CAR_Public/150702.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, July 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 131


                            Headlines


ABSOLUTE CREDIT: Faces "Petrillo" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
AIR PRODUCTS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims
AKI 36: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in W.D. Va. Over Defective 2015 Honda CR-Vs

AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Ariz. Over Gender Bias
ANIMAL WELFARE: Faces "Orellana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ANTHEM INC: Faces "New" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
AOL INC: California Court Dismisses "Derby" TCPA Suit
AT&T CORP: Faces "Lilienthal" Over Alleged Data Throttling

BANNOCK COUNTY, ID: 9th Circ. Struck Down Fetal Pain Law
BARRICK GOLD: Court Upholds Carriage Ruling Favoring Law Firms
BASIC RESEARCH: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Says
BEST THAI: "Bazan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
BROADCOM CORP: Andrews & Springer Probing Merger-Related Breach

CADIZ INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
CAFEPRESS INC: Aug. 11 Hearing on $8MM Securities Suit Settlement
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Faces "Holmby" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CALIFORNIA: Governor, et al., Sued by Inmates Over Valley Fever
CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Former Players Sue Over Head Injuries

CCS CREDIT: Faces "Marquez" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued Over Failure to Provide Best Execution
CHINA FINANCE: Faces Securities Suit Filed By Rosen Law Firm
CITY GROUP: Chairman, Wife Named as Swiss Bank Acct Holders
CML MEDIA: Faces "Kelly-Duarte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CORE LABORATORIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DICK'S SPORTING: Faces "Kaczmarczyk" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Britschgi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
DNJ INTERMODAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Suit Claims
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: SPDR S&P Receives Class Action Payment

EDISON INT'L: "Tibble" Ruling Creates Uncertainty for Plan Execs
EL SENORIAL: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FORSTER GARBUS: Faces "Antista" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
GOWAITER BUSINESS: Faces "Schoolcraft" Suit Over TCPA Violation
GUARDIAN HOME: Faces "Arbolaez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HERTZ CORP: Sued Over Unauthorized Background Checks
HEWLETT PACKARD: Falsely Marketed Printers, "Wolf" Suit Claims
HEWLETT-PACKARD: $100-Mil. Deal for Autonomy-Related Suit
IGNITE RESTAURANT: Joe's Crab IPO Suit Ends in $1.8MM Settlement
INDECO FINISHES: Faces "Saname" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

INTER-CONTINENTAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
JOHNSON CONTROLS: Illegally Installs Recording Devices, Suit Says
LIONSGATE: Moves To Settle 'Wendy Williams Show' Intern Suit
LU SIMON BUILDERS: Faces Possible Class Suit by Bldg. Residents
LVNV FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hernandez" Suit Claims

MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: "Murata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Removed "Pitter" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
MERCK & CO: Won't Disclose Mumps Vaccine Efficacy, Scientists Say
METALICO INC: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Total Merchant Merger
METALICO INC: Faces "Pinto" Suit Over Merger with Total Merchant

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Deal in Homeless Class Suit Amended
MIKE HUCKABEE: 8th Cir. Reinstates TCPA Class Suit
MOGU SUSHI: Sued in N.Y. Over Corporate Asset Misappropriation
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ex-Player Opposes Concussion Suit Deal
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Drivers

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Removed "Stricklen" Suit to New Jersey Court
NESTLE PURINA: Class Complaint Over Beneful Dog Food Amended
NEW ALLIANCE BANK: 2nd Circ. Ruling Further Splits Circuits
OLD NATIONAL: 7th Circ. Poised to Rule in Data Breach Suit
ONTARIO: Abuse Settlement Includes $42,000 Individual Payout

PACIFIC STATES: Faces "Greene" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PARKING SOLUTIONS: Faces "Crumbaker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PASCO, FL: "Meeks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PENNYVISION LLC: Faces "Joharifard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PEPSI CO: Chemical Disclosure Suit Can Proceed, Judge Rules

PHOENIX LIFE: Settles Bad Faith Insurance Suit for $42-Mil.
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Geremia" Suit Santa Barbara Oil Spill
PUMA BIOTECH: Aug. 3 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Antitrust Class Action Dismissed
RANDY VISSER: Nissan General Manager Facing Federal Fraud Charges

RHODE ISLAND: Judge Approves Settlement in Pension Overhaul Case
ROSS DRESS: Suit Over Unpaid Bag Check Time Sent to Arbitration
SINGING RIVER: Judge Names Reeves & Mestayer as Lead Counsel
SIRIUS XM: Copyright Royalties Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
SOLAZYME INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports

SOUTH CAROLINA: Educ. Commission Sued Over Student Discrimination
SPOKEO INC: "Robins" Can Redefine Standing in Federal Court
STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Sued Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
STEVENS VAN: Faces "Britts" Suit Over Charge-Backs Policies
SUNRISE, FL: Faces "Wishner" Suit Over Sewage Rate Hike

SUNRUN INC: Sued Over Violation of Calif. Licensing Laws
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Trial Underway on Chinese Drywall Class Suit
TENNESSEE: Class Status Sought in Basic Education Program Suit
TYSON FOODS: Justices Review Appeal in Workers' Class Suit
UPONOR INC: To Resolve US Class Suits Through Enhanced Warranty

US PENSION COMMITTEE: Faces "Forte" Suit Over Investment Options
VENDOME HOLLYWOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: July 20 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid
VIRGINIA: NRV Inmates Sue Warden Over Living Conditions
VISION FINANCIAL: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

WASTE FACILITIES: "King" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Unauthorized Bank Services Enrollment
WELLS FARGO: Transferred "Goodman" Class Suit to N.D. California
WESTMOUNT, QC: Ex-Hockey Coach Faces New Sexual Abuse Allegation
XUNLEI LIMITED: Aug. 7 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid

YINGLI GREEN: Says Class Suits Are Groundless

* Harke Clasby Managing Partner Named in Fla. Legal Elite 2015


                            *********


ABSOLUTE CREDIT: Faces "Petrillo" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Petrillo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Absolute Credit, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03691
(E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


AIR PRODUCTS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Chavez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc., and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 2:15-cv-04736 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2015),
arises from the Defendants' uniform policy or practice of
obtaining an applicant's consumer report by and through the use of
a legally invalid authorization, which fails to provide a clear
and conspicuous disclosure.

Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation who
manufactures, processes, produces and provides gases, materials
and chemicals for industrial uses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Bicvan Brown, Esq.
      Jennifer Han, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Boulevard, Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
              bbrown@mahoney-law.net
              jhan@mahoney-law.net


AKI 36: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Chang You Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Aki 36 Inc. d/b/a Aki Sushi West and d/b/a Chopstick House, Mei
Yang, Xiong Hui Yang, Min Hui Yang, John 01 Doe and
John 02 Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-04938 (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 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 a restaurant with a principal
address at 128 West 36th Street, New York, NY 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Blotzer" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Express Company, Case No. 8:15-cv-01011 (C.D.
Cal., June 24, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's alleged
practice of making unsolicited phone calls to the cellular
telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by its conduct.

American Express Company is an American credit card company.

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


AMERICAN HONDA: Sued in W.D. Va. Over Defective 2015 Honda CR-Vs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Cushing, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. American Honda Motor Company,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00028-GEC (W.D. Va., June 24, 2015), is brought
on behalf of all the Virginia individuals who have purchased or
leased a 2015 Honda CR-V, with known defect which causes abnormal
and excessive vibrations.

American Honda Motor Company is a California corporation with its
headquarters located in Torrance, California. Honda is one of the
largest distributors of automobiles in the United State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward Kyle McNew, Esq.
      MICHIE, HAMLETT, LOWRY, RASMUSSEN & TWEEL, PLLC
      P.O. Box 298
      Charlottesville, VA 22902
      Telephone: (434) 951-7200
      Facsimile: (434) 951-7218
      E-mail: kmcnew@michiehamlett.com


AMTRUST NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Ariz. Over Gender Bias
-----------------------------------------------------
Marsha L. Fay v. AmTrust North America, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01141-DJH (D. Ariz., June 22, 2015), arises from the Defendant's
practice of discriminating between employees on the basis of sex
by paying wages to the Plaintiff at a rate less than the rate at
which it pays wages to male employees who work under similar
working conditions within the same establishment and who perform
substantially equal jobs, and who have job duties requiring
substantially equal skill, effort and responsibility as the
Plaintiff.

AmTrust North America, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
provides property and casualty and workers' compensation insurance
to small and mid-size businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley Hugh Schleier, Esq.
      Tod F. Schleier, Esq.
      SCHLEIER LAW OFFICES PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1090
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 277-0157
      Facsimile: (602) 230-9250
      E-mail: brad@schleierlaw.com
              tod@schleierlaw.com


ANIMAL WELFARE: Faces "Orellana" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Orellana and all others similarly situated v. Animal Welfare
Society of South Florida, Inc. and Maximo Echeverria, Case No.
1:15-cv-22362 (S.D. Fla., June 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants operate a non-Profit animal welfare facility in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Pastukh, Esq.
      ALEXANDER PASTUKH, P.A.
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 800
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 502-5715
      E-mail: apastukh@appalaw.com


ANTHEM INC: Faces "New" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph New, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04787 (C.D.
Cal., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to provide adequate security and protection for its computer
systems containing patient's personally identifiable information
and personal health information from data breach.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith David Griffin, Esq.
      Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
      GIRARDI | KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90017-1904
      Telephone: (213) 977-0211
      Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
      E-mail: kgriffin@girardikeese.com
              tgirardi@girardikeese.com


AOL INC: California Court Dismisses "Derby" TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Caleb Skeath, writing for The National Law Review, reported that
on June 1, the Northern District of California dismissed a
putative TCPA class action against AOL, finding that the plaintiff
had failed to allege that AOL utilized an automated telephone
dialing system (ATDS), as required to state a cause of action
under the TCPA.

In dismissing the plaintiff's complaint in Derby v. AOL, the court
rejected the plaintiff's arguments that AOL Instant Messenger
(AIM), which allows individuals to send instant messages as text
messages to cell phones, constitutes an ATDS.  Instead, the court
agreed with AOL's argument that AIM relied on "human intervention"
to send the messages at issue, which foreclosed the possibility of
potential TCPA liability.  (Covington represented AOL in this
case.)  The decision should be beneficial to a variety of services
that enable their users to send text messages to cell phones.

The TCPA's prohibitions include a ban on using an ATDS to call
cellular telephones for informational purposes without the prior
express consent of the recipient.  The FCC and courts have
extended the reach of the statute to include text messages.
However, the FCC has stated that only equipment that has the
capacity to operate "without human intervention" may qualify as an
ATDS.  The plaintiff in Derby alleged that he received three text
messages from an AIM user that were intended for another
individual, which the court recognized were "presumably . . . the
result of the sender inputting an incorrect phone number."  After
the receiving the third message, the plaintiff alleged that he
sent a text message to AIM to block future texts from the AIM
user, and that he received back a text confirmation of his
request.

In analyzing TCPA liability for the first three text messages, the
court noted that the plaintiff's complaint "affirmatively alleges
that AIM relies on human intervention to transmit text messages to
recipients' cell phones."  The court followed precedent from other
Ninth Circuit district courts rejecting ATDS arguments where the
equipment at issue relied on humans to press buttons on phones or
manually enter telephone numbers into the system.  Since the
complaint demonstrated that "extensive human intervention is
required to send text messages through defendant's AIM service,"
the court held that the complaint failed to state a claim under
the TCPA with respect to the three text messages sent by an AIM
user.

The court also analyzed potential TCPA liability for the separate
confirmation text message that Derby alleged he had received from
AIM.  Again citing relevant authority, the court held that "a
single message sent in response to plaintiff's text . . . is not
the kind of intrusive, nuisance call that the TCPA prohibits."
The court concluded that Derby, having sent the "block" request
from his cell phone, had "knowingly released" his number to AIM
and consented to receive a confirmation text from AIM at that
number.  The court's opinion advocated for a "common sense"
approach to TCPA liability, finding that the statute should not be
utilized to "punish the consumer-friendly practice of confirming
requests to block future unwanted texts."  Accordingly, the court
also dismissed the TCPA claim based on the confirmation text
message for failure to state a claim.


AT&T CORP: Faces "Lilienthal" Over Alleged Data Throttling
----------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Lilienthal, individually, and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. AT&T, Corp. and AT&T Mobility,
LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01045-HGD (N.D. Ala., June 22, 2015), arises
from the Defendants' data throttling practices, where they reduce
the data speed for unlimited mobile data plan customers for the
rest the billing cycle.

The Defendants are major retailer of smartphones and provider of
wireless broadband internet access service for smartphones.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Anthony Mastando, Esq.
      Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
      MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
      301 Washington St., Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Telephone: (256) 532-2222
      Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
      E-mail: tony@mastandoartrrip.com
              artrip@mastandoartrip.com

         - and -

      Douglas C. Martinson II, Esq.
      MARTINSON & BEASON PC
      115 Northside Square
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Telephone: (256) 776-7006
      Facsimile: (256) 533-1696
      E-mail: dougii@martinsonandbeason.com


BANNOCK COUNTY, ID: 9th Circ. Struck Down Fetal Pain Law
--------------------------------------------------------
Austin Ruse, writing for Breitbart, reported that a recent federal
appeals court decision striking down an Idaho pro-life law wades
into the very stickiest parts of the abortion wars in the United
States.

The case highlights the controversial question of prosecuting
women as opposed to doctors for committing abortion, the dangers
of self-medication now available to pregnant women because of the
easy online availability of abortion drugs, and the wave of new
legislation banning abortion after the 20th week of gestation.

In 2011 Jennie Linn McCormack was charged for aborting her own
child in violation of a 1972 law forbidding self-abortion.
McCormack says she needed to self-abort because she was not able
to drive the two hours to Salt Lake City from her home in
Pocatello, Idaho, and she also feared the cost of aborting her
child was beyond her abilities. So, she asked her sister in
Mississippi to buy the abortion drug for her online that she
proceeded to use at home.

The abortion drug is not supposed to be used exclusively at home.
It is a three-step process that includes taking the first dose in
a doctor's office, the second dose at home ,and then an office
visit to ensure the pregnancy has ended. Using it without a
doctor's supervision is fraught with danger.

McCormack took the drug and delivered a dead child of between 19
and 23 weeks old, well beyond the 9 weeks the FDA approved it for
use. In fact, using RU-486 after 9 weeks is dangerous, but such
are the dangers of a drug that can be bought online and self-
administered.

McCormack was rightly distressed by the size of the child she
delivered, so she wrapped the child in a blanket and put him in a
freezer on her back porch. A friend of a friend called the police,
and McCormack was arrested and prosecuted for performing an
abortion on herself in violation of the 1972 law.

At the time pro-life leaders actually complained about the
prosecution. Pro-life groups oppose the prosecution of women,
favoring instead the prosecution of abortionists. Pro-lifers
consider women to be the victims of abortion. Marjorie Danenfelser
said at the time that the prosecution was "not acceptable. We do
not think women should be criminalized. Criminal sanctions or any
kind of sanctions are appropriate for abortionists, and not for
women."

The charges against McCormack were dropped for lack of evidence,
but her attorney initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of
rural women who might have a hard time getting to largely urban-
based abortion clinics.  Her attorney said the suit included the
twenty-week abortion ban even though it had not been in force at
the time of her abortion and therefore she was prosecuted under an
entirely different law. He included it in the suit because, he
said, it also hinders a woman's ability to get a constitutionally
protected abortion.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck
down the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act which the Idaho
governor signed into law in April 2011. The Court struck down
several other laws, too, including the 1972 law that McCormack
violated along with a law requiring all second trimester abortion
be performed in hospitals and a law requiring abortion clinics to
adhere to standards of surgical clinics.

The decision effects Washington, California, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Arizona, Alaska, and Hawaii. The 9th Circuit is considered
the most liberal federal court and is also the court that is most
overturned by the Supreme Court.

A number of these 20-week abortion bans have passed around the
country, and some of them have been challenged. A 20-week ban just
passed the House of Representatives. They are based on the
proposition that an unborn child begins to feel pain at 20 weeks
of gestation. These laws run into the Supreme Court rulings that
abortion is allowed up to viability and then regulated, at least
theoretically, after that. These bans have been challenged on the
viability question.

The 20-week bans will no doubt end up in the Supreme Court.


BARRICK GOLD: Court Upholds Carriage Ruling Favoring Law Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marg Bruineman, writing for Law Times, reported that a new
Divisional Court ruling upholding an earlier decision granting
carriage to a group of law firms in the Barrick Gold Corp. class
action has failed to provide the guidance many had hoped for, some
lawyers say.

While Justice Ian Nordheimer had raised significant doubts about
the carriage ruling when he granted leave to appeal in December,
some of the lawyers involved say the Divisional Court ruling on
the issue failed to address the concerns. "They paid no regard to
it," says Koskie Minsky LLP's Garth Myers.

"They had opportunity to create some law that would be extremely
helpful to the class action bar" and gave up that chance, adds
Myers, an associate at one of the firms on the losing side of the
carriage battle.

On May 21, the Divisional Court upheld Justice Edward Belobaba's
carriage decision from early December 2014.
The ruling included a statement that reviewing courts should defer
to such decisions in the absence of an error of law.

The decision dealt with a bid by a group of law firms led by
Toronto's Rochon Genova LLP and including Rosen Naster LLP and the
Merchant Law Group LLP in competition with another group of class
action lawyers led by Koskie Minsky and including Sutts Strosberg
LLP, Siskinds LLP, and Groia & Co. to represent shareholders in a
proposed class action against Barrick Gold and four of its
executives.

