amend. With respect to the plaintiffs who made some
individualized allegations but then also relied on the boilerplate
allegations, the Court dismissed the claims relating to the
boilerplate allegations. In each case, the dismissal occurred on
May 22, 2015. And the Court gave each plaintiff until June 12,
2015 to file a Sixth Amended Complaint.

The day before the amended complaints were due, counsel for the
plaintiffs filed, on behalf of each plaintiff in each case, a
request for an extension of the deadline to file a Sixth Amended
Complaint. The requests were filed late, because the Court's
standing order for civil cases provides that any request for
extension of a filing deadline must be filed 72 hours before the
deadline. The Court did not immediately rule on the extension
requests (because they were filed late), but counsel for the
plaintiffs nonetheless failed to file a Sixth Amended Complaint on
behalf of any plaintiff on the date it was due. And as of June 22,
2015, more than one week later, counsel for the plaintiffs still
have not filed a Sixth Amended Complaint on behalf of any of their
clients.

"Counsel for the plaintiffs have therefore exposed their clients
to potential dismissal of their civil rights claims relating to
unposted promotional opportunities with prejudice," ruled Judge
Chhabria.  "This means that, for each plaintiff who relies solely
on the boilerplate allegations about unposted positions, counsel
have exposed the client to potential dismissal of his entire
lawsuit with prejudice."

As for the substance of the requests for an extension, Judge
Chhabria held that the briefs submitted by the plaintiffs' lawyers
are barely understandable. To the extent the requests can be
understood at all, they seem to relate primarily to the fact that
counsel has, on behalf of at least one plaintiff, filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus with the Ninth Circuit seeking: (1)
reversal of the Court's dismissal of the Fifth Amended Complaint
(or claims within the Fifth Amended Complaint) with leave to
amend; and (2) a stay of proceedings in this Court pending
resolution of the petition for a writ of mandamus.

"There are two things to say about this proposed rationale for an
extension," ruled Judge Chhabria.  "First, the petition for a writ
of mandamus and accompanying stay request was obviously frivolous.
(It has been denied.) Second, and more importantly, this attempt
by the lawyers to delay the proceedings seems contrary to the
interests of their clients."

"Overall, it is unclear why the lawyers for these plaintiffs are
engaging in such dilatory conduct. Once the cases were severed,
the lawyers needed to sit down with their clients and figure out
whether, and if so how, each one can state a claim for race
discrimination on an individual basis. But it appears the lawyers
for the plaintiffs have, since the severance, done everything
possible to avoid that task. In any event, their conduct has put
the Court in a difficult position. Should the Court dismiss with
prejudice all claims by all plaintiffs that allege discrimination
in connection with unposted positions, on the ground that the
plaintiffs failed to amend their complaints in a timely manner?
This would penalize these civil rights plaintiffs for the conduct
of their lawyers. Should the Court retroactively grant the
extension request, thereby giving the plaintiffs one more chance
to pursue their claims? This seems unfair to the defendants, and
allows the lawyers for the plaintiffs to get away with blowing an
important deadline," he continued.

"The parties should come to the case management conference
prepared to discuss this issue. The parties should also be
prepared to discuss whether Spencer Smith and Dow Patten should be
sanctioned for their failure to timely file Sixth Amended
Complaints on behalf of their clients," Judge Chhabria concluded.


UNITED FURNITURE: Court Appeal Uphold Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------
Brad W. Dixon and Michelle T. Maniago, in an article for Lexology,
report that in Marshall v. United Furniture Warehouse Limited
Partnership, a unanimous division of the British Columbia Court of
Appeal upheld the lower court's refusal to certify a claim where
consumers received varied combinations of written and oral
representations.  This decision is critical for any business whose
front-line staff engage directly with consumers.

The Plaintiffs' Claim

The plaintiffs attempted to certify a class action against the
respondents, the United Furniture and Brick group of companies
(and certain predecessor organizations), on the basis that they
misled consumers into believing that a "cash voucher" program,
administered by a third party, was guaranteed by them.  The
plaintiffs alleged that this was a deceptive act or practice under
the British Columbia Business Practices and ConsumerProtection
Act("BPCPA").

The plaintiffs alleged that the guarantee was created by a
combination of certain parts of the text on the vouchers,
newspaper advertisements, in-store signs and tags, and oral
representations by sales people.  The evidence before the court
was that every customer had to deal with a sales person in making
his or her purchase and that each sales person gave differing
amounts of detail about the program to consumers.  Counsel for the
plaintiffs acknowledged that different plaintiffs would have been
exposed to different sources of information.

Certification Judge's Refusal to Certify

The certification judge, in refusing to certify the claim, held
that the claim failed to establish necessary commonality of
experience for the consumer to justify a class action.  She wrote:

. . . while there is some commonality in the written sources, the
evidence demonstrates that different customers received a varying
amount of information from sales staff, both written and oral.
The fact that the plaintiffs rely on varying combinations of
written material and oral representations to prove a deceptive act
or practice renders a determination of this issue one for
individual inquiry.

The Court of Appeal Reasons for Judgment

The Court of Appeal held that the certification judge's finding
that oral representations were in the "mix for every customer" was
supported by the evidence, and was owed deference.  The Court
upheld the refusal to certify.

The Court of Appeal concluded:

Each customer had a different experience in the store(s). Under
the BPCPA, each class member would have to demonstrate that he or
she fell within the Act.  The appeal can be disposed on this
basis. There is no error in the chambers judge's findings on this
aspect of the case, and that alone is enough to uphold her
decision that certification is not the preferable procedure.

The full decision of the Court of Appeal is available online, and
is indexed as 2015 BCCA 252.

Impact of Decision

This decision affirms that the certification analysis still must
be robustly applied to protect the courts from unwieldy class
actions that are devoid of commonality.


UNITED STATES: Judge Certifies DHS Medicare Appeal Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge
has certified a class action accusing the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services of failing to observe the statutory 90-
day time limit on Medicare appeals.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey Meyer in Connecticut ruled on June 10
that six Medicare beneficiaries could represent a nationwide class
even though their own appeals had been resolved since they filed
their lawsuit last August.


UNITED STATES: Immigrants Sue Border Patrol in Tucson
-----------------------------------------------------
Fox News Latino and The Associated Press report that a lawsuit
filed on behalf of three immigrants claims that the U.S. Border
Patrol Tucson Sector routinely breaks its own policies by holding
immigrants in dirty and extremely cold cells for more than 24
hours without access to food, water, medical care or legal
counsel.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of three immigrants who said they
were held in inhumane conditions while waiting to be transferred
to the custody of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which
handles long-term detainment and deportations.

"It shocks the conscience," Nora Preciado, staff attorney with the
National Immigration Law Center, told the Tucson Sentinel.
"They're not providing food, water, or sleeping arrangements for
thousands of people, including women and children."

"Our plaintiffs were detained for civil matters, but there is
nothing civil about being deprived of water, provided inadequate
or expired food, and being subjected to sleep deprivation,"
Ms. Preciado said.  "We filed this lawsuit because the federal
government has systemically failed to adhere to its own meager
standards and constitutional requirements and thousands of people
have suffered as a result."

The groups interviewed over 75 former detainees who described
cells as freezing, filthy and lacking basic needs, such as beds.

In a statement issued on June 10, U.S. Customs and Border
Protection, the Border Patrol's parent agency, said it takes the
safety and welfare of detainees seriously.

"On a daily basis, agents make every effort to ensure that those
in our custody are given food, water, and medical attention as
needed.  CBP investigates all allegations of misconduct, and is
committed to making continued progress in detainee treatment and
the emphasis of policies that protect human life and treat
individuals with dignity and respect," the statement said.

CBP said its facilities are designed to be short-term in nature
and house detainees until they can be processed.

According to the lawsuit filed in Arizona, the Border Patrol does
not adequately screen for dangerous medical conditions or provide
access to medical personnel.  In one example, a detainee asked
agents to help her 7-year-old daughter, a U.S. citizen, for help
with what she thought was an ear infection. The agent told the
detainee, "There is no medicine here."

The lawsuit also alleges that detainees are subjected to sleep
deprivation while held in overcrowded, foul-smelling cells.

"Border Patrol seems to think these brutal conditions, and the
human suffering that results, will deter immigration," James Duff
Lyall, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of
Arizona, said in a statement to the Los Angeles Times.  "The fact
is that many of these people are fleeing persecution and
violence."

The Tucson Sector has apprehended over 200,000 people in the past
two fiscal years, although the Rio Grande Valley Sector in south
Texas has seen more migrants cross through there recently.


UNITED STATES: Immigrant Detention Policy Reforms Sought
--------------------------------------------------------
Richard Gonzales, writing for NPR, reports that the Obama
administration is under growing pressure to change its policies
governing the detention of thousands of migrants who came to the
United States illegally.

Maybe it is a coincidence, but consider what has happened
recently:

-- The American Immigration Council and the American Civil
Liberties Union announced a class-action lawsuit challenging the
conditions of detention in Border Patrol facilities in the Tucson,
Ariz., region.  Scores of detainees report being held in
unsanitary and frigid cells while being denied adequate food,
water, hygiene, medical attention, or access to legal counsel.
The lawsuit alleges the Border Patrol's facilities violate
constitutional due-process guarantees.  It seeks no monetary
damages, but rather court-ordered reforms, according to ACLU
attorney James Lyall.