In the latest ruling, a three-member panel of the Divisional Court
affirmed December's decision by Belobaba to grant the Rochon
Genova group carriage based on the many claims it had advanced and
the relative state of preparation. The Koskie Minsky group had
advanced a single claim arguing for a leaner approach.

In the decision, Justice Alison Harvison Young noted the broad
discretion granted to judges and said the reviewing courts should
defer to their decisions in the absence an error of law. She also
found the primary concern is to determine which group is most
likely to advance the interests of the class.

"The appellants argue that although the motion judge articulated
the correct factors, he failed to apply them such that he did err
in law and/or principle, and also that he misapprehended the
evidence or record so that his findings also fell into palpable
and overriding error. I disagree. In my view, [the Koskie Minsky
group's] submissions amount to no more than an attempt to convince
this court to reweigh the factors applied by the motion judge and
do not demonstrate any reversible error in the exercise of his
discretion to determine which group should obtain carriage of
these class proceedings," wrote Harvison Young for the panel.

After announcing two years ago that Chilean courts had suspended
its Pascua-Lama mining project, Barrick's share price dropped.
That development prompted several class actions by shareholders in
Canada and the United States alleging misrepresentation about the
progress of the mine. None of the allegations have been proven in
court.

Joel Rochon of Rochon Genova says the latest decision provides
plaintiff counsel and trial-level courts with further direction
when it comes to the issue of which lawyers or firms should have
carriage in a class action. The Barrick Gold case, he says,
outlines the unique facts that drove the motion judge to decide in
favour of the team led by his firm.

"The divisional court has certainly provided a level of clarity in
releasing the decision," says Rochon.

Peter Jervis, senior counsel at Rochon Genova, says each carriage
decision turns on its own facts and circumstances but notes the
theme emphasized by the latest decision is that ultimately the
court will consider which counsel team is best able to represent
and advance the interests of the class.

While lawyers with the other group have until June 4 to indicate
if they will appeal the latest decision, Myers says that in
granting carriage to the Rochon Genova group, the Divisional Court
didn't address the issues raised by the judge hearing the motion
for leave to appeal in which he criticized Belobaba's findings.

In granting leave to appeal, Nordheimer found Belobaba's "reasons
reveal a fundamental disagreement with the basic principle" of
previous case law. He also found a problem with Belobaba's
determination that the court wasn't to assess a claim's likelihood
of success on a carriage motion.

The Divisional Court decision, says Myers, encourages competing
counsel to spend more time and money to present as much evidence
as possible and doesn't provide the direction sought.
"Predictability is a crucial element of our justice system and I
think this decision introduces unpredictability in terms of who
gets carriage of a class action," says Myers.

That the appellate courts will give significant deference to the
motions judge's discretion in the absence of a legal error
provides some clarification, says Lawrence Thacker of Lenczner
Slaght Royce Smith Griffin LLP.

"Once the correct legal test is identified, there will be
deference given to the application and the facts and the weighing
of the evidence that establishes those facts," says Thacker.

"It makes it clear simplicity or complexity in itself is not a
deciding factor."

Brian Radnoff, a partner at Lerners LLP, sees some clarification
in the decision but says it leaves a lot of discretion to the
motion judge. In a situation such as this that involves very
qualified counsel on both sides, the outcome is likely to be
uncertain, he suggests.

"These kinds of carriage battles are going to come up again and
again," says Radnoff.

"The bottom line is there's not going to be a lot of certainty
about who's going to win these motions."

Perhaps one approach to stem the litigation, Radnoff suggests, is
for more law firms to group together to represent the same class
and avoid taking the carriage motion to court.

Dimitri Lascaris, leader of Siskinds LLP's securities class
actions group, sees flaws in the jurisprudence around class action
carriage motions. He believes the courts are reluctant to engage
in a vigorous examination and comparison of the competing groups.
Siskinds is one of the four firms, along with Koskie Minsky,
seeking carriage in this case.

"They're just too quick, in my view, to put us in the same
hopper," says Lascaris.

Lascaris says the plaintiffs' bar for class actions in Canada is
relatively small. He suggests carriage decisions should focus more
on the areas of law in which the firms practise rather than giving
equal weight to the various players. Having expertise in class
actions procedure, he says, only represents a limited part of the
legal work involved. Knowledge of the relevant area of law can
distinguish one firm from another, he adds, suggesting the Barrick
Gold case requires counsel to have a background in securities law.

One option for dealing with the issue would be the use of an
arbitrator to determine which firm should have carriage of a class
action, according to Lascaris. Using an arbitrator could lead to a
quicker and less expensive resolution, says Lascaris, who also
sees a potential benefit from a closed-door discussion before
someone other than the judge who will ultimately manage the case.

"We need to fundamentally reform the way we do carriage motions in
this country," says Lascaris.


BASIC RESEARCH: Falsely Marketed Dietary Supplements, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adelaide Spence, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Basic Research, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04945-
NRB (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
purchasers of Vysera-CLS dietary weight loss supplements, that
were falsely marketed by the Defendants as a starch blocker that
reshape the entire body in 30 days without requiring to follow a
low-calorie diet or work out.

The product at issue does not actually cause significant weight or
fat loss. Scientific studies demonstrated that substantial weight
loss through mal-absorption of calories alone without diet and
exercise is not scientifically feasible.

Basic Research, LLC is a nutraceutical company that develops,
manufactures, promotes, markets, distributes, and sells cosmetic,
nutritional supplements, and dietary supplements throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Domenick Zaremba, Esq.
      Robert Corbett, Esq.
      ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN, PLLC
      40 Wall Street, 28th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 400-7223
      Facsimile: (212) 400-7224
      E-mail: jzaremba@zbblaw.com
              rob@zbblaw.com

         - and -

      Brian D. Penny, Esq.
      Laura Killian Mummert, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, PC
      101 E. Lancaster Ave., Suite 204
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com
              mummert@lawgsp.com


BEST THAI: "Bazan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel Bazan, et al. v. Best Thai on Grammercy Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-04830 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Best Thai on Grammercy Inc. owns and operates Rhong-Tiam Express
restaurant at 31 East 21st Street, New York, New York 10010.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lizabeth Schalet
      LIPMAN & PLESUR, LLP
      500 North Broadway, Ste. 105
      Jericho, NY 11753-2131
      Telephone: (516) 931-0050
      Facsimile: (516) 931-0030
      E-mail: schalet@lipmanplesur.com


BROADCOM CORP: Andrews & Springer Probing Merger-Related Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is
investigating potential breach of fiduciary duty claims against
the Board of Directors of Broadcom Corporation ("Broadcom" or the
"Company") relating to the sale of the Company to Avago
Technologies Limited ("Avago").

On May 28, 2015, the two companies announced the signing of a
definitive merger agreement pursuant to which Avago will acquire
Broadcom in a merger worth $37 million. As a result of the merger,
Broadcom shareholders are only anticipated to receive $54.50 per
share in cash or 0.4378 shares of the newly-formed company in
exchange for each share of Broadcom. After news of the merger
became public, Broadcom's share price fell and closed at $56.25.

Andrews & Springer's investigation has so far uncovered that the
consideration Broadcom shareholders are expected to receive is
inadequate. Following the merger, Broadcom shareholders are
expected to be substantially diluted, owning only 32% of the
combined company.

While Broadcom claims that shareholders will receive a premium for
their shares, the $54.50 per share consideration represents a 4.8%
discount compared to Broadcom's $57.16 per share price on May 27,
2015, the day before the merger was announced. Additionally,
analysts at Yahoo! Finance have set a $63.00 per share price
target for Broadcom, which is approximately 15.5% more than what
Broadcom shareholders are expected to receive.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in
the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to
prosecute.

The firm may be reached at:

          Craig J. Springer, Esq.
          ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
          Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com


CADIZ INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray reminds investors of the June 23, 2015
deadline in the class action filed on behalf of investors of
Cadiz, Inc. ("Cadiz" or the "Company") who purchased shares from
March 10, 2014 through April 21, 2015, inclusive (the, "Class
Period"). Investors who wish to be appointed as a class
representative have until June 23, 2015 to make a motion to the
court.

Cadiz operates as a land and water resource development company in
the United States. It engages in the water resource, and land and
agricultural development activities in San Bernardino County
properties. On April 21, 2015, a report was published on
seekingalpha.com that cited documents, received pursuant to a
Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request, concerning Cadiz's
water project. According to the seekingalpha.com report, the FOIA
documents reveal that the Company's main water project has
effectively failed due to regulatory concerns and budgetary
constraints; and, that the Company is nearing bankruptcy. On this
news the Company's shares fell $0.72 or nearly 8% per share, to
close on April 21, 2015 at $8.98 per share.

If you purchased shares of Cadiz between March 10, 2014 through
April 21, 2015, inclusive, have information or would like to learn
more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Casey Sadler, of Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.


CAFEPRESS INC: Aug. 11 Hearing on $8MM Securities Suit Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the CafePress Inc. Securities Class Action:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES ("PERSONS") THAT PURCHASED OR
OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CAFEPRESS INC. ("CAFEPRESS" OR THE "COMPANY")
COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION
STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FOR THE COMPANY'S MARCH 28, 2012 INITIAL
PUBLIC OFFERING

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 11,
2015, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Marie S. Weiner at the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 2,
Courtroom 2E, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement dated April 2, 2015 ("Stipulation") of
the above-captioned action ("Litigation") for $8,000,000 in cash
should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate;
(2) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out
of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Proposed
Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below);
(3) to pay Plaintiffs for their time and expenses they incurred in
representing the Settlement Class in this Litigation out of the
Settlement Fund; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should be approved
by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate.

This Litigation is a securities class action brought on behalf of
those Persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of CafePress pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement
and Prospectus ("Registration Statement") issued in connection
with CafePress' March 28, 2012 initial public offering ("IPO")
during the period beginning on March 28, 2012 and ending on July
10, 2013 ("Settlement Class Members"), against CafePress, certain
of its key executives and directors, and Underwriters of
CafePress' IPO (collectively, "Defendants") for allegedly
misstating and omitting material facts from the Registration
Statement filed with the SEC in connection with the IPO,
including: by failing to disclose in the Registration Statement
that for several quarters prior to the IPO, there were weakening
sales in the Company's "shop" segment, softening international
sales and fluctuations in key product demand that placed immense
pressure on CafePress' core business and threatened the Company's
operating results. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
CafePress was undergoing severe challenges in its small shops
segment such that sales and revenue growth, both domestically and
internationally, in the shop segment was declining, and that
consumer search traffic to CafePress' small shops segment had
undergone substantial erosion, which made it difficult for
CafePress to drive search traffic to its consumer websites.
Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED CAFEPRESS COMMON STOCK
PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE COMPANY'S REGISTRATION STATEMENT
FILED WITH THE SEC IN CONNECTION WITH THE COMPANY'S MARCH 28, 2012
IPO, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim by mail
(postmarked no later than August 31, 2015) or submitted
electronically no later than August 31, 2015. Your failure to
submit your Proof of Claim by August 31, 2015, will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the settlement of this Litigation. If you are a
member of the Settlement Class and do not request exclusion, you
will be bound by the settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the settlement or exclude
yourself from the settlement), and a Proof of Claim form, you may
obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation
(which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined
terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents,
online at www.cafepressshareholderlitigation.com, or by writing
to:

CafePress Inc. Shareholder Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 8040
San Rafael, CA 94912-8040
Phone: 1-888-566-1150

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court. Inquiries may also be made to a representative
of Plaintiffs' Settlement Counsel:

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOU MUST
SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED NO LATER
THAN JULY 21, 2015, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE
NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED
EXCLUSION FROM THE SETTLEMENT CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE
SETTLEMENT ENTERED IN THE LITIGATION EVEN IF THEY DO NOT FILE A
TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A SETTLEMENT CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT
TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY
PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES,
AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR TIME AND EXPENSES. ANY
OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFFS'
SETTLEMENT COUNSEL BY JULY 21, 2015, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

          Rick Nelson, Esq.
          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: 1.619.525.3990
          Toll free: 1.800-350-6003
          Fax: 1.619.525.3991


CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Faces "Holmby" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Holmby, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Cardinal
Logistics Management Corporation and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. RG15774954 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation owns and operates
trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles, and industrial
work sites and does business in Alameda County and elsewhere
within California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturley@turleylaw.com
              dmara@turleylaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Governor, et al., Sued by Inmates Over Valley Fever
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Ellis, writing for The Fresno Bee, reported that four inmates
who contracted Valley fever while housed at prisons across
California are suing state officials including Gov. Jerry Brown,
saying they knew of the fungal infection's dangers but did nothing
to protect prisoners.

The legal actions are the latest in a string of federal civil
rights lawsuits filed by multiple Southern California law firms on
behalf of inmates housed mainly at Avenal and Pleasant Valley
state prisons who have contracted the fungal infection. Pleasant
Valley is located in Coalinga. One lawsuit filed late has 45
plaintiffs from the two prisons. A third, filed in July 2013,
seeks class-action status on behalf of African Americans, those
older than 55 and others with compromised immune systems who
contracted Valley fever while at either prison.

Attorneys representing some of the men, however, say in legal
filings in U.S. District Court in Fresno that the problem goes far
beyond those two prisons. Plaintiffs in the latest round of
lawsuits come from Kern Valley State Prison near Delano, Corcoran
and Wasco as well as Avenal and Pleasant Valley. They say state
prison officials violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition
against cruel and unusual punishment in housing inmates vulnerable
to Valley fever in the prisons.

"The American system of criminal justice requires that state
correctional authorities carry out the exact sentence determined
by the judicial process -- no more and no less," the lawsuit filed
on behalf of the more than 160 Avenal and Pleasant Valley inmates,
states. "Instead, Defendants knowingly imposed on plaintiffs a
lifelong, crippling, and sometimes fatal disease in addition to
their lawfully determined sentences."

Minorities susceptible

A vast majority of the inmates are minorities, and some of the
lawsuits name racial discrimination, as well as the civil rights
allegations, among its charges. The lawsuits say studies show that
blacks, Hispanics, American Indian and Asians, particularly
Filipinos, are especially susceptible to contracting Valley fever.

As new lawsuits are being filed, however, some earlier Valley
fever suits are facing legal struggles.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Stanley Boone recommended that two of the
lawsuits -- one of them from October 2013 that has 159 inmates
from Avenal and Pleasant Valley as plaintiffs -- be dismissed. The
final decision on Boone's recommendation lies with U.S. District
Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill. As of now, both cases are still active.

Luis Patino, a spokesman for the state Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, said "the health and safety of state employees
and inmates in California prisons is of the utmost importance to
the state. However, CDCR does not comment on pending litigation."

The latest lawsuits come four months after the state screened
nearly 37,000 inmates for Valley fever to see which ones could
safely be housed at Avenal State Prison in Kings County and
Pleasant Valley State Prison. After the tests, more than 2,100
inmates were moved from the two prisons.

"CDCR has been working to mitigate Valley fever for years," Patino
said. "We have put in place numerous measures in our prisons to
reduce the amount of dust, and the movement of dust, particularly
into buildings. We have also moved inmates deemed at higher risk
and who chose to move out of the two prisons in the Valley fever
endemic zone. We have also worked with state and federal public
health partners to study further methods of reducing the incidence
of Valley fever in Avenal and Pleasant Valley prisons. To date,
more than 2,100 inmates were moved from two prisons and mitigation
efforts continue."

Danger from disease

Jason Feldman of the Venice law firm of Feldman & Wallach, which
has filed multiple lawsuits on behalf of inmates, including being
one of three firms involved in the four filed, said the prisoner
movement was a good first step, but more needs to be done.

"We applaud the transfer order, which is aimed at mitigating risk
in the future, but there are scores of people who are already sick
and that needs to be dealt with also," he said.

Valley fever is an infection that develops when people breathe
Coccidioides fungal spores found in soil or dust. Most people
exposed to the fungus do not get sick, but some develop flu-like
symptoms that last a few days or couple of weeks. Others, however,
develop an infection that can spread from the lungs to the rest of
the body, causing meningitis and death.

The disease has increased from 5.3 cases per 100,000 people in
1998 to 42.6 cases per 100,000 in 2011 in states where it has
become endemic. California has about 31% of the cases, health
officials have said.

Attorneys for the inmates say state health officials have known
about the prevalence of Valley fever, especially around Coalinga
and Avenal, and the disease's risks to inmate health, for more
than 50 years.

"Locating these prisons in these hyper-endemic region of the
Central Valley, significantly overcrowding them, housing inmates
at risk or at increased risk from Valley fever there, and failing
to implement any of the remedial measures recommended to reduce
inmate exposure to (the disease) has had drastic repercussions on
the health and welfare of California's inmate population," one of
the lawsuits states.

That same suit says that by 2006 Pleasant Valley State Prison "was
known to be extraordinarily dangerous."

Since 2005, Feldman said, 70 inmates have died as a result of
exposure to Valley fever.

Illness called 'punishment'

Each of the lawsuits is in various stages of litigation at U.S.
District Court in Fresno. Both of Fresno's U.S. District judges,
Lawrence J. O'Neill and Anthony W. Ishii, have been assigned
cases.

State prison records show some of the men are still incarcerated,
but it appears all are now housed at prisons outside of the
Central Valley. No records could be found for others, which likely
indicates they could have been released.

Once an inmate is infected, "no compensation is provided for this
additional punishment that has been unfairly added to their
sentences," some of the lawsuits say. One an inmate is released,
the suits say, the state doesn't provide health care or financial
assistance to deal with "the overwhelming cost and hazards
associated with Valley fever."

Feldman said one of the problems is that inmates often come from
other parts of California or the nation, so they have no immunity
built up against the disease. Many of those inmates after being
released "go back to their communities and become health problems
to those communities."

Medical professionals there don't know how to handle Valley fever,
and the inmates often have no insurance to pay for treatments.

"They're already challenged enough to get jobs or income, and now
they're also strapped with this debilitating disease," Feldman
said.

Many of the lawsuits tell similar stories.

One of the latest ones filed is for Luis Negron, 36, a Hispanic
man who was sent to Wasco State Prison in mid-2011. At the time,
the lawsuit says, he didn't have Valley fever. A short time later,
however, he began to exhibit symptoms of the infection.

Negron "continues to suffer from the disease, he has underwent
significant weight loss, lesions and red spots on his chest, has a
persistent cough, night sweats, headaches, lethargy, and he
experiences severe emotional distress, including depression," his
suit says.

State prison records show Negron is now housed at Ironwood State
Prison in the Mojave Desert city of Blythe.

Besides Brown, former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is named in many,
but not all, of the lawsuits. Also named are wardens of the
various prisons and former wardens, as well as current and former
heads of the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Even with multiple lawsuits filed, more could be on the way.

Feldman said this past month alone his firm received four calls
from families of inmates or former inmates. He said his firm has
been in contact with 800 current or former inmates "and we believe
the number to be significantly higher than that, at least twice
that."


CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Former Players Sue Over Head Injuries
--------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Rush, writing for the The Star, reported that two former
Canadian Football League players, including former Toronto
Argonauts running back Eric (The Flea) Allen, have filed a $200-
million lawsuit, alleging the CFL knew and withheld information
about brain damage caused by repeated blows to the head.

Allen, 66, who played with the Argos from 1972-1975, lives in
South Carolina and is being cared for by his 80-year-old mother in
the family home.

He is joined in the lawsuit by former defensive back Korey Banks,
35, who was with Ottawa, Winnipeg and B.C. from 2004-2014. Banks
lives in Georgia.

They are suing the league, former commissioner Mark Cohon, leading
brain-injury expert Dr. Charles Tator and a Toronto neurology
clinic, the Krembil Neuroscience Centre.

Allen and Banks are the representative plaintiffs in a class-
action lawsuit that was filed on May 29 on behalf of all retired
players since 1952. The pleadings state that at least since 1952
the CFL had specific knowledge of the harmful effects of repeated
blows to the head and hid these facts.

Allegations in the lawsuit have not been proven in court.
Former CFL player Arland Bruce, who is suing the CFL in a separate
case, is caught in a jurisdictional dispute and it is unclear if
his case will go ahead.

The latest lawsuit alleges that the defendants knew that the
symptoms of permanent brain injury include disorientation, slurred
speech, attention deficit, headaches, memory impairment and
personality disturbances.

There were no medical benefits available to an injured CFL player
once the first regular season game of the following season began,
the suit claims.

Professional athletes, including CFL players, are excluded from
claiming workers' compensaton benefits. Many members of the class
are not residents of Canada and were not eligible for provincial
medical benefits.

In addition, the suit alleges, Cohon supported the work of Tator
and the Krembil Neuroscience Centre knowing that their work was
"against the weight of scientific evidence."
Neither the CFL nor the Krembil Neuroscience Centre would comment.


CCS CREDIT: Faces "Marquez" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Myrna Marquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CCS Credit Collection Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-03690
(E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      David M. Barshay
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com
              dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com


CHARLES SCHWAB: Sued Over Failure to Provide Best Execution
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francis Fleming, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-02945 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' failure to route its brokerage clients' trades to the
exchange or trading venue offering the best execution for the
trade.

The Charles Schwab Corporation is a holding company engaged,
through its subsidiaries, in securities brokerage, banking, money
management and financial advisory services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew J. Brown, Esq.
      Benny C. Goodman III, Esq.
      Ashley M. Price, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101-8498
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: andrewb@rgrdlaw.com
              bennyg@rgrdlaw.com
              aprice@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

     Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 288-4545
     Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
     E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com


CHINA FINANCE: Faces Securities Suit Filed By Rosen Law Firm
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers
of China Finance Online Co., Ltd. JRJC, +16.17% American
Depository Shares between May 6, 2014 and June 3, 2015, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for China Finance Online investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the China Finance Online class action, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-628.htmlor call
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
email pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information
on the class action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) China Finance
Online's Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive
Officer Zhiwei Zhao had an indirect equity interest in Langfang
Developer at the time of the Company's investment; (2) Zhiwei Zhao
suddenly resigned from his positions at three key Chinese Variable
Interest Entities of China Finance Online; and (3) as a result of
the foregoing, China Finance Online's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 4, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-628.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm, toll-free, at 866-767-3653, or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CITY GROUP: Chairman, Wife Named as Swiss Bank Acct Holders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Umaima Shafiq, writing for Gulf-Times, reported that investors in
the fraudulent City Group company that had branches all over India
expect to get some relief after its chairman Syed Mohamed Masood
and his wife were named as Swiss bank account holders by the Swiss
Federal Gazette.

The gazette has released names of a dozen Indians.  As many as
35,000 investors in Tamil Nadu were lured by City Group's promise
of 48% interest and large cash back in its investment schemes.
Many even took loans and used up all savings to invest in the
company.

However the company folded in August 2009 and its directors
absconded.  The investors had filed complaints with the Tamil Nadu
Economic Offences Wing, while also fighting individual class
action suits in court.


CML MEDIA: Faces "Kelly-Duarte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Kelly-Duarte, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. CML Media Corp., d/b/a Mopro, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-00795083 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 23,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

CML Media is a California corporation that offers spyware-free
downloads on the Web.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen B. Felahy, Esq.
      FELAHY TRIAL LAWYERS, APC
      4000 Cover Street, Suite 100
      Long Beach, CA 90808
      Facsimile: (562) 499-2124
      Telephone: (562) 499-2121
      E-mail: AFelahy@Felahylaw.com


CORE LABORATORIES: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Nelson Hill, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Core Laboratories LP d/b/a Protechnics, Core
Laboratories Interests Holdings, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-00093
(W.D. Tex., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants specialize in providing an array of petroleum
services to various oilfield installations throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DICK'S SPORTING: Faces "Kaczmarczyk" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Kaczmarczyk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00552-
RJA (W.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York
State Wage and Hour Law.

Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
operates approximately 44 retail stores in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
      Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
      HEPWORTH GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: charles@hgrlawyers.com
              marc@hgrlawyers.com

         - and -

      David A. Roth, Esq.
      ROTH & ROTH, LLP
      192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-1199
      Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
      E-mail: droth@hgrlawyers.com

         - and -

      Fran Lisa Rudich, Esq.
      KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
      Two International Drive, Suite 350
      Rye Brook, NY 10573
      Telephone: (914) 934-9200
      Facsimile: (914) 934-9220
      E-mail: frudich@klafterolsen.com


DIRECTV LLC: Faces "Britschgi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Britschgi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DirecTv, LLC and Does 1 through 25, inclusive, Case
No. RG15774968 (Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay Installers the
applicable state minimum wage for all hours worked.

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


DNJ INTERMODAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Truck Drivers, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio Barrera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DNJ Intermodal Services, LLC, Case No. 2015-CH-09701
(Ill. Cir. Ct., June 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to properly classify its truck drivers as employees,
and as a result, fails to compensate those drivers in accordance
with the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

DNJ Intermodal Services, LLC owns and operates drayage services
facilities in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
      Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
      Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
      CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
      224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 763M6880
      E-mail: info@caffarelli.com


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: SPDR S&P Receives Class Action Payment
---------------------------------------------------------
The SPDR(R) S&P Capital Markets ETF said the Fund received payment
as an authorized claimant from a class action settlement related
to E*TRADE Financial Corporation.

When the Fund calculates its net asset value ("NAV") per share on
June 8, 2015, it is estimated that the Fund's NAV will be impacted
in the amounts stated below based on shares outstanding as of June
4, 2015.

SSGA manages approximately $429.4 billion in SPDR ETF assets
worldwide (as of April 30, 2015) and is one of the largest ETF
providers in the US and globally.

             About State Street Global Advisors

For nearly four decades, State Street Global Advisors has been
committed to helping our clients, and those who rely on them,
achieve financial security. We partner with many of the world's
largest, most sophisticated investors and financial intermediaries
to help them reach their goals through a rigorous, research-driven
investment process spanning both indexing and active disciplines.
With trillions* in assets, our scale and global reach offer
clients unrivaled access to markets, geographies and asset
classes, and allow us to deliver thoughtful insights and
innovative solutions.

State Street Global Advisors is the investment management arm of
State Street Corporation.

*Assets under management were $2.4 trillion as of March 31, 2015.
This AUM total includes the assets of the SPDR Gold Trust (approx.
$28 billion as of March 31, 2015), for which State Street Global
Markets, LLC, an affiliate of State Street Global Advisors, serves
as the marketing agent. Please note that AUM totals are unaudited.

SPDR ETFs are a comprehensive family spanning an array of
international and domestic asset classes. SPDR ETFs provide
professional investors with the flexibility to select investments
that are precisely aligned to their investment strategy.
Recognized as the industry pioneer, State Street -- in partnership
with the American Stock Exchange -- created the first ETF in 1993
(SPDR S&P 500 - Ticker SPY). Since then, we've sustained our place
as an industry innovator through the introduction of many ground-
breaking products, including first-to-market successes with gold,
international real estate, international fixed income and sector
ETFs. SPDR ETFs are managed or marketed by SSGA or SSGA Funds
Management, Inc., a registered investment adviser and wholly owned
subsidiary of State Street Bank and Trust Company.

ETFs trade like stocks, are subject to investment risk and will
fluctuate in market value.

Frequent trading of ETFs could significantly increase commissions
and other costs such that they may offset any savings from low
fees or costs.

Standard & Poor's, S&P and SPDR are registered trademarks of
Standard & Poor's Financial Services LLC (S&P); Dow Jones is a
registered trademark of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC (Dow
Jones); and these trademarks have been licensed for use by S&P Dow
Jones Indices LLC (SPDJI) and sublicensed for certain purposes by
State Street Corporation. State Street Corporation's financial
products are not sponsored, endorsed, sold or promoted by SPDJI,
Dow Jones, S&P, their respective affiliates and third party
licensors and none of such parties make any representation
regarding the advisability of investing in such product(s) nor do
they have any liability in relation thereto, including for any
errors, omissions, or interruptions of any index.

Distributor: State Street Global Markets, LLC, member FINRA, SIPC,
a wholly owned subsidiary of State Street Corporation. ALPS
Portfolio Solutions Distributors, Inc., a registered broker-
dealer, is distributor for Select Sector SPDRs and ALPS
Distributors, Inc. is distributor for SPDR S&P 500, MidCap SPDRs
and SPDR DJIA, all unit investment trusts. References to State
Street may include State Street Corporation and its affiliates.
Certain State Street affiliates provide services and receive fees
from the SPDR ETFs.

Before investing, consider the funds' investment objectives,
risks, charges and expenses. To obtain a prospectus which contains
this and other information call 1-866-787-2257 or visit
www.spdrs.com


EDISON INT'L: "Tibble" Ruling Creates Uncertainty for Plan Execs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Steyer, writing for P&I Online, reported that attorneys who
represent defined contribution plan sponsors and DC plan
consultants say the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Tibble
et al. vs. Edison International has created uncertainty for plan
executives.

While the court's unanimous ruling reaffirmed and clarified what
plan executives should have been doing all along -- continuously
monitoring investments -- it didn't establish guidelines for that
monitoring, they said.

The court sent the case back to a federal appeals court to outline
standards. "We express no view on the scope of (Edison's)
fiduciary duty in this case," the court said in its 9-0 decision
issued May 18.

"The court is continuing to make it unclear what fiduciaries are
supposed to do," said Jeremy Blumenfeld, a Philadelphia-based
partner at Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. "If the fiduciaries had
specific guidelines, they would do it."

Other attorneys said the decision highlights that fiduciaries'
inconsistent monitoring and inadequate record keeping are a
prescription for trouble.

"Amateur hour is over," said James P. McElligott Jr., a Richmond,
Va.-based partner for McGuire Woods LLP.

"The court is saying you need to look at investments in a serious
way," he added. "Investment committees need to know their
investments. You need some strong, competent independent advisers.
You need documentation."

Mr. McElligott said the need for action is heightened by the
ruling that fiduciaries' responsibilities aren't restricted by an
ERISA six-year statute of limitations for suits alleging breach of
fiduciary duty. "You can't set it and forget it," he said.

The Supreme Court has told fiduciaries "to take seriously their
responsibility in time and in effort," said Nancy Ross, a Chicago-
based partner for Mayer Brown LLP. "For some plans, that's a wake-
up call. For others, it's a reminder."

Ms. Ross said the decision could encourage more fiduciary-breach
lawsuits. "The plaintiffs' bar could see this as a back-door entry
to challenge plan operations," she said.

Although the Tibble case focused on fees for plan options,
"prudent fiduciaries will look at the instructions by the court as
meaning more than a duty to monitor investments," she said.
"Smaller plans will be the most affected. They may have to start
from scratch to make sure they document their (monitoring)
process. Larger plans will have to fine-tune the process."
Higher damages

Mr. Blumenfeld said he wasn't sure whether the court's ruling
would lead to more lawsuits, but noted it could lead to higher
damages assessed through verdicts or settlements and higher plan
costs due to litigation expenses.

The Tibble case started in August 2007 with a class-action lawsuit
filed by 401(k) participants against Edison International Inc.,
Rosemead, Calif., a utility holding company, and others associated
with the Edison plan. The suit was filed in the U.S District Court
for the Central District of California.

The participants alleged plan executives violated their fiduciary
duty when they chose retail shares for mutual funds over lower-
priced shares for the same investments. They challenged six mutual
funds -- three that were added to the plan lineup in 1999 and
three that were offered beginning in 2002.

The District Court in 2009 dismissed the claim for the 1999 funds,
citing the six-year statute of limitations for filing a fiduciary
breach claim that is part of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

However, after a trial, the court in 2010 ruled in favor of the
participants regarding the 2002 mutual funds, awarding them
$370,732 in damages. The participants appealed the ruling on the
1999 funds, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
decision in 2013. Participants then petitioned the Supreme Court.

The appeals court mistakenly applied the six-year statute of
limitations to the three 1999 funds "based solely on the initial
selection of the three funds without considering the contours of
the alleged breach of fiduciary duty," said the opinion written by
Justice Stephen Breyer. "The 9th Circuit did not recognize that
under trust law, a fiduciary is required to conduct a regular
review of its investment with the nature and timing of the review
contingent on the circumstances."

The Supreme Court vacated the appellate court's ruling and sent
the case back "for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion," wrote Mr. Breyer.
Non-binding in other circuits

If the appeals court offers guidelines, its decision will affect
only ERISA-covered DC plans in the 9th Circuit's area --
California, Nevada, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Washington, Oregon,
Montana and Arizona. "It won't be binding on other circuits," said
Ms. Ross of Mayer Brown, "but it will be persuasive in other
circuits."

If the appeals court sends the case back to the District Court
where the Edison ruling originated, ERISA attorneys said
litigation might go on for several more years unless there is a
settlement.

Attorneys and consultants said fiduciaries shouldn't wait for
follow-up litigation, maintaining that an ounce of fiduciary
prevention can protect against a pound of litigation.

"Fiduciaries will be more cautious about minutes of fiduciary
meetings to reflect both thorough deliberation and their
decisions," said Ms. Ross.

"Know your plan documents -- and read them periodically," added
Mr. McElligott of McGuireWoods.

"My initial takeaway is that the court confirmed a process that we
have been doing with clients for a long time," said Lori Lucas,
the Chicago-based executive vice president and defined
contribution practice leader for Callan Associates Inc., referring
to her firm's practices.

Monitoring covers regular appraisals of fees, fund performance,
risk, style drift and "organizational stability" -- whether fund
managers leave -- on a quarterly basis, she said.

"Our answer to the court's decision is (for plan executives) to
conduct a plan fee review with a request for information from
comparable vendors every few years to benchmark fees," she said.
They should perform "interim benchmarking annually, or if there is
a major plan change."

Ms. Lucas conceded that lower-court interpretations of the Supreme
Court ruling remain a wild card for plan management. "The 9th
Circuit still needs to say what is adequate," she said. "But it's
hard to say things will be resolved even when the 9th Circuit
makes its ruling. This area remains unsettled."

Consultants say the best defense in ERISA legal challenges is
documenting the process for their decisions. "In a general sense,
if fiduciaries followed the right process, courts are hesitant to
second-guess them," said Michael Weddell, a Southfield, Mich.-
based senior consultant for Towers Watson & Co.'s benefits
advisory and compliance unit.

Michael Webb, New York-based vice president, retirement, at
Cammack Retirement Group, an investment and employee benefits
consulting firm, emphasized the need for keeping good records.