-- The Center for Constitutional Rights and Detention Watch
Network published a report calling for the end to so-called
"guaranteed minimums" which require Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement, or ICE, to fill all 34,000 detention beds it
contracts in 15 facilities across the country.  They say the
requirement creates the perverse incentive to lock-up people who
are not dangerous or a flight risk in privately owned facilities
at a great cost to taxpayers.

-- Meanwhile, the ACLU and Obama administration officials have
just a few days left to settle a lawsuit challenging the detention
facilities for more than 2,000 women with children, who came here
during last summer's border surge.  The families are being held in
detention centers in Texas and Pennsylvania.  A federal judge in
Los Angeles issued a preliminary ruling finding that the
administration is violating an 18-year-old court settlement,
Flores v. Meese.  The settlement requires the government to house
migrant children in "the least restrictive environment" or release
them to relatives.  The judge gave federal officials and the ACLU
time to reach an agreement on how to implement her ruling before
she makes it final.

-- Administration officials have agreed to release a handful of
immigrant mothers from a detention center in Karnes City, Texas.
But one migrant advocate, Jonathan Ryan, executive director of
San Antonio-based RAICES, charged that news of the limited release
"is purely political."  Mr. Ryan told the Los Angeles Times the
move is designed to "avoid added scrutiny from members of
Congress."  A hundred-and-thirty-six House Democrats recently
called on the administration to stop detaining immigrant families.

"I don't know think it is a coincidence," said Silky Shah, co-
director of the DC-based Detention Watch Network, a group against
the detention of immigrants.  "This issue of detaining immigrants
unlawfully is finally coming to a head and the administration is
learning that its policy of family detention is backfiring."

Ms. Shah added she believes pressure is growing on the
administration given the New York Times wrote an editorial against
the detention centers and Democratic presidential candidate Hilary
Clinton has spoken out against them.


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS: Faces Class Suit Over Soccer Concussions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jared S. Hopkins and Shannon Ryan, writing for Chicago Tribune,
report that the University of Illinois is facing a class action
over concussions.

Casey Conine normally spent her days on a soccer field.  She
played the sport most of her life, eventually earning a
scholarship to the University of Illinois.  But after receiving a
diagnosis of a complex concussion that brought on the chaos of
constant headaches, Ms. Conine now prefers the serenity and
calmness of a different activity: fishing.

"It's not a high-concentration thing," she said. "So that's been
something I've relied on."

Ms. Conine sued the University of Illinois in Champaign County,
accusing the school of negligence and alleging that it mishandled
her concussion last year when she was a sophomore, resulting in
the possible end of her soccer career.  The suit seeks damages of
at least $50,000, but a final amount may be larger.

Ms. Conine, 20, is the latest Illinois athlete to accuse the
school's athletic program of improper medical treatment and
playing conditions  --  and the first to sue.  More than a dozen
former football players and former women's basketball players have
raised concerns, forcing the university to launch two independent
inquiries.

Ms. Conine cautioned that her decision wasn't influenced by the
other Illini allegations.  But she said the school mishandled her
injury under the pressure of playing in a Division I sports
environment.

"When you're in the moment, and you're part of that culture,
you're obligated to live up to what they want and what they want
you to do," she said in an interview.  "Looking back, I realize
(the concussion) wasn't handled correctly at all."

Ms. Conine is recovering in her native Leslie, Mich., but suffers
from post-concussion syndrome and concentration and memory
problems, according to her lawsuit and an interview.

"There isn't an ibuprofen or a pain reliever that I've tried that
can help take the edge off or make the headaches go away," she
said, adding that she must take a nap to avoid them worsening.

A talented recruit at an imposing 5-foot-11, Ms. Conine
participated in the Olympic Developmental Program and starred on
an elite travel club while home-schooled.  Her size helped her
excel at headers.  She enrolled for the spring 2013 semester at
17.  But as a freshman defender, she played in 21 games, and
scored the game-winner that sent Illinois into the Big Ten
Tournament.

Last October, in a game against Northwestern, Ms. Conine tried a
header off a corner kick and came into contact with the opposing
goalie.

"I remember going up and getting the ball," she said.  "The next
thing I know I got whacked the head."

According to her and her lawyers, she collapsed to the ground and
struggled to get up.  When she did, she stumbled, grabbed her head
and felt wobbly.  She remained in the game.

"When I got off the field, I just went and sat down on the bench,"
she said.  "I just was completely out of it.  I just knew
something wasn't right."

Two days later, a doctor evaluated Ms. Conine and diagnosed her
with a concussion, ruling she could not play until she was
medically cleared.  School doctors must check players diagnosed
with a concussion before letting them return to full-contact
practice or games, according to Illinois concussion policy.

But the soccer team's trainer, Brittany Scott instructed
Ms. Conine to travel to face Rutgers on Oct. 17, and told Ms.
Conine she was allowed to play, despite a doctor not examining her
again, according to the lawsuit.  Ms. Conine logged 25 minutes
coming off the bench.

Two days later, the team played Maryland in College Park, Md.  She
took at least one header in that game, and was hit in the back,
leading to pain in her neck and head, according to the suit.

After two overtimes, the game ended in a tie.  Ms. Conine said she
left the field feeling like she was going to vomit.  A trainer,
she said, chalked it up to the length of the match.

"Right after I came off the field, I told the trainer, 'I feel
nauseous, I feel really bad,'" said Ms. Conine, who had played 65
minutes.  "And she told me, 'This was just a really long game; it
is what it is.'"

A doctor examined her three days later and decided to keep her out
of further workouts.

But her symptoms worsened.  The next day, she saw a doctor.
According to her suit, it was unclear if her symptoms had worsened
due to the most recent concussion or from earlier ones.  She
suffered one concussion in high school and doctors diagnosed two
in 2013.

In December, a school doctor decided Ms. Conine would not return
to play soccer at Illinois, she alleges.

She returned to school for the spring but was unable to
concentrate.  She reduced her courseload to two classes, but even
that proved burdensome, and now is withdrawing from the school.

Ms. Conine said she was once a voracious reader who would gobble
up books on long trips in the car or plane rides.  Now she has to
stop after 30 minutes.

"I used to read a novel a day," she said.  "I was a very big
reader.  I know I can't do that because it just gives me
headache."

Ms. Conine also sued Ms. Scott; her coach, Janet Rayfield; and
Athletic Director Mike Thomas.

In a statement, Illinois Chancellor Phyllis Wise said, "Our
trainers and affiliated medical professionals are trained to watch
for, recognize and quickly treat concussions.  In this instance, a
preliminary review of our records does not support the claims of
negligence stated in the complaint.  Because the student-athlete
involved has not signed a waiver that would allow us to share
publicly her medical records, we are unable to provide specific
additional information at this time.  We are reviewing the
complaint and relevant related documentation with our legal
counsel and will respond accordingly."

Ms. Conine's attorney declined to allow the university to release
her medical records to the Tribune.

Noelle Leary, a senior on last year's team, contacted the Tribune
after Ms. Conine's lawsuit was filed and said that she also was
diagnosed with a concussion last October.  She said she waited a
day or two before notifying a trainer she didn't feel well, and
that she was sidelined for two weeks before being medically
cleared.

"I was trying to push back to make a scrimmage and they wouldn't
let me until I was completely recovered," said Ms. Leary, 23, of
Naperville.  "I think they handled it the best way possible."

Ms. Conine's Chicago attorney, Joseph Siprut, is co-lead counsel
in a federal class-action head-injury lawsuit against the NCAA.  A
proposed settlement waiting judge's approval includes $70 million
for medical screenings of former players, but it doesn't prohibit
athletes from bringing claims against schools in the future.
Ms. Siprut's also sued the Illinois High School Association to
force changes on concussion policy.

"What happened at U. of I. with our client's case is really
egregious," Ms. Siprut said.  "We're passionate about it, not just
because of what it represents more globally but also because she's
got a real problem that we're trying to help solve."

He says the case shows concern over concussions is not limited to
football.  In fact, women playing college soccer suffer almost two
concussions per 1,000 games -- a rate higher than high school
football, according to the American Academy of Neurology.

Earlier this year, Ms. Conine committed to transfer and play at
University of Tennessee at Martin, a 7,000-student campus about
200 miles south of St. Louis.  But Ms. Conine scrapped her plan to
transfer because her symptoms worsened, Mr. Siprut said.  A
University of Tennessee spokesman said on June 11 that Ms. Conine
informed the school she no longer planned to attend due to
unspecified medical reasons.

Ms. Conine is coming to terms with the fact that she likely won't
play soccer again.

"I'm really focused on trying to heal," she said.  "I'm really
focused on trying to get better at this point."


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Court Tosses Data Breach Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Noone, Esq. of Cozen O'Connor, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that in 2014, the University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center's computer system was hacked, resulting in the disclosure
of sensitive personal information of current and former employees,
including names, addresses, birthdates, social security numbers
and banking account numbers.  Allegedly, the stolen information
was used to file fraudulent tax returns for as many as 800
employees.  A class action was filed on behalf of current and
former employees against the hospital and its payroll company.

On May 28, 2015, the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas
applied the economic loss doctrine to dismiss the class action.
The Court in Dittman v. UPMC refused to adopt a duty of care that
would require employers to protect the confidential information of
its current and former employees.  And it refused to find that
there was an implied contract between the hospital and its
employees that would require the hospital to protect its
employees' confidential information from data breaches.