"We say (to clients) keep doing what you are doing -- monitor
investments, go for the least expensive asset classes and get rid
of poor-performing funds," said Mr. Webb. N


EL SENORIAL: "Gomez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gwendolyne Rodriguez Gomez and Reina Sofia Alva, and other
similarly situated employees v. El Senorial, Corp. and Edgar A.
Parra, Case No. 2015-014166-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 23, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FORSTER GARBUS: Faces "Antista" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Antista, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
Forster, Garbus & Garbus, LVNV Funding LLC, and John Does 1 to 10,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04338 (D.N.J., June 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant 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


GOWAITER BUSINESS: Faces "Schoolcraft" Suit Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrod Schoolcraft, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. GoWaiter Business Holdings, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02270-CAP (N.D. Ga., June 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Simanovsky, Esq.
      ALEX SIMANOVSKY & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      Suite 300, 2300 Henderson Mill Road
      Atlanta, GA 30345
      Telephone: (678) 781-1012
      E-mail: alex@a-s-law.com

         - and -

      Craig J. Ehrlich, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG J. EHRLICH, LLC
      Suite 300, 2300 Henderson Mill Road
      Atlanta, GA 30345
      Telephone: (404) 365-4460
      Facsimile: (855) 415-2480
      E-mail: craig@ehrlichlawoffice.com


GUARDIAN HOME: Faces "Arbolaez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Arbolaez and Kathy Calcasola, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Guardian Home Health, Inc. and Elaine
Deciutiis, Case No. 8:15-cv-01473 (M.D. Fla., June 22, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Guardian Home Health, Inc. owns and operates a home health care
facility in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Melton, Esq.
      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      11020 Northcliffe Blvd
      Spring Hill, FL 34608
      Telephone: (352) 683-2016
      Facsimile: (352) 556-4839
      E-mail: jason@thefllawfirm.com
              lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com


HERTZ CORP: Sued Over Unauthorized Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------
Bob Egelko, writing for San Francisco Gate, reported that civil
rights lawyers sued Hertz Corp. and its background-checks
contractor on, accusing them of blindsiding job applicants by
looking up their criminal records and withholding or withdrawing
job offers without giving them a chance to challenge the reports.

A federal law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, requires private
employers to get applicants' written consent before checking their
criminal records or credit history, said lawyers in the suit,
which was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. When a
report contains damaging information, the lawyers said, the
employer must give the applicant a copy and a chance to correct
any errors.

"A significant percentage of these (criminal background) reports
. . . contain incomplete, inaccurate, misleading, or improper
records that can erroneously disqualify a job applicant," the suit
said. It said Hertz, the car rental giant, routinely rejects job
applicants based on background reports that are never shown to the
applicant.

The company's practice "deprives job-seekers of their rights,"
said plaintiffs' lawyer Katrina Eiland. She was joined in the case
by the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco
Bay Area, which has argued that employers' use of criminal records
disproportionately harms poor and minority job applicants.

Some states have started to prohibit employers from asking job
applicants whether they have criminal records. California enacted
such a ban for state and local government jobs, and San Francisco
later expanded that ban to private companies with more than 20
employees. Both laws allow employers to conduct full background
checks after an initial interview, subject to the restrictions in
federal law.

Hertz, which owns the Dollar, Thrifty and Firefly car rental
companies, operates at more than 1,700 U.S. airports. Hertz
declined to comment, saying it had not yet reviewed the lawsuit.
The suit was filed as a proposed nationwide class action by Peter
Lee of Richmond. Lawyers said Lee was working for another car-
rental company at San Francisco International Airport when he was
recruited by the Dollar/Thrifty rental outlet at the airport in
May 2014. He was interviewed, passed a drug test, got a job offer
and sent his employer a notice that he was leaving, the suit said.

Six days before he was scheduled to start, Hertz said it was
withdrawing the offer because of information uncovered in Lee's
criminal background check. Lee had been charged in June 2012 with
possessing drugs for sale, charges that were still pending in
2014, the suit said. It did not say how the charges were
ultimately resolved, and Lee's lawyers declined to elaborate.
Neither Hertz nor its contractor, Sterling Infosystems, had
notified Lee of the background check, obtained his consent or
given him a chance to see and comment on his records, as the law
requires, the suit said. Eiland, his lawyer, said Lee was able to
keep his job with his previous employer.

She also said the practices aren't unique to Hertz.
"We understand that companies frequently violate the (Fair Credit
Reporting Act) and often outsource certain obligations to
companies like Sterling," Eiland said.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Falsely Marketed Printers, "Wolf" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Wolf, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Hewlett Packard Company, Case
No. 5:15-cv-01221 (C.D. Cal., June 22, 2015), is brought on behalf
of all the consumers who purchased HP printers that were falsely
marketed by the Defendant to have "HP Smart Install," a feature
designed to allow for the easy software installation of the
printers via the internet.

The HP Smart Install feature on the products at issue is disabled
and unavailable for use on the printers that the Defendant
advertises them to have.

Hewlett Packard Company is a Delaware corporation and is engaged
in the manufacture, sale, and distribution of computers and
related equipment and services.

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


HEWLETT-PACKARD: $100-Mil. Deal for Autonomy-Related Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Escritt and Toby Sterling, writing for Reuters, reported
that Hewlett-Packard agreed to pay $100 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit stemming from its ill-fated 2011 acquisition of
British software company Autonomy.

Dutch pension fund PGGM was the lead plaintiff in the suit, which
has been running since 2012. The cash payment will be paid into a
settlement fund to compensate affected shareholders.

HP acquired Autonomy for $11 billion but was forced to write down
its value by $8.8 billion only a year later. First Autonomy's
revenues declined and then in November 2012 HP said it had
uncovered accounting irregularities at the firm. Autonomy's
managers denied that, but HP's stock plunged to 10-year lows.

PGGM lawyer Femke Hendriks said that HP's management had harmed
investors by unduly playing up prospects for the acquisition.

The pension fund decided to pursue the suit against the U.S. tech
company because it wanted to send a signal to companies that they
cannot mislead investors with impunity, Hendriks said.

"Sooner or later you'll face the bill," she said.

HP did not admit any wrongdoing.

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

Asked why she thought HP's then-management would have had any
interest in misleading shareholders, Hendriks said that "remains a
difficult question to answer."

She said PGGM believes management had been so determined to get
into a growing software business quickly that it failed to ensure
auditors vetted the company's books properly before striking a
deal.


IGNITE RESTAURANT: Joe's Crab IPO Suit Ends in $1.8MM Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perlman, writing for Law360, reported that a Texas federal
judge gave final approval on to a $1.8 million settlement in a
putative class action accusing Ignite Restaurant Group Inc., which
owns restaurant chains including Joe's Crab Shack and Romano's
Macaroni Grill, of botching its $80 million initial public
offering in 2012.

U.S. District Judge Vanessa D. Gilmore issued an order approving
the settlement agreement, which the two sides reached in January,
finding it fair and reasonable.

"The court hereby approves the settlement set forth in the
stipulation and finds that said settlement is, in all respects,
fair, reasonable and adequate, and in the best interests of the
settlement class," Judge Gilmore wrote.

The judge also granted the plaintiffs' lead counsel $600,000 for
attorneys' fees and $304,000 for expenses. Considering that the
case dragged on for nearly three years, the judge wrote these
amounts were fair.

"The court finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair and
reasonable in light of the time and labor required, the novelty
and difficulty of the case, the skill required to prosecute the
case, the experience and ability of the attorneys, awards in
similar cases, the contingent nature of the representation, and
the result obtained for the class," the order says.

A preliminary approval for the agreement was issued in February.
In a memorandum supporting the settlement approval filed in March,
attorneys for the putative class said continuing the case would
only delay the class members' payments.

"The settlement is not only a fair, reasonable and adequate result
for the settlement class, as is legally required, but lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel believe that it is an excellent result
under the circumstances of this case," the memorandum says.

An attorney for the shareholders called the settlement a good deal
after its final approval from the court.

"We are pleased with the Court's ruling," Phillip Kim of The Rosen
Law Firm PA told Law360. "The settlement is a good result for
shareholders given the difficult and novel issues raised in this
case, the formidable opposition from defense counsel throughout
the case, and the fact the settlement exceeds industry averages."

The case dates back to 2012, when Ignite shareholder Chaz Campton
filed suit on behalf of himself and others who purchased stock in
Ignite's May 2012 IPO. That first complaint was actually dismissed
in February 2013, but the plaintiffs filed a second amendment
complaint in September of that year.

The IPO sold almost 5.8 million shares at $14 a share. But
following an internal assessment of its lease accounting, Ignite
realized it had become clear that errors needed to be corrected,
according to court documents, and further review showed that the
company needed to restate its previously issued financial
statements for every year going back to 2009.

The lease accounting errors dated back to the company's 2006
beginnings, and the adjustments reflected noncash charges
primarily relating to deferred rent. Following those revisions,
Ignite stock plummeted, leading to the suit being filed on behalf
of all Ignite shareholders.

Ignite operates 313 restaurants in 36 states and franchises an
additional 26. It reported $837 million in revenue and a loss of
$53.5 million, according to its annual filings. Its filing also
says that $1.6 million of the settlement cost will be covered by
insurance.

Attorneys for Ignite did not respond to requests for comment.

The proposed class is represented by Kevin Koon-Pon Chan, Phillip
Kim and Laurence M. Rosen of The Rosen Law Firm PA and R. Dean
Gresham of PayneMitchell Law Group LLP.

The defendants are represented by Shireen A. Barday, Mitra Hormozi
and Yosef J. Riemer of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Scott Lemond of
Lemond & Lemond LLC, and Stephen B. Crain and Tony L. Visage of
Bracewell & Giuliani LLP.

The case is Campton v. Ignite Restaurant Group Inc. et al., case
number 4:12-cv-02196, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.


INDECO FINISHES: Faces "Saname" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge L. Saname and all others similarly situated v. Indeco
Finishes of Florida, LLC, Oswaldo A. Ramos, Case No. 1:15-cv-
22348-UU (S.D. Fla., June 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company doing
business throughout Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTER-CONTINENTAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Leschinsky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Inter-Continental Hotels Corporation and
Orange Lake Country Club, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01470-JSM-MAP
(M.D. Fla., June 22, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice
of making unsolicited telemarking calls to the telephones of
consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all persons injured
by their conduct.

The Defendants own and operate an international hotel chain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin Hans Crumley, Esq.
      CRUMLEY & WOLFE, PA
      2254 Riverside Ave
      Jacksonville, FL 32204
      Telephone: (904) 374-0111
      Facsimile: (904) 374-0113
      E-mail: ben@cwbfl.com

         - and -

      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      William Craft Hughes, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      Suite 1120-Galleria Tower I
      2700 Post Oak Blvd
      Houston, TX 77056-5767
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
               craft@hughesellzey.com


JOHNSON CONTROLS: Illegally Installs Recording Devices, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Allen, et al. v. Jerry Brown, Brian Hawkins, Johnson
Controls, Inc., and Robert A. McDonald as Secretary of the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Case No. 1:15-cv-00969 (D.D.C.,
June 22, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of
the Defendants unlawful practice of installing video and audio
recording devices through the workplace of the Plaintiffs without
any legal justification.

Johnson Controls, Inc. is a Milwaukee corporation who installs
audio and video listening devices for U.S. Federal agencies.

Robert A. McDonald is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs.

Brian Hawkins is the director of the medical center located at 50
Irving Street NW, Washington D.C. 20422.

Jerry Brown is the Chief of Police Service with the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ken C. Gauvey, Esq.
      THE LAW PRACTICE OF KEN C. GAUVEY, LLC
      4334 Farragut Street, Suite I
      Hyattsville, MD 20781
      Telephone: (410) 346-2377
      Facsimile: (866) 487-1154
      E-mail: kgauvey@gauveylaw.com


LIONSGATE: Moves To Settle 'Wendy Williams Show' Intern Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reported that six months
ago, Lionsgate wanted the potential class action filed by a former
intern on The Wendy Williams Show tossed out of court. Now it
wants to go large and pay to make the whole thing go away. To that
end, the studio's attorneys are filing paperwork in New York
federal court stating that they have reached a settlement in the
case with Anthony Tart's lawyers at Virginia & Ambinder, I've
learned. While there is no dollar figure attached to the proposed
agreement, sources tell me is it in the $1 million ballpark.

And the ballpark itself has gotten a bit bigger: As part of the
resolution to Tart's October 1, 2014 complaint seeking a jury
trial, Lionsgate and its subsidiary, Wendy Williams Show producers
Debmar-Mercury, are taking the rare Hollywood step of expanding
the class action as they hope to have it shut it down. Settlement
deal won't just address other former TWWS interns who say they
were made to work like full-time employees on the syndicated
daytime talker, in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act plus New York's Minimum Wage Law and Wage Theft Law. Nope, to
truly settle this and to seek to head off further similar
lawsuits, Lionsgate is now including all former interns of the
studio and its subsidiary in the action -- which is around 1,800
individuals.

Worked out a couple of weeks ago, the proposal now goes before
Judge Alison Nathan for preliminary and eventually final approval
later this summer, if class members raise no strenuous objections.
As has been the case with past settlements, class members are
looking at getting around $550 each. That's before the lawyers get
their usually not insignificant piece of the rock and if all
eligible class members participate, which could bring that $1
million figure down.

This mainly done deal from Lionsgate follows the trend in
Tinseltown of late to make an agreement on these actions instead
of the risks of both sides going deeper down the labor-law
mineshaft. In both NBC Universal and Viacom have broke settlement
bread with ex-interns and taken out their checkbooks. In the
latter case, Virginia & Ambinder was one of the firms set to get
some of the $900,000 payday from a $7.2 million agreement. A
holdout until last winter, Lionsgate was the last studio to shift
to paying their interns after a 2013 ruling in the game-changing
Black Swan case against Fox Searchlight sent litigation chills
through the industry. Now it thinks it has found a way to leave
the whole mess behind.

Lionsgate and Debmar-Mercury are represented by Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP lawyers Christopher Parlo, Sam Shaulson and Stephanie
Rosel Ross. Alison Genova, LaDonna Lusher and Lloyd Ambinder of
NYC's Virgina & Ambinder LLP are handling things for Tart and the
class members, as are Jeffrey Brown and Daniel Markowitz of Leeds
Brown Law PC.


LU SIMON BUILDERS: Faces Possible Class Suit by Bldg. Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Gillet, writing for Heraldsun, reported that the
Metropolitan Fire Brigade raised concern about the incident
warning it had national implications over cheap cladding.

The organization launched an investigation into the fire at the
Lacrosse building and found the external cladding used by the
builders, L U Simon, breached combustibility requirements for
high-rise towers.

Now 170 new high-rises in Melbourne's CBD are being looked into by
the Victorian Building Authority.

In an email to staff, the MFB's acting chief executive Paul
Stacchino described the incident as extremely rare and challenging
for the organisation.

"MFB's most experienced firefighters had never personally
encountered such a fire," he wrote.

"This is a fire that has the potential to be repeated. Fire and
emergency services need to gain as much knowledge as possible to
handle future incidents."

He said while this was the first fire of its type in Australia, it
was not an isolated incident.

"On 21 February 2015 a fire occurred in Dubai with similar rate
and vertical travel of fire spread, impact on operations and
evacuation of residents. This fire had external cladding of a
similar nature to the type used on the Lacrosse building."

In its request, the MFB has asked that an inquiry also look into
the role of the Victorian Building Authority in regards to
regulating the industry.

CSIRO tests found the cladding, called Alucobest, failed to
prevent the spread of the Docklands fire as required under the
Building Code.

More than 100 owners and residents of the Lacrosse high-rise have
contacted law firm Slater & Gordon regarding a potential class
action -- an issue which poses problems for builders across
Australia.  The fast-moving blaze ravaged their 23-storey building
and forced them to flee to Etihad Stadium.

The Victorian Building Authority's Director Technical and
Regulations Jarrod Edwards said the MFB's request that the Coroner
investigate an incident even though no fatality had occurred was
not unprecedented or unusual.  He said the VBA supported the
referral to the Coroner to investigate whether the national and
state regulatory frameworks ensured that risks were adequately
addressed.

"The VBA will continue to work together with the MFB on this
issue," Mr Edwards said.

A lit cigarette was identified as the cause of the November 25
fire.

The coroner has been contacted for comment.


LVNV FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hernandez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LVNV Funding LLC, and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:15-cv-04791-JFW-PJW (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), arises out of
the Defendants false, deceptive and unfair debt-collection
practices promulgated throughout California.

LVNV Funding LLC is engaged in the business of purchasing charged-
off consumer debts for collection purposes.

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


MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: "Murata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Murata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mastro's Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-05606
(N.D. Ill., June 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, statutory penalties, attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mastro's Restaurants, LLC is a Nevada limited liability company
which owns and operates steakhouse restaurants throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Removed "Pitter" Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Nadine Pitter and Jasmine
Savage, on their own behalf and for all others similarly situated
v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1505045719, was
removed from the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia to the United
States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-
cv-03497-CDJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. Derose, Es.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ LLP
      250 E Broad St 10th Fl.
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Sarah E. Bouchard, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      1701 Market St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-5077
      E-mail: sbouchard@morganlewis.com


MERCK & CO: Won't Disclose Mumps Vaccine Efficacy, Scientists Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Papple, writing for Inquitr, reported that mumps vaccine
manufacturer Merck & Co. Inc. is accused in a court filing of
refusing to respond to a discovery request asking for the efficacy
of the mumps vaccine as a percentage.

Two of Merck's former scientists, now whistleblowers, accuse Merck
of deliberately falsifying tests in order to make the mumps
component of its MMRII vaccine appear more effective than it
actually is.