The Court's holding in UPMC decided one key point:  Pennsylvania
companies whose computer systems are hacked will not be liable to
the persons whose confidential information was compromised.

Plaintiffs claimed that "UPMC had a duty protect the private,
highly sensitive, confidential and personal financial information
[of is current and former employees]."  The plaintiffs also
alleged that, as a result of the breach, they incurred damages
relating to fraudulently filed tax returns and "are at an
increased and imminent risk of becoming victims of identity theft
crimes, fraud and abuse."

The hospital argued that the plaintiffs' negligence claim was
barred by the economic loss rule.  Noting that the only losses
that the UPMC employees sustained were economic, the trial court
applied the economic loss doctrine and dismissed the plaintiffs'
negligence count. The Court wrote: "The Economic Loss Doctrine
provides that no cause of action exists for negligence that
results solely in economic damages unaccompanied by physical or
property damage."

No doubt realizing the futility of their negligence claim in light
of the economic loss rule, the plaintiffs also urged the Court to
impose a duty of care upon UPMC to protect the confidential
information of its employees.  Specifically, the plaintiffs
proposed that the court create "a private negligence cause of
action to recover actual damages, including damages for increased
risks, upon a showing that the plaintiff's confidential
information was made available to third persons through a data
breach."

The Court refused, finding that "the public interest is not
furthered by this proposed solution."  The Court then cited a
laundry list of reasons to justify its refusal to adopt the new
duty of care, including the lack of a safe harbor for entities
storing confidential information, the inability of the state
judicial system to handle the volume of potential lawsuits, the
difficulty in establishing a minimum standard of care required,
and the substantial resources that for-profit and non-profit
entities would be required to spend in defending these lawsuits.

Another reason for the Court's refusal to adopt a new duty of care
was the Pennsylvania General Assembly's recent consideration of
the issue in connection with Pennsylvania's Breach of Personal
Information Notification Act.  The legislative history shows that
the General Assembly considered adopting an expansive civil
liability provision as part of the Act, but the final bill
contained only a notification requirement.  In refusing to adopt
the new duty urged by the UPMC employees, the Court observed, "It
is not for the courts to alter the direction of the General
Assembly because public policy is a matter for the Legislature."

As definitive as the ruling in UPMC appears to be, there are two
caveats.  If the hacked company is "in the business of supplying
information for economic gain," then it may be liable to the
people whose information is compromised.  See Sovereign Bank v.
BJ's Wholesale Club, Inc., No. 06-3405 (filed July 16, 2008 by
U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals).  And there are many
different iterations of the economic loss rule; a victim of a
security breach could possibly sue a company whose system was
compromised if the breach occurred in a state that has a more
expansive rule.  Other than that, however, Pennsylvania is one
state that will shield companies from liability in data breach
events resulting in economic loss.


VINCENZO DI: "Tamay" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Patricio Tamay v. Pasquale Di Diana and Vincenzo Di Diana
d/b/a Bacci Pizzeria, Case No. 2015-L-006196 (Ill. Cir. Ct., June
18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Bacci Pizzeria restaurant at 163 W.
North Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VITTAL ARGENTINA: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Natalia Gimenez, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Vittal Argentina, S.A., an Argentinian Company; ZPH Healthcare LLC
d/b/a Vittal d/b/a Vittal2You; Claudio Waisbord; and Andrea Cobo,
Case 1:15-cv-22230-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2015), seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Vittal Argentina and ZPH Healthcare are companies engaged in
interstate commerce and doing business in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 503-5131
      Fax: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


WALMART STORES: May Owe Truck Drivers More $100+ Mil. in Back Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Stangler, writing for International Business Times, reports
that Walmart's payment policies for truck drivers violated
California minimum wage law, a federal judge ruled.  The lawyers
who brought the class-action suit say the retail giant could now
owe more than $100 million in back pay.  While Walmart opposes the
ruling, the company did not say whether it plans to file an
appeal.

Truckers sued Walmart in 2008, arguing the company failed to
adequately compensate them for non-driving tasks such as
inspections, rest breaks, fueling and washing trucks, waiting at
weigh scales and taking mandatory "layover" periods intended to
reduce fatigue.  Walmart doesn't pay drivers by the hour.  They
pay by miles driven and activities performed -- for example, the
delivery of a trailer loaded with cargo.

In her May 28 ruling, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston said the
pay manuals failed to comply with the state's minimum wage law.
"Here, certain required tasks are specifically designated as
unpaid activities," Judge Illston wrote.  "The court finds that
the pay policies detailed in the manuals violate California
minimum wage law by failing to pay drivers at least minimum wage
for all the time they work."