The scientists, Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, are
represented by attorneys at Constantine Cannon, and those
attorneys have now "asked U.S. Magistrate Judge Lynne Sitarski of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to compel Merck to respond to
their discovery request," according to Reuters. They say that
Merck refuses to answer the question and gives the excuse that it
cannot run a new clinical trial in order to be able to state the
efficacy in a different way. Instead, the company is using a "cut-
and-paste" method of disclosure, repeating the efficacy results in
the exact same way the data was depicted a half century ago.

"Merck should not be permitted to raise as one of its principal
defenses that its vaccine has a high efficacy, which is accurately
represented on the product's label, but then refuse to answer what
it claims that efficacy actually is," the letter to the U.S.
Magistrate stated. The whistleblowers' lawsuit was filed in 2010
and asserted that Merck deliberately skewed the efficacy tests by
actually adding animal antibodies to the blood samples that were
to be tested. The scientists assert that, because of this
falsification, Merck has been able to declare that the mumps
vaccine is 95 percent effective and in doing so, keep any
competing vaccine manufacturers away from the market.

That claim led to an antitrust class action against Merck by
purchasers of the mumps vaccine. Both lawsuits are reportedly
coordinated now before U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones and
Magistrate Judge Sitarski.

While Merck asserts the efficacy of the mumps vaccine, the public
has watched as the NHL battled a massive mumps outbreak. Matt
McCarthy, assistant professor of medicine at Weill Cornell Medical
Center, claimed, at the time, that the problem with the NHL was
that the players had gone too long since their last MMR
vaccination. Once believed to be a one-time jab, the MMR schedule
eventually was changed to a two-dose schedule when evidence of
waning-immunity became transparent. McCarthy explained in an
editorial article at the time.

"Throwing a wrench into all of this is that some players with the
disease recently did receive a booster. The Penguins claim Crosby
was vaccinated against mumps in February; he had antibodies in his
system, just not enough. And that's what makes this so challenging
for the NHL (or any concentrated workplace). There isn't a simple
blood test to confirm with 100 percent certainty that a hockey
player (or any person) is truly immune to mumps. That's because
the optimal level of antibody to protect from the virus is
unknown. NHL teams assumed players were immune when, in fact, they
were not."

Now, Canada's public health officials are reporting that in
Guelph, Ontario, all students from the two high schools involved
in a very recent mumps outbreak had been vaccinated according to
the schedule, and it's unknown where the cases of mumps originated
from.

"There have been six laboratory-confirmed cases of mumps in
students that attend Bishop MacDonnell and Our Lady of Lourdes
High Schools in Guelph. In all cases the students had received the
recommended two doses of the MMR vaccine."

"It is possible that there are a few individuals who either did
not develop immunity to disease, or that immunity has declined
over time," Dr. Nicole Mercer said, but news of the
whistleblowers' lawsuit raises big questions from the public
noticing a pattern.


METALICO INC: Faces "Morales" Suit Over Total Merchant Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles J. Morales and Cinda C. Morales, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Metalico, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 11187 (Del. Ch., June 22, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the public stockholders of Metalico, Inc., to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Metalico by Total Merchant Limited for an
unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Metalico, Inc. is a ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal processor
operating in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Mississippi.

Total Merchant Limited is a recycler and producer of aluminum and
aluminum alloys and a prominent Asian scrap metal recycler with
facilities in China and Malaysia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com
              mfortunato@kmllp.com


METALICO INC: Faces "Pinto" Suit Over Merger with Total Merchant
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radovan Z. Pinto, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Metalico, Inc., et al., Case No. 11183-VCL (Del. Ch.,
June 22, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Metalico, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition
of Metalico by Total Merchant Limited for an unfair price and
inadequate consideration.

Metalico, Inc. is a ferrous and non-ferrous scrap metal processor
operating in New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West
Virginia, and Mississippi.

Total Merchant Limited is a recycler and producer of aluminum and
aluminum alloys and a prominent Asian scrap metal recycler with
facilities in China and Malaysia.

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 -

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

         - and -

      Michael J. Palestina
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
      206 Covington Street
      Madisonville, LA 70447
      Telephone: (504) 455-1400
      Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
      E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com


MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Deal in Homeless Class Suit Amended
----------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Hanks and David Smiley, writing for Miami Herald, reported
that David Abraham remembers a life so low that even spending the
night in a homeless shelter was a lucky break out of reach. So he
was grateful to sleep on a mat outside.

"It's difficult," Abraham said, recalling his time in a gated
Camillus House courtyard on a prison-issue mat with dozens of
other destitute men and women. "But it's better than sleeping on
the streets."

Ron Book, head of Miami-Dade's homeless board, sees it
differently. The longtime leader of the county's homeless efforts
sees the mat program at Camillus undermining a proven strategy of
drawing a sharp line between street life and the stability that
comes with checking into a shelter. From a shelter, the hope is to
move a homeless person into an apartment of their own with social
services, which advocates say is the only reliable way of removing
someone from the streets permanently.

"Anything that makes it easier for the chronic population to
remain on the streets is not in our interest," said Book, one of
Florida's most powerful lobbyists who also serves as volunteer
chairman of Miami-Dade's Homeless Trust, which funds Camillus and
other non-profits throughout the county. "I would never buy a mat
with a trust dollar. Never, never, never."

The question of where downtown Miami's homeless population should
sleep -- and relieve themselves -- vaulted onto the national
spotlight with the debut of the city's own "poop map."

The city's tax-funded Downtown Development Authority used cartoon
versions of feces to map 55 places where a clean-up crew said it
found human waste streetside. The map accompanied a request for
about $1.3 million to the Homeless Trust for portable toilets and
extended funding for mats at Camillus.

Homeless advocates saw it as a heartless prop, but downtown
leaders said the map captured the reality of a failed housing-
first strategy that left Miami with too many people sleeping on
the streets.

"Our chronic homeless numbers haven't changed," said Miami
Commissioner Marc Sarnoff, who also serves as the DDA's chairman.
"They're exactly the same."

In January, Miami-Dade counted 1,007 people living on the streets,
and 61 percent were found in Miami itself. The city's restaurants
account for 30 cents of every dollar of a special food-and-
beverage tax that funds about 35 percent of the Homeless Trust's
$58 million budget. The January count found 616 people living on
the streets in Miami, an 18 percent drop from the last winter peak
set in 2006. That same time period saw the countywide population
of street dwellers drop 45 percent.

The numbers don't include people living in emergency shelters, or
those enrolled in the long-term housing and support programs that
make up about 60 percent of the Homeless Trust's budget. About 45
percent of the trust's revenue comes from Washington, and
administrators said the federal grants require spending on the
long-term programs as part of a national housing-first effort.

A residence usually comes with a case worker and a range of
services, from job placement to mental-health counseling to
addiction support. Known as supportive housing, it's designed to
break a cycle that sees many of the most troubled homeless
residents drift between shelter and street. Advocates argue that
pulling dollars from the under-funding housing programs to move
someone from a street to an outdoors mat won't help the homeless
population long-term.

"The reality is that the Trust already knows how to end
homelessness," said Constance Collins, president of the Lotus
House shelter for women and children. "It lacks the resources to
do so."

Keith Russell, 68, keeps a Bible open in the bottom bunk where he
sleeps at the Chapman homeless shelter in Miami. It's one of about
200 beds in a second-floor men's dormitory, and Russell recently
began his second year there waiting for an apartment of his own.
Homeless since his mother died in the 1990s, Russell said someone
showed him the kind of tiny unit he would qualify for under the
county's long-term program.

"It has one bedroom," he said. "With a kitchen and a hall. And a
bathroom. Everything."

Russell's current bunk also represents valuable real estate in
Miami-Dade's homeless system. The cafeteria provides three meals a
day, and he sleeps just one floor above a suite of offices with
case workers, health providers and others dedicated to assisting
residents toward long-term housing. Often, that involves kick-
starting entitlement or disability payments that would give
someone the income needed to qualify for federal housing programs.

Abraham lives at Chapman, too, and said he's been in and out of
shelters since 2000. On a recent walk through Chapman's tidy
courtyard, he described countless days on the phone with the
county's referral system to get a slot. "It took me a long time to
get here," he said.

While homeless families get stipends for motel stays, Miami-Dade
says it doesn't have enough money to fund shelter beds for
everyone. A single man in Miami currently must wait about 10 days
to get a spot in a shelter like Camillus House, according to the
trust, although some shelter residents say the wait -- which
involves calling a hot line every day -- can be far longer.

The Homeless Trust funds about 6,500 beds each year. Of those,
roughly 25 percent are dedicated to shelters. An occupancy report
from 2014 showed that the system placed 6,549 individuals or
families in shelter beds alone -- about 18 a day.

In its latest annual report, the Trust said it processed about
11,500 individuals or families through its system in 2014. Of the
nearly 3,400 who exited a shelter, about 20 percent needed
emergency housing again within a year. About 4,600 lived in long-
term housing. Of the 750 who left that program, only five wound up
back in a shelter, according to the report.

"The number of homeless people who don't want to be housed is very
small," said Olga Golik, in-house counsel for the Citrus Health
Network, a provider of social services and housing. "Nobody
chooses to be homeless, given appropriate options."

A recently amended class-action settlement with Miami requires
police to offer a homeless person a place to go before an arrest
on charges of public defecation, lying on a sidewalk or other
"life-sustaining" acts. Packed shelters essentially tied officers'
hands, but now they can offer a mat as an alternative.

Julian Cato, 53, used his cane to walk into a Miami police station
one recent morning to turn himself in. He was guilty of being
homeless and said he wanted a mat. "It's very hard for me to be
out there" on the streets, said Cato, whose 380-pound frame is
knotted by gouty arthritis.

His resting place that night was the pavement outside Camillus'
walls, but still within its secure gate. He could go inside to
watch a movie, use the restrooms, eat and stay the following day
to meet with case workers, staff said.

"They're in despair," said Officer James Bernat, homeless
coordinator for the Miami police. "If we go away, there's
nothing."

Lately, Bernat says the mat program is taking in "humanitarian"
referrals that have nothing to do with the police, including
discharged patients from Jackson Memorial Hospital. But city
funding for the mat program runs out this summer.

More than 1,000 men and women have come through the program.
Camillus said 60 percent stay in the system -- either by moving to
a bed inside, landing in another shelter, or snagging a slot in a
drug-rehab program or long-term housing. Some get jobs with
Camillus cleaning the streets of downtown, for which the DDA
spends about $400,000 a year.

Trust executives point to federal data showing more discouraging
results: Of the 488 mat participants tracked in 2015, fewer than
20 percent left for some sort of long-term program, such as
supportive housing or drug rehab. About 45 percent returned to the
streets, according to the report. Trust executives question why
Miami doesn't take the money being spent on mats and use it to
subsidize more beds.

The dispute between the city and the Homeless Trust is a common
rift seen in cities around the country, said Nan Roman, president
and CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness.

"If you invest too much in the shelter in the front end, you don't
have anything in the back end. If you have invested all in
housing, then you have a lot of people in the street because
there's no place to stay while you're trying to get them into
housing," she said. "Everybody wants to do something about the
problem. They're just kind of disagreeing about the balance of the
funding."

With downtown Miami receiving national coverage for soiled
streets, patience for Miami-Dade's homeless strategy is under
pressure. At the first trust meeting since the poop map's
publication, board member Karen Mahar questioned why the Homeless
Trust wasn't taking the lead on the bathroom issue -- even if the
money had to come from another source.

"I do think this is an issue that needs to be discussed," said
Mahar, a former Camillus staffer. "People need to be able to go to
the bathroom."

San Francisco launched a similar program last summer. The city's
Public Works department pays a company $100,000 yearly for each
trailer holding two portable toilets, along with an attendant to
stand outside. The city has four in operation in the afternoon and
evening, timed to coincide with meal servings at soup kitchens.

Rachel Gordon, communications director for the city's Public Works
department, said the units were designed to be accommodating, with
a mirror, soap and a requirement that the attendant tidy up after
each use. "People now have the ability to go and do their business
with dignity," she said. "They don't have to sneak between two
cars and squat down."

Before the toilets went into service, the city received about 25
requests a day to clean human waste from the streets. Now that's
down to about 12. "We look at it as a street-cleaning function,"
Gordon said.

In Miami, Book isn't interested.

"We're in the business of providing homes," he told the Trust
board on May 22. "Not poop stations."

The county commission, which oversees the Trust, is scheduled to
consider a resolution giving Mayor Carlos Gimenez 90 days to issue
recommendations on a possible toilet program for downtown Miami.
Sarnoff says it's time to force the Trust to do what it appears
unwilling to do.

"It's not a lack of ability," he said about the Trust's budget.
"It's a lack of desire."


MIKE HUCKABEE: 8th Cir. Reinstates TCPA Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Eighth Circuit has revived a class action claiming presidential
hopeful Mike Huckabee was part of a group that violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Ron and Dorit Golan filed the class action in 2012 after receiving
two unsolicited, recorded messages on their home phone in May,
stating: "Liberty. This is a public survey call. We may call back
later."

Had the Golans answered, they would have heard a recorded message
from Huckabee conducting an anti-Hollywood survey that asked how
the person felt about "traditional American values."

The Golans, who were among the 4 million people who received the
call, claimed the survey was a guise promoting the movie, "The
Last Ounce of Courage."

They claimed the movie promoters and Huckabee violated the TCPA by
placing robo calls, and sought certification of a subclass who
were on the Missouri do-not-call list, but still received calls.
The 2012 movie centers on a man named Bob Revere who feels the
government and a liberal group are attacking his freedom of
religion.

A federal court dismissed the Golans' claims in 2014, finding they
did not demonstrate sufficient injury to give them standing under
a law designed to curb robo calls.

A three-judge panel of the Eighth Circuit Court reversed the
decision.

Judge Diana E. Murphy wrote: "Although the campaign appeared to
survey whether recipients had 'traditional American values,'"
movie promoters were "more concerned with getting viewers to see
'Last Ounce of Courage' than gathering information about them."

The Eighth Circuit also reversed the ruling that the Golans were
not adequate class representatives because they didn't hear the
entire survey.

"Because the purpose of the calls is the critical issue in this
case, the Golans were not subject to a unique defense," Murphy
wrote. "Nor did they suffer a different injury than class members
who heard the entire message. What matters for all class members,
including the Golans, is that each call was initiated for the
purpose of promoting 'Last Ounce of Courage.'"

Whether Huckabee could be held vicariously liable for the calls
was left for the district court to consider.

Judges Bobby E. Shepherd and Timothy L. Brooks concurred.

Huckabee, a former two-term governor of Arkansas, is seeking the
Republican nomination for president.


MOGU SUSHI: Sued in N.Y. Over Corporate Asset Misappropriation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ka Kei Fan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lai Yin Leung and Mogu Sushi Inc., Case No.
706507/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 22, 2015), is a shareholders'
action for damages as a result of the Defendants' misappropriation
and conversion of corporate assets and waste.

The Defendants own and operate an eat-in, take-out restaurant
located at 133-22 39th Avenue, Flushing, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Sternick, Esq.
      MARK C. STERNICK, ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C.
      136-20 38th Avenue, Suite 11C
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (917) 854-4902
      E-mail: mcs.ny.law@gmail.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ex-Player Opposes Concussion Suit Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Fox Sports reported that the lead plaintiff in a concussion
lawsuit against the NCAA opposes a proposed settlement in the
case.

In a statement released through the National College Players
Association, former Eastern Illinois football player Adrian
Arrington said the agreement is unacceptable and that he never
approved the settlement proposal being considered by U.S. District
Judge John Lee in Chicago.

Arrington said the first time he learned about the deal was
through the media.

"I feel that I have been misinformed and the preliminary
settlement doesn't address the reasons I filed the lawsuit in the
first place," Arrington said. "I would like the judge to reject
the preliminary settlement. I plan to secure new legal
representation to continue this fight to protect future players in
NCAA sports."

An initial settlement plan was rejected by Lee in December, but
has been reworked. The agreement includes $70 million the NCAA has
pledged to set aside to test current and former athletes for signs
of brain injury.

Joseph Siprut, co-lead counsel in the class action lawsuit, said
he remains optimistic the court will approve the settlement.
"I'm disappointed that one of the class representatives has
decided to withdraw support for our settlement, having apparently
adopted some of the misguided and inaccurate views of the
settlement expressed in corners of the media and legal filings by
other third-parties," Siprut said in a statement. "Over 20 current
class representative plaintiffs remain wholly supportive of the
settlement, which also has the full support of two retired federal
judges who helped us structure the deal."

The National College Players Association is an advocacy group for
college athletes led by former UCLA football player Ramogi Huma.

Huma said the settlement does not provide what is needed by former
and future athletes because it does not mandate rules to help
minimize traumatic brain injury and does not provide players
suffering from brain damage direct financial support.
Even though the NCAA will be shielded from class-action lawsuits
in exchange for the medical testing and other provisions of the
deal, current and former athletes would still be able to sue their
college or the NCAA as individuals. The NCAA-funded test could
help give them medical grounds for filing just such suits.
Arrington said he endured five concussions while playing and the
lingering effects, including seizures, have left him unable to
secure employment.


NATIONAL FREIGHT: Sued Over Failure to Properly Pay Drivers
-----------------------------------------------------------
John F. Portillo, Rafael Suarez, Martin Duran, German Bencosme,
Edin Vargas, Luis A. Hernandez, Josue Paz, and Alavaro Castaneda,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
National Freight, Inc. and NFI Interactive Logistics, Inc., Case
No. L-002396-15 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., June 22, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay delivery drivers
proper wages in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Law.

The Defendants are in the business of providing of transportation,
logistics and distribution services with its corporate
headquarters located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
      Shan on J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 191 03
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      E-mail: akoropey@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net
              jhberger@bm.net

         - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      Thomas Fowler, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: HLichten@llrlaw.com
              TFowler@llrlaw.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Removed "Stricklen" Suit to New Jersey Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Toshiba Stricklen, on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated persons v. Nationstar Mortgage,
LLC, Case No. MID-L03010-15, was removed from the Superior Court
of New Jersey Middlesex County to the U.S. District Court District
of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
04168-SDW-SCM to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
      5 Greentree Centre
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 797-9951
      Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Deepa J. Zavatsky, Esq.
      REED SMITH LLP
      136 Main Street, Suite 250
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (609) 514-5963
      E-mail: dzavatsky@reedsmith.com


NESTLE PURINA: Class Complaint Over Beneful Dog Food Amended
------------------------------------------------------------
An amended class action complaint (Case No. C-15-0569 EMC) was
filed on June 8 against Nestle Purina PetCare Company on behalf of
consumers who purchased Beneful brand dog food and had pets suffer
from internal organ distress, injury, or failure and death. The
complaint, brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleges that Purina failed to disclose
that Beneful contains substances that are toxic to animals,
including Industrial Grade Glycols (IGG), lead, arsenic and
mycotoxins.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) categorizes Pharmaceutical
Grade Propylene Glycol as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) for
ingestion; however, the FDA prohibits the use of IGG in food
products due to concerns over contamination and impurities in the
manufacturing process.

In addition, the Association for Truth in Pet Food conducted
independent testing of Beneful Original dog food and found that it
contained mycotoxins, toxins produced by fungus that occurs in
grains, which are a principal ingredient in the dog food.

The amended complaint adds 26 more dog owners from across the
country who allege Beneful caused their pet's injuries and, in
some cases, deaths. The class action now includes plaintiffs in
California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New York, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington.

The suit also alleges Purina has been contacting injured consumers
soon after they post on social media about their dogs getting sick
or the dangers of Beneful. Plaintiffs claim that Purina offers
some consumers a settlement that requires them to sign an
agreement prohibiting any conversations about the settlement or
their experiences with Purina.

"Despite Purina's aggressive defense of its product, the company
is paying pet owners' claims and demanding secrecy. 'Why?' is a
question Purina should answer," said Jeff Cereghino, one of the
attorneys involved in the class action.

The products named in the complaint include Purina Beneful Healthy
Weight, Purina Beneful Original, Purina Beneful Incredibites,
Purina Beneful Healthy Growth For Puppies, Purina Beneful Healthy
Smile, Purina Beneful Healthy Fiesta, Purina Beneful Healthy
Radiance and Purina Beneful Playful Life.

Symptoms of those affected include stomach and related internal
bleeding, liver malfunction or failure, vomiting, diarrhea,
dehydration, weight loss, seizures, bloating and kidney failure,
sometimes resulting in death.

In addition, the suit accuses Purina of negligence,
misrepresentation, product liability and unfair business
practices. The original complaint, Lucido v. Nestle Purina, was
filed on February 5, 2015.

The law firm may be reached at:

         Jeff Cereghino, Esq.
         Michael Ram, Esq.
         RAM, OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI
         Tel: 415.433.4949
         Email: jbc@rocklawcal.com
                mram@rocklawcal.com


NEW ALLIANCE BANK: 2nd Circ. Ruling Further Splits Circuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
H. Scott and Alan D. Wingfield of Troutman Sanders, in an article
for Consumer Financial Services Law Monitor, said that in the wake
of the U.S. Supreme Court's May 18 announcement that it may decide
whether a Rule 68 offer of judgment for complete relief moots
potential class claims, the Second Circuit issued an amended
ruling on May 21 that partially answered that question in the
negative, further compounding a split among the federal circuit
courts of appeal.

The Second Circuit, in Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, No. 14-1389,
held that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment that provides
complete relief does not, by itself, moot the claims of the named
plaintiff.  Instead, the named plaintiff's claims become moot for
purposes of Article III's case or controversy requirement when the
court enters judgment in the named plaintiff's favor in accordance
with the offer.  In other words, it held that only an accepted
offer with a judgment against the defendants will moot claims
under Rule 68.  The Second Circuit court noted that the other
circuits also go in different directions on the issue with the
Ninth and Eleventh Circuits aligning with the Second, and the
Third, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Tenth, and Federal Circuits saying
that an offer of complete relief renders an individual's case moot
whether or not judgment is entered against the defendant.

Under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a defendant
can settle a case by offering complete relief of the plaintiff's
claims until up to two weeks before trial.  If the plaintiff
accepts the offer, judgment is entered in the plaintiff's favor
and the case ends.  However, if the plaintiff does not accept, it
is unclear whether the offer alone settles the controversy,
thereby rendering the case moot.

"In light of this confusion, we find it necessary to the
resolution of this case to clarify and reiterate that it remains
the established law of this circuit that a 'rejected settlement
offer [under Rule 68], by itself, [cannot render] moot [a] case,'"
Chief Circuit Judge Robert Katzmann said for the three-judge
panel.

The Tanasi court also ruled that district courts are not required
to enter judgment in favor of the named plaintiff who refuses to
accept an offer of complete relief.  Instead, the court suggested
that district courts have discretion to do so, noting that the
purpose of Rule 68 is "to encourage settlement and avoid
litigation," and that entry of judgment is appropriate if the
parties so agree, or if a defendant "unconditionally surrenders"
and "only the plaintiff's obstinacy or madness prevents her from
accepting total victory."

The Tanasi court expressly reserved the question of what happens
to the putative class claims after a named plaintiff's individual
claims are rendered moot.  That question may soon be put to rest.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari in a TCPA class action that
involves the issue of whether the entire case is rendered moot for
purposes of Article III when the named plaintiff receives an offer
of complete relief.  See Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., 768 F.3d 871
(9th Cir. 2014), cert. granted sub nom. Campbell-Ewald Co. v.
Gomez, 2015 WL 246885 (U.S. May 18, 2015) (No. 14-857).


OLD NATIONAL: 7th Circ. Poised to Rule in Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jason B. Hirsh, writing for Insider Counsel, reported that a data
breach is an unfortunate event, but one that appears to be
happening more and more often.

On the heels of such data breaches, courts have been inundated
with putative class action lawsuits premised upon a risk of future
injury, such as identity theft. In the Northern District of
Illinois federal court, however, an increasing number of courts
are applying the Supreme Court's 2013 Clapper v. Amnesty, Inc.
decision and dismissing data breach cases because a future injury
must be "certainly impending" to confer standing and the mere
increased risk of future harm from a data breach is simply too
speculative to qualify as "certainly impending." Two of these
rulings are now on appeal, and the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals is
now poised to determine whether standing remains an effective
defense in data breach lawsuits.

In 2007, in Pisciotta v. Old National Bancorp., a data breach
case, the 7th Circuit adopted the view that standing "can be
satisfied by a threat of future harm or by an act which harms the
plaintiff only by increasing the risk of future harm that the
plaintiff would have otherwise faced, absent defendant's actions."
Moreover, the 7th Circuit explained "[o]nce the plaintiff's
allegations establish at least this level of injury, the fact that
plaintiffs anticipate that some greater potential harm might
follow the defendant's act does not affect the standing inquiry."

Six years later, in 2013, the Supreme Court appeared to reject the
standing analysis applied in Pisciotta, leading to the current
debate over standing in data breach cases. In Clapper, plaintiffs
were comprised of individuals whose work required them to engage
in sensitive international communications with people who may be
subject to surveillance under the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA). On the day that FISA was enacted,
plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that the
legislation was facially unconstitutional. The district court
dismissed the lawsuit concluding that the plaintiffs lacked
standing. The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and found an
"objectively reasonable likelihood" that plaintiffs'
communications would be intercepted in the future and that in
anticipation of this future injury, plaintiffs suffered a present
injury in the form of measures taken to protect the
confidentiality of their communications.

The Supreme Court observed that the Article III standing
requirement "is built on separation-of-powers principles [and]
serves to prevent the judicial process from being used to usurp
the powers of the political branches." And, thus, the Supreme
Court suggested "an especially rigorous" standing analysis "when
reaching the merits would force us to decide whether an action
taken by one of the other two branches of the Federal Government
was unconstitutional." The Court added "relaxation of standing
requirements is directly related to the expansion of judicial
power" and "we have often found a lack of standing in cases"
involving "actions of the political branches in the fields of
intelligence gathering and foreign affairs."

The Supreme Court rejected the 2nd Circuit's "objectively
reasonable likelihood" standard concluding that it "is
inconsistent with our requirement that 'threatened injury must be
certainly impending to constitute injury in fact.'" Because, among
other things, plaintiff did not have "actual knowledge of the
Government's [FISA] targeting practices," much less actual
knowledge concerning whether the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court would authorize surveillance under FISA, the Court held that
plaintiff's fear of surveillance is "highly speculative" based
upon a "chain of contingencies." Furthermore, the Supreme Court
held that plaintiffs claim that they have been forced ". . . to
take costly and burdensome measures to protect the confidentiality
of their international communications" does not constitute a
present injury. In the context of a non-imminent future injury,
the Court stated that plaintiffs cannot "manufacture standing."


ONTARIO: Abuse Settlement Includes $42,000 Individual Payout
------------------------------------------------------------
Debora Van Brenk, writing for Ifpress.com, reported that more than
3,000 people who suffered abuses at Ontario's developmental
centres -- places meant to help them, not harm them -- will have
to wait at least until August before they receive compensation.

The original deadline was May but large numbers of claimants and
the complexity of their cases has delayed the deadline, said
lawyer Jody Brown of Koskie Minsky, which is handling the class-
action settlement between survivors and the province.

While some documents submitted by survivors were brief, others
totalled more than 2,000 pages, Brown said.

The three centres -- near Blenheim, Orillia and Smiths Falls --
were supposed to be places where children with developmental
disabilities, such as Down Syndrome or cerebral palsy, would
receive education, therapy and health care.

Instead, many were choked, kicked, sexually assaulted, controlled
with cattle prods or neglected.

All three centres had closed by 2009, when the philosophy of
caring for people with developmental disabilities had evolved into
integrating them into their home communities.

The province reached a settlement in the class-action suit that
includes a maximum compensation of $42,000 for each person,
depending on the kind of abuse and its duration and severity.

A total of 3,568 people came forward with claims.

Crawford Class Action Services is administering the claims. A few
eligibility disputes are still being resolved, Brown said, while
some of the more complex individual files are still being
assessed.

"Quality claims administration takes time and we want to make sure
it's done right," he said.

When each claim amount is established, all the cheques and
explanatory letters will be mailed out at the same time.

Claimants can't get a preview of the amount they'll receive.

Nor will they be able to appeal their individual settlement
amount. Those who claims are disallowed, though, will have 30 days
from the time they receive their letter to appeal that decision.

None of the cheques will be subject to taxes or tax claw backs.
They won't result in changes to anyone's disability payments,
welfare or unemployment benefits.

Brown said the non-monetary details are also important parts of
the settlement: A public apology from the premier, signs at the
three centres, a marked cemetery at the Huronia site and placing
60,000 documents into the public record.

About 300 items that had been kept in storage at Huronia were also
donated to academic researchers in public policy. Brown said they
included caged cribs, straitjackets, photographs and at least one
teddy bear.


PACIFIC STATES: Faces "Greene" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Greene, individually, and on behalf of other members
of the general public similarly situated v. Pacific States
Environmental Contractors, Inc., Pacific Tank Solutions, and Does
1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15775232 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Pacific States Environmental Contractors, Inc. is a California
corporation that owns and operates a full-service environmental
remediation, demolition, and construction company.

Pacific Tank Solutions is a factory authorized distributor and
installer of Aquastore and other CST storage tanks throughout
California and Northern Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Travis Hodgkins, Esq.
      CIVIL JUSTICE LAW, A PROF. CORP.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (213) 529-0003
      Facsimile: (310) 469-0533
      E-mail: travis@civiljustice.com

         - and -

      Joseph Cho, Esq.
      LATRIALAW, P.C.
      12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
      8 Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 806-9264
      Facsimile: (844) 806-9265
      E-mail: joseph.cho@latrialaw.com


PARKING SOLUTIONS: Faces "Crumbaker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Crumbaker, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Parking Solutions, Inc., Aaron Shocket, and Robert Rees, Case
No. 2:15-cv-02446-ALM-NMK (S.D. Ohio, June 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing parking and valet
services to various locations, like airports, casinos, hotels,
restaurants, and hospitals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Biller, Esq.
      MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
      4200 Regent Street, Suite 200
      Columbus, OH 43219
      Telephone: (614) 604-8759
      Facsimile: (614) 583-8107
      E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com


PASCO, FL: "Meeks" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Meeks, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Chris Nocco, in his official capacity as Pasco County
Sheriff, Case No. 8:15-cv-01460-SCB-AEP (M.D. Fla., June 22,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and liquidated
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Chris Nocco is the duly elected Sheriff of Pasco County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
      Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
      BOUZAS OWENS, P.A.
      2154 Duck Slough Blvd Ste 101
      Trinity, FL 34655-5073
      Telephone: (727) 254-5255
      Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
      E-mail: greg@bouzasowens.com
              Miguel@bouzasowens.com


PENNYVISION LLC: Faces "Joharifard" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mostafa Joharifard v. Pennyvision, LLC, Case No. 30-2015-00794747
(Cal. Super. Ct., June 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Pennyvision, LLC owns and operates numerous Pizza Hut franchises
in Orange County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis M. Marlin, Esq.
      Stephen P. O' Dell, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92602
      Telephone: (714) 669-4900
      Facsimile: (714) 669-4750

         - and -

      Tannaz "Tawny" Mazarei, Esq.
      MAZAREI LAW GROUP
      9110 Irvine Center Drive
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (714) 418-5797
      Facsimile: (714) 418-5788
      E-mail: tawny@mazareilaw.com


PEPSI CO: Chemical Disclosure Suit Can Proceed, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andy Szal, writing for M.net, reported that a class action lawsuit
alleging that PepsiCo violated California chemical disclosure
standards will be allowed to proceed after a federal judge tossed
out the soft drink company's effort to dismiss the case.

The lawsuit, which consolidated eight separate actions into one
case, argued that PepsiCo failed to disclose levels of 4-
methylimidazole in Pepsi, Diet Pepsi and Pepsi One that exceeded
the threshold under Proposition 65.

California listed the chemical -- a byproduct of the caramel
coloring process in certain sodas -- as a carcinogen under Prop 65
in 2011, a move that requires companies to disclose exposure
levels of at least 29 micrograms per day.

The class action lawsuit, which cited a 2014 Consumer Reports test
of Pepsi products, accused the beverage giant of misleading
consumers.

Pepsi responded with a motion to dismiss the case. The filing
argued that the Prop 65 threshold was not based on a single
serving of soda but instead on average lifetime exposure patterns.

Pepsi also said a Prop 65 label would be preempted by U.S. Food
and Drug Administration labeling requirements.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen disagreed and dismissed the
motion, although he said Pepsi could challenge the plaintiffs'
calculations during the trial phase of the case.

"Our products are safe and in full compliance with all applicable
laws," PepsiCo spokeswoman Aurora Gonzalez told Courthouse News
Service.


PHOENIX LIFE: Settles Bad Faith Insurance Suit for $42-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers and Settlements reported that Phoenix Life Insurance Co.
will pony up $42M to settle the bad faith insurance class action
lawsuit, which alleges that the insurer unfairly raised rates on
premium-adjustable universal life insurance policies.

Additionally, the company has also agreed to freeze its rates for
five years.

The Phoenix Life settlement also prevents Phoenix from challenging
the validity of any class member's PAUL policy as an unlawful
"life wager," which the insurer has frequently done in order to
avoid paying death benefits, according to the lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit was filed following an announcement by
Phoenix Life that it was raising COI rates on PAUL policies in
2010 and again in 2011. The lawsuit alleged the insurer was
treating life settlement investors unfairly. Unlike whole life
insurance policies that require fixed monthly premium payments,
PAUL policies only require premiums to cover COI charges and other
expenses, allowing policyholders to minimize their investments,
according to the plaintiffs.

The PAUL policyholders claimed Phoenix discriminated against life
settlement investors who pay their premiums on time by hiking the
COI rates and did so because the company comes out ahead when
policies lapse, and it's able to avoid paying death benefits.

The more than 1,000 class members will be sent checks in the mail,
unless they opt out of the settlement. A $25,000 incentive award
has been granted for named plaintiff Martin Fleisher.

The case is Fleisher v. Phoenix Life Insurance Co., case number
1:11-cv-08405, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces "Geremia" Suit Santa Barbara Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra B. Geremia, as Trustee for the Alexandra Geremia Family
Trust dated 8/5/1998, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. and
Plains Pipeline, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-04759 (C.D. Cal., June 23,
2015), is a class action complaint for damages, restitution,
contribution, injunctive relief, and any and all other relief, as
proximate result of the Defendant's failure to adhere to statutory
guidelines, failure to meet the requisite standard of care, and
negligence which resulted in the release, disposal, and
exfiltration, of petroleum and petroleum byproducts, at and near
Santa Barbara County, which continues to spread, exacerbate, and
contaminate previously uncontaminated areas, negatively impacting
the local economy, particularly that which is reliant on tourism.