The manuals in the lawsuit date from 2001, 2006 and 2008.  When
asked if the ruling would impact Walmart's current driver pay
manual, company spokesman Randy Hargrove said "it would not be
appropriate get into that level of detail" because the topic is a
matter of ongoing litigation.

With 1.4 million workers, Walmart is the nation's largest private-
sector employer. Compared to the rest of its workforce, many of
whom make just over state and federal minimum wages, truck drivers
are paid handsomely.  The company says drivers make, on average,
$80,000 to $100,000 per year, and job survey site Glassdoor puts
the annual compensation figure around $84,000.

Labor advocates tend to talk about "wage theft" -- a situation in
which an employer illegally withholds compensation -- in the
context of low-paid workers, such as janitors who are deprived of
overtime or fast-food workers not being paid during breaks.  These
practices tallied up to nearly $1 billion in 2012, according to
the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute.  The Walmart lawsuit
is unusual because it frames generally well-compensated employees
as victims of the trend. It also sheds light on the labor
practices of the trucking industry.

In a separate labor dispute, truck drivers at major ports in
Southern California have accused companies of incorrectly
categorizing them as independent contractors instead of employees.
Truckers have organized several walkouts there since 2013 as they
try to organize a union.

A jury in the Walmart case will weigh in next April to determine
damages.


WARNER MUSIC: Settles Intern Class Action for $4.2 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Warner Music Group Corp. has agreed to pay
hundreds of former interns more than $4.2 million to resolve a
class action lawsuit accusing the company of underpaying them.
The settlement, disclosed in papers filed in Manhattan federal
court on June 9, is the latest in a series struck by media and
entertainment companies over claims they paid interns little or
nothing for their work.

Warner Music in a statement said it was pleased to settle.

"We continue to stand by our internship program as an invaluable
educational experience for students looking to obtain hands-on,
real-world training," it said.

The settlement requires court approval, and covers interns who
were paid nothing or less than minimum wage, in periods dating as
far back as June 2007 for those working in New York.

Warner Music, owned by billionaire Len Blavatnik's Access
Industries, reserved the right to terminate the settlement if the
number of claimants exceeds 1,135, according to court papers.

Lawyers for the interns may seek up to 18.6% of the settlement
amount as attorney fees, or $787,500.  They did not respond to a
request for comment.

Many lawsuits over intern pay were filed after a major June 2013
decision in which U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan
said Twenty-First Century Fox Inc. should have paid two interns
who worked on the 2010 movie "Black Swan."

Other companies to settle with interns include Comcast Corp.'s
NBCUniversal, for $6.4 million; Cond‚ Nast, for $5.85 million, and
Viacom Inc., for $7.21 million.

The case is Grant v. Warner Music Group Corp., U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-04449.


WELLS FARGO: Challenges Class Action Certification
--------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Wells Fargo is facing trial in an
Illinois class action 14 years old and can't gain appellate review
on its own as it could in a case with shorter history.  A motion
from the bank to reach appellate judges the old way, through
circuit court order, remains pending before Madison County Circuit
Judge Barbara Crowder.

The Illinois Supreme Court amended its class action rules in 2003,
so defendants could directly petition for review of class
certifications.

"If this case was filed now, or any time after 2003, Wells Fargo's
request for interlocutory appeal would not even be necessary,"
Catherine Schroeder of St. Louis wrote for the bank in March.

She wrote that the current rule ensures review, "before devoting
immeasurable amounts of time and resources necessary to prepare
for a class action rules."

Wells Fargo has tried for five years to overturn a class
certification order that former circuit judge Daniel Stack signed
on his last day at work, in 2010.

Fifth District appellate judges in Mount Vernon previously
reversed a class certification order Stack signed in a separate
case on the same date.

The suit against Wells Fargo started in 2001, with many
defendants.  Lucco Brown law firm of Edwardsville filed the suit
after nursing home developers defaulted on bond issues in
Wisconsin, Indiana and Michigan.  Lucco Brown and associates at
Ness Motley in South Carolina, now Motley Rice, sued developers,
lawyers, accountants, and banks.

Wells Fargo defends itself as successor to the indenture trustee,
Norwest Bank.  Most defendants resolved the claims as nine years
passed, leaving Wells Fargo and three others on the hook when
Stack certified the class.

Stack left behind a puzzle, for he separately granted summary
judgment to Wells Fargo on its argument that Norwest played no
role in the bond issues.  In 2011, after Stack retired, defendants
moved for reconsideration.

Defendants asked the court to treat the case as dormant in 2012,
but they brought it to a hearing before Circuit Judge Tom Chapman
in 2013.  He took it under advisement and ordered more briefs.

Later that year, three defendants agreed to settle for a total of
$525,000.

Judge Chapman denied Wells Fargo's motion for reconsideration last
year, finding Stack's orders "are not irremediably contradictory."
He agreed with Stack that Illinois law should apply across 38
states, even though fewer than three percent of bond buyers lived
in Illinois.  He wrote that there is an issue of fact as to
whether Norwest Bank failed to enforce covenants requiring
separation of accounts.  He wrote that there is an issue of fact
as to whether Norwest notified borrowers of default events.

Judge Chapman did not resolve Wells Fargo's plea for appellate
review, so the bank moved for clarification or a supplemental
ruling.

Last September, Chief Judge Dave Hylla assigned Crowder to the
case.  She held a hearing on the bank's motion March 18, and took
it under advisement.  She still has not approved the settlement
agreements of the other three defendants.

Their lawyers assembled at the courthouse on May 28, to obtain
final approval from Judge Crowder, but she didn't show up.


WIPRO: Overtime Class Action Transferred to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Sujeet Rajan, writing for The American Bazaar, reports that the
lawyers for Wipro, a leading global IT, consulting and business
process services company, has got a class action suit filed
against it by a former employee, Suri Payala, transferred from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on the grounds that the dispute exceeds
more than $5 million, as required by law for the transfer.

The class action lawsuit was brought by Payala, who worked in the
California office of Wipro.  He alleges several egregious
violations by the company -- misclassification of employees;
failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay all wages owed every
pay period; failure to furnish timely and accurate wage statement;
violation of California's Unfair Competition Act; and failure to
pay all wages upon separation.  He also alleges that he and other
employees in a similar situation like himself, were not paid for
meal and rest breaks.

Mr. Payala alleges that he and more than 200 other employees like
him were not paid for overtime and travel time, even though he was
paid less than $7,000 per month for his services, or under the
$84,130 salary threshold considered exempt for overtime pay in
California.

Mr. Payala says he was employed by Wipro as a computer technician
with the title of Architect, and was outsourced to DirecTV in
California.  The lawsuit states he was not paid overtime and was
not paid for his travel time to the outsourced job site.

At the heart of the dispute is also Mr. Payala's allegation that
Wipro conveniently never told him and other employees the overtime
laws of California which would have apprised him of his rights to
such compensation over and above his salary.

The class action lawsuit seeks to represent any employee, apart
from Mr. Payala, who may have performed services for Wipro within
a four-year period prior to March 30, 2015.

"Wipro's business model is extremely profitable, in no small part
because it does not pay its employees overtime for work in excess
of 40 hours per week as required by the California law," the
lawsuit states.

Mr. Payala says Wipro makes more than two times what it pays to
its employees when they take on outsourcing work.

Seyfarth Shaw LLP, the lawyers for Wipro, based in Los Angeles,
California, in their submission to transfer the case -- a copy of
which is with The American Bazaar -- cite the Class Action
Fairness Act (CAFA), which gives authority to have the federal
court to hear cases where the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs.  In fact,
they pegged the total exceeding $7 million, at the least.

The lawyers for Wipro also made the case giving a breakdown of how
they reached that amount, in the scenario where the class action
suit entails more than 200 aggrieved current or former employees,
like Mr. Payala claims, who may be eligible for compensation.
Wipro also gave testimony that Mr. Payala's lowest hourly wage at
Wipro was $34.28.  The lawyers for Wipro wrote in the transfer
appeal: "Although Defendant denies Plaintiff's allegations or that
he or the putative class are entitled to any relief, based solely
on the forgoing calculations for wage statement penalties and
overtime wages, the aggregate amount in controversy for the
putative class is $7,143,180.  Accordingly, Plaintiff's claims for
failure to pay overtime and wage statements alone exceed the
amount in controversy required under CAFA."


YAHOO INC: Faces Eavesdropping Class Action in Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that seven days after a California judge
rejected a national class action on an eavesdropping claim against
Yahoo, Kaylynn Rehberger of Highland started a similar suit on
behalf of an Illinois class.  She claims Yahoo violates state law
by intercepting messages between its users and persons like her
with other email providers.

Thomas Rosenfeld and Kevin Green, of Goldenberg Heller in
Edwardsville, Ill., filed her complaint at U.S. district court on
June 2.  A week earlier, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of San Jose
had ruled that certification of a national class action against
Yahoo would be improper.  She found she could neither apply
California law to all states nor apply laws of all states at once.
That suit will proceed as a California class action.

According to the Illinois complaint, Yahoo claims the right to
scan and analyze all incoming and outgoing messages from a user's
account.

"Plaintiff is not a Yahoo Mail user and not a party to the
purported contract between Yahoo and Yahoo Mail users,"
Mr. Rosenfeld wrote.

The suit claims that Ms. Rehberger did not consent and did not
know Yahoo intercepted and disclosed the information.

Mr. Rosenfeld wrote that Yahoo Mail claims more than 75 million
users in the United States and more than 275 million globally.
Yahoo does not charge customers for basic service.

"In exchange for the 'free' email service, Yahoo users are subject
to advertising when using the Yahoo Mail service," Mr. Rosenfeld
wrote.  He wrote that Yahoo can charge advertisers more to target
certain demographic groups and individuals, and it can increase
revenues by obtaining details about users.

"Yahoo conceals information about its practices from the general
public," Mr. Rosenfeld wrote.  He wrote that in California,
information about Yahoo's interception and scanning practices is
filed under seal.

The class certification motion in Judge Koh's court sported black
bars over most of the words in a stretch of seven pages, with many
short redactions on other pages.  That case started in 2013, after
Judge Koh consolidated six complaints.  Last year she dismissed
allegations that Yahoo violated the California constitution and
that it lacked consent under state wiretap law.

Judge Koh denied a motion to dismiss an allegation that Yahoo
invaded privacy.  She further denied a motion to dismiss an
allegation that Yahoo violated the Stored Communications Act.
And, she denied a motion to dismiss an allegation that Yahoo
violated state wiretap law by intercepting messages before they
reached the server.


YAHOO INC: Fights Class Action Over Email Scanning Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Yahoo wants an
appellate court to block consumers from bringing a class-action
privacy suit over the company's email scanning practices.

In papers filed on June 10, Yahoo argues that the consumers aren't
entitled to class-action status, because the key issue in the
privacy dispute -- whether people consented to the email scans --
will require individualized assessments.  The company is asking
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to immediately review a decision
by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of
California, who has ruled that the consumers could proceed as a
class.

The dispute dates to 2013, when four Web users -- Cody Baker,
Brian Pincus, Halima Nobles, and Rebecca Abrams -- alleged that
Yahoo violates email users' privacy by scanning their messages in
order to surround them with ads.  They say that Yahoo violated the
federal wiretap law and a California privacy law by allegedly
intercepting messages without the consent of both the sender and
recipient.

Yahoo's terms of service provide that the company analyzes email
in order to display ads, but the people who are suing didn't have
Yahoo email accounts themselves, and therefore never explicitly
agreed to the company's terms of service.

Yahoo argued to Judge Koh that the dispute doesn't lend itself to
class-action treatment, asserting that questions about whether
people agreed to the email scans need to be decided on a user-by-
user basis.

Judge Koh rejected that position, ruling that the consumers raised
the kinds of "common" questions that don't require separate
determinations for every affected Web user.

Yahoo now argues to the 9th Circuit that Judge Koh's decision was
wrong and should be immediately reversed.

"Consent is a central issue in this case," Yahoo says in its
newest court papers.  "A class member who has consented to Yahoo's
practices has no claim . . . Yet determining who has not consented
(and thus is part of the class) requires an individualized, fact-
specific inquiry."

Yahoo also argues that it won't be possible to identify every non-
Yahoo Mail user who exchanged email messages with Yahoo account
holders.

"Plaintiffs sought certification of a sprawling class of
unidentifiable non- Yahoo Mail subscribers who have emailed or may
in the future email Yahoo Mail users.  Yahoo does not have records
that would even provide a way to identify each and every non-Yahoo
Mail subscriber that has sent an email to or received an email
from a Yahoo user," the company says.

Last year, Judge Koh refused to allow a group of Web users to
proceed as a class in a privacy lawsuit involving Gmail.  Web
users in that matter argued that Google violated privacy laws by
scanning messages in order to surround them with ads.

Judge Koh ruled in the Gmail dispute that the consumers could
proceed with their allegations, but refused to allow them to do so
in a class-action.  Instead, she said they could only proceed as
individuals. The users settled their dispute with Google soon
after that decision.


ZIRX TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Wolfe, on his own behalf and on behalf of a Class of
Similarly Situated Employees of Defendant v. Zirx Technologies,
Inc., Case 2:15-cv-00962 (W.D. Wash., June 16, 2015), seeks relief
on a class-wide basis, including unpaid wages, return of wages
unlawfully rebated, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Washington's Minimum Wage
Act.

Defendant Zirx Technology, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and does
business in King County, Washington.  It owns and operates a valet
parking service in seven locations nationwide, including Seattle,
San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Washington, DC, and
Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. Connor, Esq.
      Anne-Marie E. Sargent, Esq.
      CONNOR & SARGENT PLLC
      999 Third Avenue, Suite 3000
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 654-5050
           (206) 654-4011
      E-mail: aes@cslawfirm.net


                            *********

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  * * *