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

Plains Pipeline, L.P. is a Texas limited partnership with its
principal place of business in Houston, Texas. Plains Pipeline,
L.P. is a subsidiary of Plains All American Pipeline, L.P.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      A. Barry Cappello, Esq.
      Leila J. Noel, Esq.
      Lawrence J. Conlan, Esq.
      CAPPELLO & NOEL LLP
      831 State Street
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 564-2444
      Facsimile: (805) 965-5950
      E-mail: abc@cappellonoel.com
              lnoel@cappellonoel.com
              lconlan@cappellonoel.com


PUMA BIOTECH: Aug. 3 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid
---------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Puma Biotechnology, Inc. (NYSE: PBYI) of the
August 3, 2015 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a
federal securities class action lawsuit filed against Puma Biotech
and certain executives.

A complaint has been filed in the Central District of California
on behalf of investors who purchased Puma Biotech securities
between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The action alleges that the Company and its executives violated
federal securities laws during the Class Period by failing to
disclose that (1) the Company's New Drug Application (NDA) filing
for neratinib would be purposed toward a positive early stage
breast cancer indication as opposed to the previously announced
metastatic breast cancer; (2) the Company will need to submit
additional safety data from preclinical carcinogenicity studies
with its NDA filing, which the Company does not possess; (3) the
required additional studies would push the timeline for filing the
NDA into at least the first quarter of 2016; and (4) the Company
overstated results from its Phase III ExteNET Trial.

On December 2, 2014 Puma Biotech announced that it intends to
delay its proposed timeline for filing the NDA until the first
quarter of 2016.  On this news, shares of Puma Biotech fell $27.33
per share, or over 12%, to close at $197.67 per share on December
3, 2014 on extremely high volume.

Furthermore, according to a Bloomberg report dated May 13, 2015,
Puma Biotech's breast-cancer drug neratinib provided disappointing
results in its clinical trials. The rate of disease-free survival
with neratinib, at 93.9 percent, was 2.3 percentage points higher
than with the placebo, while investors had expected at least a 3
percent improvement. The news made Puma Biotech's shares sink
18.6% to close at a price of $170.67 on May 14, 2015, for the
biggest one-day decline since June 2, 2014.

Request more information now by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/PBYI. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Take Action

If you invested in Puma Biotech stock or options between July 23,
2014 and May 13, 2015 inclusive and would like to discuss your
legal rights, visit www.faruqilaw.com/PBYI.  You can also contact
us by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at
212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com

Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Puma Biotech's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Antitrust Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang, writing for Law360, reported that a California
federal judge tossed a putative class action alleging Quest
Diagnostics Inc. monopolized diagnostic services in California by
paying kickbacks, colluding with insurers and acquiring
competitors, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to properly allege
they were injured by Quest's practices.

In granting Quest's motion to dismiss, U.S. District Judge William
H. Orrick shot down arguments made by named plaintiff Colleen
Eastman and others.

"Merely alleging that Quest charged above-competitive prices,
without alleging facts demonstrating that plaintiffs were injured
as a result of Quest's anticompetitive conduct, is insufficient,"
the judge wrote in the 14-page order. "As plaintiffs have pleaded
no facts from which I can conclude that they have been injured,
they lack both Article III and statutory standing."

Addressing the plaintiffs' antitrust claims, the judge said
similar allegations in a previous suit against Quest did not pass
muster and also failed in the instant suit.

"Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pleaded that the alleged
practices, whether independently or in combination, caused
antitrust injury or foreclosed competition in a substantial share
of the relevant market, the plan/out-patient market in Northern
California," he wrote.

However, Judge Orrick gave the plaintiffs leave to amend their
complaint within 20 days.

The suit, filed in January, alleges that Quest induced insurance
giants Blue Shield of California and Aetna Inc. to shut out
Quest's competitors and threaten physicians with plan contract
termination. Aetna cut a deal with Quest and terminated the in-
network status of 400 of Quest's rivals across the nation,
including two in Northern California, according to the complaint.

Quest is also accused of offering kickbacks to health care
providers through contracts that offer discounts so deep that the
payments sometimes don't cover half the costs Quest incurs in the
testing. The company also sometimes offers services for free, the
complaint says.

The suit alleges violations of the Sherman Act, state competition
and business practices laws, and California's Cartwright Act in
connection with Quest's 2003 acquisition of rival Unilab and 2013
combination with the Dignity Health hospital system. The complaint
says these acquisitions increased Quest's market share beyond
acceptable levels.

In March, Quest had argued that nearly identical antitrust claims
in a case filed by four pathology companies in the same court were
repeatedly thrown out and that the instant suit "recycles
antitrust claims that this court dismissed three separate times."

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to
requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Colleen Duffy-Smith and Geoffrey
Bentzel of Morgan Duffy-Smith & Tidalgo LLP, J. Ross Wallin and
Silvia N. Ostrower, Esq. -- sostrower@graisellsworth.com -- of
Grais & Ellsworth LLP, and R. Stephen Berry, Esq. --
sberry@berrylawpllc.com -- of Berry Law PLLC.

Quest is represented by Richard D. Raskin, Esq. --
rraskin@sidley.com -- Allison W. Reimann, Esq. --
areimann@sidley.com -- and Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq. --
rsandrock@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin LLP.

The case is Colleen Eastman et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., case
number 3:15-cv-00415, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


RANDY VISSER: Nissan General Manager Facing Federal Fraud Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FOX6 WBRC reported that the general manger of Serra Nissan in
Birmingham is now facing federal charges in connection with fraud
allegations.

Federal prosecutors charged Randy Visser with conspiracy to
defraud Nissan North America.

Prosecutors say Visser directed employees at the dealership to
falsify sales reports submitted to the manufacturer so Serra would
get incentive payments it didn't earn.

The charge against Visser follows grand jury indictment of another
Serra Nissan employee.

According to the charges, Visser and others claimed 15 vehicle
sales for Serra Nissan, causing Nissan North America to overpay
the dealership more than $64,000.

People who believe they may have been victimized in the fraud
scheme should: (1) Report it to federal investigators/prosecutors
such as the FBI, IRS, or U.S. Attorney for their area; and (2)
Seek private legal counsel from a lawyer concerning your rights,
including joining the class action suit.


RHODE ISLAND: Judge Approves Settlement in Pension Overhaul Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Mooney, writing for Providence Journal, reported that a Rhode
Island Superior Court judge rejected the appeals of scores of
state workers and retirees and approved a proposed class-action
settlement in the pension overhaul case.

In a 68-page ruling, Judge Sarah Taft-Carter agreed with lawyers
for both the state and suing groups of unions and retirees that
the settlement was fair, adequate and reasonable considering the
risks both sides faced if the case went to trial. "These
Constitutional issues raised by pension reform legislation have
been litigated in other courts at different levels around the
country without a clear resolution," said the judge.

"Accordingly, the court is satisfied that the complexity, expense,
and likely duration of going forward on the merits of these cases
weighs in favor of approving the 2015 settlement agreement.

Regardless of the outcome of a long, expensive trial on the
merits, what would follow is an appeal that would likewise be
expensive and complex.

"If lawmakers and the governor now approve the plan, it would end
most of the legal challenges to the landmark 2011 pension overhaul
law, which, unlike virtually anywhere else in the country, reached
back and cut benefits already promised retirees.

Proponents, such as former state treasurer and now Governor
Raimondo, saw the cuts -- particularly the guaranteed cost-of-
living raises -- as necessary in the face of burgeoning pension
obligations that would otherwise bankrupt communities and
eventually destroy the pension system. Considered one of the worst
in the country, on a per-capita basis, the system faced a $7-
billion unfunded liability with retirees outnumbering the workers
who pay into it.

Opponents saw the law as an unconstitutional breach of contract
and wanted their day in court to prove it. But proving their case
became extremely more difficult once Taft-Carter approved a
state's motion to have a jury hear the case. The plaintiffs would
have had to prove to that jury "beyond a reasonable doubt" that
the state's actions were both a contractual impairment and done
for reasons that did not serve a necessary and compelling public
purpose.

Fairness challenged

The two sides seemed headed for a trial to start until Taft-Carter
appointed former state Supreme Court Chief Justice Frank J.
Williams in March to serve as mediator in the case. Williams urged
the retirees and state workers to accept the settlement or face
years of uncertainty as the legal battle dragged on in various
courts of appeal.

The settlement offers some small benefit enhancements over the
pension law, including a one-time 2-percent COLA on the base of
each retiree's first $25,000 in benefits, and two, one-time
stipends of $500 to retirees within the first year. It also holds
open the chance for cost-of-living adjustments every four years
instead of every five, provided certain investment levels are met,
and relaxes some of the retirement age requirements.

Meanwhile, it still preserves about 92 percent of the $4 billion
in taxpayer savings anticipated with the 2011 law.

In May, Judge Taft-Carter held a required "fairness hearing,"
giving people a chance to comment on the class-action settlement
proposal. For five days, retirees and state workers excoriated the
deal and the 2011 law as blatantly unfair and illegal.

They spoke of broken promises, of lifetimes of planning turned
upside down and of worries about making ends meet. They labeled
the law -- and the way retirees and state workers voted on the
settlement -- as unfair, noting that many didn't know about the
vote or were told they couldn't vote because they weren't in good
standing with their organizations.

Plenty of notice

Judge Taft-Carter examined many of those claims and said in her
decision: "The court is satisfied that the manner of notice
employed by the parties was more than adequate to reasonably reach
all affected class members.

"She went on: "The court finds that the individually-mailed
notice, in combination with the published notice in The Providence
Journal and the information posted on the [state retirement]
website, was reasonably calculated to reach all affected class
members. The court also notes that the underlying pension cases
and the two proposed settlements have been the subject of much
publicity in recent years."

The judge said that while over 60,000 notices about the settlement
were mailed, the court received only about 400 written objections.
Despite less than 1 percent of written opposition, "the court
believes that the objectors have raised a number of significant
issues that have been given serious attention and consideration
throughout this decision."

"Many objectors" said her gag order banning lawyers from talking
about the settlement had "prevented a fair and open discussion of
the settlement terms prior to the approval vote."

"This objection is understandable," she said, "but rests largely
on a misconception of the ordinary methods used during the
settlement process."

Not perfect solution

Judge Taft-Carter also acknowledged that many objectors thought
the state and municipal defendants "overstated the financial
crisis' effect on the defendants' ability to pay for the
Plaintiffs' pension benefits."

"Regardless of who points the finger," the judge said, "the fact
remains that the crisis is here, and a solution to the problem
must be implemented.

"The settlement agreement "is not being offered as a perfect
solution," said the judge, "nor is perfection required of it under
the law."

Raimondo said Judge Taft-Carter's approval of the settlement
"another important step toward providing certainty for our public
employees and our cities and towns." She said she would work with
the Assembly to pass legislation finalizing the agreement.


ROSS DRESS: Suit Over Unpaid Bag Check Time Sent to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that a California
judge tentatively sent to individual arbitration a putative class
action alleging Ross Dress for Less Inc. didn't pay workers for
time spent undergoing bag checks, saying the former employees who
brought the suit signed valid arbitration agreements.

Former Ross employees Griselda Veloz, Jose Charles Moreno and Luis
F. Rodriguez had filed class action claims and claims under the
California Private Attorneys General Act alleging the clothing
retailer unlawfully failed to pay them for security bag checks
conducted before they left their stores.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge William Highberger had earlier
granted Ross' motions to compel individual arbitration of Veloz
and Moreno's claims but denied arbitration as to Rodriguez.

At a hearing, however, Judge Highberger said that after reading
supplemental briefing provided by Ross, his tentative ruling would
be to compel Rodriguez into individual arbitration as well. Judge
Highberger said he had "erroneously" viewed a compensation and
benefits agreement signed by Rodriguez and a Ross representative
as a "completely integrated agreement" that could only be modified
by both parties' signatures, and also did not contain an
arbitration clause. Because an arbitration agreement later signed
by Rodriguez was signed only by him, it appeared it could not
modify the earlier agreement, the judge said, noting that he now
realized that because the earlier agreement did not encompass
every single term of Rodriguez's employment, the arbitration
agreement appears to be valid.

"The language in the earlier signed benefits summary does not act
as some kind of bar to the later agreement," he said. ""In the
absence of an actual integration clause ... I think it would be
error to rely on the December 22 2010 compensation and benefits
summary as preclusive of the later adhesive agreement."

Veloz filed suit in June 2012 and later added Rodriguez and Moreno
as class representatives in an amended complaint. The complaint
alleges that Ross forced California workers to clock out for meal
breaks or the end of their shifts before waiting for "loss
prevention inspections" before they could leave stores, adding at
least 10 minutes to their work day. These bag checks were a "term
and condition of employment" and thus should have been paid,
according to the complaint.

The suit brought claims under California's labor laws and its
unfair competition law on behalf of all California Ross hourly
workers and was amended to add the PAGA claim. Under PAGA, workers
can bring labor claims on behalf of the state and receive 25
percent of the recovery.

In the wake of the California Supreme Court's 2014 decision in
Iskanian v. CLS Transportation, class-action waivers in
arbitration agreements were deemed enforceable in the state, but
not waivers of representative PAGA claims.

Businesses have continued to challenge Iskanian and argued that
representative PAGA claims should be subject to waivers in
arbitration agreements, but the U.S. Supreme Court in January
denied CLS' bid to review the ruling and turned down Bridgestone
Retail Operations LLC's similar challenge.

According to Ross' briefing supporting its motion to compel
arbitration, Judge Highberger can send all the plaintiffs into
individual arbitration where their labor code disputes can be
resolved, and the PAGA claim will be stayed to be handled in court
after that arbitration is concluded.

On, Judge Highberger gave the plaintiffs two weeks to file
supplemental briefing to contest Ross' argument that the
arbitration agreement was separate from the benefits and
compensation agreement and continued the matter.

The plaintiffs are represented by Norman B. Blumenthal, Kle R.
Nordrehaug and Aparajit Bhowmik of Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik.

Ross is represented by Gregory D. Wolflick, Esq. --
greg@wolfsim.com -- and David B. Simpson, Esq. -- dave@wolfsim.com
-- of Wolflick & Simpson.

The case is Griselda Veloz et al. v. Ross Dress For Less Inc.,
case number BC485949, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


SINGING RIVER: Judge Names Reeves & Mestayer as Lead Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge appointed a South Mississippi attorney as lead
counsel over all of the federal lawsuits against Singing River
Health System and its partners on.

U.S. District Judge Louis Guirola, Jr. denied motions from several
other attorneys and appointed Jim Reeves, with the law firm Reeves
& Mestayer, to lead the fight against SRHS and its partners for
its failed pension plan.

Reeves & Mestayer was the first firm to file a multi-count class
action lawsuit against SRHS, its board of trustees, TransAmerica
Retirement, KPMG, Chris Anderson and 13 others alleging corporate
and financial fraud, breach of contract, taking clause and acting
in bad faith with employees.

"I'm honored by the appointment as lead counsel," said Reeves.
"This is a significant milestone and will allow us to focus our
efforts on an expedited resolution. We're prepared to continue the
hard work necessary to see those who have invested a lifetime of
work in the Singing River Hospital System are treated fairly."


SIRIUS XM: Copyright Royalties Suit Stayed Pending Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Chung, writing for Reuters, reported that fresh off handing
another win to the 1960s band the Turtles by allowing a class
action to go ahead against Sirius XM over copyright royalties on
oldies songs, a federal judge in California has put the case on
hold while the satellite radio provider seeks an appeal of that
ruling.

U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles granted an
application from Sirius XM's attorney Daniel Petrocelli of
O'Melveny & Myers to stay the case while the company petitions the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because his order certifying a
class in the lawsuit, Gutierrez said, "raises serious legal issues
warranting review."


SOLAZYME INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Norfolk County Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Solazyme, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-02938-HSG (N.D. Cal., June 24, 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 Solazyme's Offering Documents.

Solazyme, Inc. is a bioproducts company that uses algae-based
fermentation to produce renewable oils for a range of personal and
industrial uses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Keller, Esq.
      Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
      Rachel A. Avan, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: ckeller@labaton.com
              mstocker@labaton.com
              ravan@labaton.com


SOUTH CAROLINA: Educ. Commission Sued Over Student Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Deanna Pan, writing for The Post and Courier, reported that when
19-year-old Antonio Rojas Rodriguez received his acceptance letter
from the College of Charleston this spring, he was elated.

He had fallen in love with the campus during two overnight visits
his junior and senior year. An aspiring entrepreneur, he planned
to study business and economics so that one day he could open his
own authentic Mexican restaurant.

But Rojas Rodriguez, who graduated from Stratford High School in
Goose Creek, may be forced to put his dreams on hold. A month
after he received his acceptance letter, the college informed him
he would be classified as an out-of-state student because his
mother is undocumented. That means Rojas Rodriguez, who was born
in Mississippi, won't be eligible for in-state tuition or state-
administered academic scholarships and grants. And that means he
won't be able to afford to pay for college.

"I just assumed," he said. "I just thought I'd been living here
for 10 years. I have a driver's license. This is home. This is my
state. All my family, friends are here. I had no idea that
something like this existed."

Rojas Rodriguez is one of three named plaintiffs in a class-action
lawsuit, filed in Charleston's U.S. District court, alleging that
South Carolina discriminates against its college-bound students
who are U.S. citizens but unable to prove their parents' legal
immigration status.

Filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center and South Carolina
Appleseed Legal Justice Center, the suit names each of the 14
board members of the Commission on Higher Education as defendants,
in addition to the commission's interim executive director Julie
Carullo, College of Charleston President Glenn McConnell and
Trident Technical College President Mary Thornley.

Although no state law explicitly precludes children who are U.S.
citizens, but whose parents are undocumented from receiving in-
state tuition or state-administered scholarships, dependent
students are classified based on their parents' residency. As a
result, public colleges and the Commission on Higher Education,
which sets regulations for in-state tuition and scholarship
eligibility, have adopted policies that define these students as
non-residents. These policies, attorneys argue, violate their
clients' rights to equal protection under the Constitution.

"It essentially puts college out of reach for our clients and for
other students in similar positions by doubling or in some cases,
nearly tripling the cost of attendance," said Michelle Lapointe,
senior staff attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The annual cost of tuition at the College of Charleston is $10,558
for residents and $27,548 for nonresidents. At Trident Tech,
tuition for a semester during the 2014-15 academic year was $2,170
for South Carolina residents; $1,956 for residents of Charleston,
Berkeley or Dorchester counties; and $3,702 for out-of-state
students.

McConnell declined through a spokesman to discuss any pending
litigation. When asked about the suit by The Post and Courier,
Commission on Higher Education chairman John Finan said he hadn't
been notified about it and couldn't comment.

"We are an 'open door' institution, committed to serving all of
the residents of our three-county service area in every way
possible," said Thornley in a statement provided to The Post and
Courier. "Also, we are a public institution that must fully comply
with state law and regulations. While we would like to accept all
students and assist them in receiving financial aid, we must
comply with state law and regulations."

According to the lawsuit, an estimated 170 South Carolina
students, who are U.S. citizens, but whose parents are
undocumented, are expected to pursue higher education in the state
each year. About 140 of these students are expected to enroll in
the state's public colleges and universities.

"What are we saying to our bright college students? We don't want
you to be educated? We don't want you to contribute financially to
our state through having higher education and higher job skills?"
said Tammy Besherse, a staff attorney at South Carolina Appleseed.
"You're punishing these college students for something they cannot
control."


SPOKEO INC: "Robins" Can Redefine Standing in Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul A. Scrudato, Brittany Robbins,  Thomas M. Crispi of Schiff
Hardin LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, said the
Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in Spokeo v. Robins, a
case that has the potential to redefine standing in federal court.

The Ninth Circuit's February 2014 decision permitted plaintiff
Thomas Robins to establish standing under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act ("FCRA") with nothing more than a speculative
injury. This contravenes Supreme Court precedent, which finds
standing when a plaintiff suffers a harm that is actual, distinct,
palpable, and concrete; attenuated and hypothetical injuries do
not constitute an injury-in-fact. The implications of the Ninth
Circuit's holding in Spokeo v. Robins has grabbed the attention of
companies in nearly every industry. Their concern, as expressed by
the U.S. Chamber of Commerce -- granting standing to plaintiffs
who have not suffered an injury-in-fact will open the flood gates
to no-injury class actions brought under statutes that authorize a
private right of action. But, in truth, the implications to
businesses could extend beyond this.

Robins initiated a putative class action against Spokeo for
violating the FCRA. Spokeo aggregates data from phone books,
social networks, marketing surveys, real estate listings, business
websites, and other sources into an online database. The FCRA
regulates consumer information -- including consumer credit
information -- that is collected, disseminated, and used in
consumer reports. Spokeo allegedly posted false information about
Robins' wealth, education, and marital status. Robins claims that
these misrepresentations will negatively affect his credit,
insurance and employment prospects. While the Ninth Circuit found
that Robins had not suffered actual damages, it ultimately held
that the statutory FCRA violation satisfied Article III's injury-
in-fact requirement. The Supreme Court has granted cert to
determine "[w]hether Congress can create Article III standing by
authorizing a remedy for a bare statutory violation."

The FCRA engenders dozens of federal class actions each year. That
number has jumped since the Ninth Circuit's decision -- 29 FCRA
class actions were filed in the first four months of 2014. Many
federal statutes authorize a private right of action. For example,
internet firms interact with millions of individuals and are
subject to numerous federal statutes with private rights of
action. Facebook, eBay, Google, and Yahoo! expressed concern in
their amicus brief that, under the Ninth Circuit's holding, if any
of these users was "willing (or enticed by a plaintiff's attorney)
to allege that a generalized practice or act violated a law
providing a private cause of action and statutory damages, then
she could launch a putative class action on behalf of herself and
millions of other 'similarly situated' users . . . [and] pursue a
multi-billion dollar statutory damages claim despite the lack of
injury . . . ."

What do no-injury class actions mean for manufacturers? It could
mean lawsuits based on "defective products" that allegedly violate
a state or federal statute but have not caused any harm. For
example, the food and beverage and cosmetic industries are often
accused of misleading consumers through false advertising,
labeling, and packaging. ConAgra was sued under the Magnuson-Moss
Warranty Act and state consumer protection laws for advertising
its cooking oils, which were made from GMOs, were 100% natural.
And Maybelline was sued under state consumer fraud and consumer
protection acts because its "Super Stay" lipstick allegedly didn't
stay on the advertised 10-14 hours. Under Robins, plaintiffs in
these no-injury, statutory-based class actions would not need to
establish that they were physically injured to survive a standing
challenge. Will creative plaintiff lawyers be able to craft an
argument that extends the no-injury standing rule in Robins to
non-statutory violations?

The Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits permit statutory violations
to confer standing whereas the Second, Fourth, and Federal
Circuits require plaintiffs to prove an injury-in-fact. Tune in
for oral arguments this Fall.


STERLING INFOSYSTEMS: Sued Over Inaccurate Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Sterling Infosystems, Inc. and DOES 1-10 inclusive, Case No.
2:15-cv-04770 (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), is an action for damages
as proximate result of the Defendant's issuance of an erroneous
report and for its failure to provide full-file disclosure despite
consumer written requests to do so.

Sterling Infosystems, Inc. is a foreign corporation doing business
in California. Sterling is a provider of employment and background
screening services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
      A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
      9512 S. Central Ave.
      Los Angeles, CA 90002
      Telephone: (323) 563-3575
      Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
      E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org


STEVENS VAN: Faces "Britts" Suit Over Charge-Backs Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stanford Britts, on behalf of himself and on behalf of a class of
all others similarly situated v. Stevens Van Lines, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01267 (N.D. Ohio, June 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Truth-in-Leasing (TIL) regulations,
specifically by failing to specify charge-backs for insurance and
failing to specify the amount which will be charged-back to the
lessor.

Stevens Van Lines, Inc. is one of the largest authorized carriers
for moving services in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      Tom Merriman, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
              jack@lgmlegal.com
              tom@lgmlegal.com


SUNRISE, FL: Faces "Wishner" Suit Over Sewage Rate Hike
-------------------------------------------------------
Roger B. Wishner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. City of Sunrise, Case No. CACE15010902 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., June 22, 2015), seeks to enjoin the Defendants from
charging 40% increased rate of its water distribution and sewage
collection systems.

The City of Sunrise is a municipality on Broward County, Florida
and operates the water and sewage utility system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis Miner, Esq.
      Stephanie Casey, Esq.
      Latoya Brown, Esq.
      COLSON HICKS EIDSON, P.A.
      255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 476-7400
      E-mail: curt@colson.com
              scasev@colson.com
              latoya@colson.com


SUNRUN INC: Sued Over Violation of Calif. Licensing Laws
--------------------------------------------------------
Tsvetomira Tsanova, writing for See News, reported that U.S.
residential solar firm Sunrun Inc. has been taken to court for
violating California state licensing laws, and the class action
lawsuit is pending before Judge John Shepard Wiley Jr in the state
court in Los Angeles.

The company has been accused of allegedly arranging for the
installation of rooftop solar systems for homes from 2007 until
February 9, 2012, without a contractor's license. The defendant
denies "any wrongdoing or liability.". Sunrun asserts it is an
electricity provider and not a contractor, adding that the solar
arrays in question had been installed by licensed contractors.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represents the Class.

Apart from California, Sunrun is present on the residential solar
markets in Arizona, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania.


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Trial Underway on Chinese Drywall Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Janet McConnaugey, writing for ABC News, reported that lawyers for
people contending that Chinese drywall damaged their homes say
they have a simple way to help the 2,700 in a class-action suit.

"All of the people in this class have been living in a toxic,
corrosive environment for years," Chris Seeger told U.S. District
Judge Eldon Fallon as a trial to decide damages began.

Plaintiffs say the drywall gives off sulfur fumes that corrode
metals and cause health problems.

The class action contains homeowners in Virginia, Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas. A plaintiffs' expert
has created a damage formula based on contractors' bids adjusted
by ZIP code for local costs, Seeger said.

The manufacturer's lawyer, Michael Kenny, said the plaintiffs'
formula is based on seven Virginia houses and cannot be applied
everywhere.

The company, Taishan Gypsum Co. Ltd., recently paid the owners of
those houses and their attorneys $2.7 million plus about $500,000
interest.

"Evidence shows this class claim is extreme overreach," Kenny
said, asking Fallon not to certify class damages.

He also said Taishan found errors in earlier figures, cutting
plaintiffs' requests from nearly $1.3 billion in class damages to
$502 million.

The case is being heard without a jury and Fallon, who certified
the class, will decide damages. Only experts are testifying in the
trial.

Claims dropped from the class action, such as loss and enjoyment
of property, attorneys' fees and "move-in/move-out" costs, remain
alive and will be tried separately, plaintiffs' attorney Daniel
Becnel said during a break.

About 1,000 more cases don't fit into the dollars-per-square-foot
formula to be set by Fallon and will be tried individually, said
Arnold Levin of Philadelphia, one of many plaintiffs' attorneys in
the case.

"People have lost their homes. Some were put in bankruptcy. Some
are living in tents. They can't go into their house and they're
living in tents outside," he said.

Another manufacturer, German-owned Knauf Plasterboard Tianjin Co.,
and four companies it supplied agreed in 2010 to pay for home
repairs. That settlement is expected to total $1.1 billion,
attorneys have said.

Plaintiffs include Thomas Stone, fire chief in suburban St.
Bernard Parish. He said that Chinese drywall has ruined his life,
repeatedly corroding fixtures and appliances in the house he
bought and rebuilt after Hurricane Katrina.

Stone and his wife bought the house after living for two years in
a government trailer -- two years during which Stone worked seven
days a week, rebuilding the fire department and the parish.

Stone said they moved in in April 2008 and realized something was
wrong after Hurricane Gustav hit four months later.

"We didn't have electricity for a week. We started noticing stuff
rusting -- the faucets, the ceiling fan extension post, door
hinges," he said.

Later, the computer, television and washing machine broke down.
All were new. Since then, they've had to replace two surround-
sound systems and another TV. Clocks have broken. The house smells
like fireworks and burnt matches.

Stone just bought the downstairs air conditioner's sixth set of
coils, also replacing a compressor that failed because the coils
did. The upstairs unit's coils have been replaced three times.

"Almost every week you see something else damaged," he said.


TENNESSEE: Class Status Sought in Basic Education Program Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Omarzu, writing for Times Free Press, reported that every
school district in Tennessee could be part of the Hamilton County
Department of Education's lawsuit against the state's Basic
Education Program school funding formula if a judge grants a
motion to grant it class-action status.

"While the larger districts have been the ones voicing concerns
about the underfunding of education, this underfunding has
ramifications literally everywhere," school district attorney D.
Scott Bennett said.

Hamilton County Schools and six nearby school districts --
Bradley, Coffee, Grundy, Marion, McMinn and Polk -- are plaintiffs
in the lawsuit Bennett filed on March 24 in Davidson County
Chancery Court.

The suit claims the state has "breached its duty under the
Tennessee Constitution to provide a system of free public
education for the children of this state."

The lawsuit argues the state doesn't provide enough funding for
numerous expenses, including teacher pay and health insurance. The
state underestimates by about $10,000 what teachers are actually
paid, the lawsuit says, and pays only for 10 months of teachers'
12 months of insurance.

Attorneys for the state deny the entire claim.

Bennett's lawsuit should be "dismissed in its entirety," said a
32-page memorandum filed in late April by Kevin Steiling, deputy
state attorney general. The lawsuit relies on a "profoundly flawed
interpretation" of three successful previous lawsuits against the
BEP, the memo states.

"These pleas for more funding are not properly directed to the
courts of Tennessee -- they must be directed to the General
Assembly," Steiling wrote.

In his 2015-16 budget, which the Legislature passed after the
lawsuit was filed, Gov. Bill Haslam added an extra $100 million
for teacher salaries and $44 million for inflationary increases in
the BEP, along with $30 million to pay for one more month of
health insurance for teachers.

The lawsuit is being funded by Hamilton County. The smaller
districts aren't paying, but Bennett said they will provide data
to support the argument that the General Assembly continues to
underfund education despite years of recommendations from the BEP
Review Committee to increase funding.

"We thought it important to get the participation of other area
school systems," Bennett said. "Of course, because of their
smaller size, these boards cannot contribute financially to the
suit."

Meanwhile, the board of Shelby County Schools in West Tennessee
voted this past week to investigate separate legal action against
the state over the BEP.

Shelby County Schools Superintendent Dorsey Hopson didn't respond
to a request for comment. Hopson was hired in 2008 as Shelby
County Schools' attorney before he became superintendent in 2013,
and Hopson helped "win a $57.4 million dollar judgment against the
city of Memphis in a landmark case involving educational funding,"
the school district's website says.

Bennett said the Atlanta legal firm that Hopson once worked for
may sue Tennessee over the BEP.

"My understanding is that they are going to retain the firm that
Dorsey was with when he was in private practice," Bennett said.
"I've been hearing that ... probably since late February."

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers from Chattanooga's delegation to
the General Assembly reiterated their opposition to Hamilton
County Schools' lawsuit to Times Free Press reporters and editors.

"They are suing the taxpayers, that's who they are suing," said
House Majority Leader Gerald McCormick, R-Chattanooga.

Fully funding the BEP has been estimated to cost $500 million.
McCormick said that would have to come out of existing programs,
such as funding colleges and universities, because the state
constitution mandates K-12 education but not higher education. And
Tennesseans don't want higher taxes, he said.

"It would be devastating to higher ed," McCormick said. "I do not
think that the people of the state are willing to raise taxes."

The lawmakers said the BEP lawsuits were motivated by lawyers
trying to earn fees. But Bennett, who charges $190 an hour, said
he doesn't anticipate the action will increase the school
district's legal fees significantly.

"We have not hired additional staff to work this file," he said.
"So pursuing this case has simply pulled us from other work that
we would be doing for the board of education."

Bennett expects to get a hearing on his class-action motion before
the end of June.


TYSON FOODS: Justices Review Appeal in Workers' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
San Jose Mercury News, reported that the Supreme Court agreed to
weigh new limits on the ability of workers to band together to
dispute pay and workplace issues.

The justices said they will review a $5.8 million class-action
judgment against Tyson Foods over the pay for more than 3,000
workers at its Storm Lake, Iowa, pork processing plant.

The case could allow the high court to elaborate on its 2011
decision blocking a massive sex-discrimination case against Wal-
Mart Stores Inc. that would have included up to 1.6 million female
workers.

Tyson, the Springdale, Arkansas-based company, said it should not
have been forced to defend a class-action lawsuit that claims it
failed to pay thousands of "knife-wielding" employees and others
for time spent putting on and taking off protective work clothes
and equipment.

A federal appeals court in St. Louis ruled 2-1 for the employees,
who worked on the slaughter or "kill" floor and on the processing
or "fabrication" floor.

Tyson argues that lower courts should not have allowed statistics
to determine damages for the entire class based on average times
observed in a sample of workers from the class. The company calls
that a "trial-by-formula" that the high court rejected in the Wal-
Mart case.

The company also says the lower courts improperly allowed the
class to include hundreds of members who were not injured and
would receive no damages in an individual lawsuit.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs say courts have used "representative
proof" to allow class actions to go forward for nearly 70 years.

Tyson has faced similar litigation around the country. In 2010, it
settled a decade-long dispute with the U.S. Department of Labor by
agreeing to pay workers at some poultry plants for time they spent
putting on and taking off protective clothing.

The case, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, 14-1146, will be argued when
the court's new term begins in the fall.


UPONOR INC: To Resolve US Class Suits Through Enhanced Warranty
---------------------------------------------------------------
GlobeNewswire reported that Uponor Corporation's U.S. operative
subsidiary company, Uponor, Inc., its insurers and some of its key
trade partners (home builders, plumbers and distributors) have
come together to resolve the alleged failure risks of Uponor
yellow brass fittings sold in the U.S., in connection with two
proposed U.S. class action settlements.

The process of obtaining court approval of the final settlement
terms is underway, as a result of which certain details of the
proposed settlement terms have been made public.

While the class-action settlements are a path to resolving
litigation involving the yellow brass fittings sold in the U.S.,
Uponor continues to have a high level of confidence in the long-
term performance of these products, since they have an excellent
track record. According to the terms of the settlements, Uponor,
Inc. will provide building owners with an enhanced warranty to
cover potential fitting failures.

Uponor, Inc.'s obligations under the terms of the proposed
settlements will have no material financial impact on the
consolidated results of Uponor Corporation.


US PENSION COMMITTEE: Faces "Forte" Suit Over Investment Options
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph D. Forte, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. Pension Committee, Administrative
Committee, Investment Committee, Richard Johnson and Edgar Grass,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04936-UA (S.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), seeks damages
as a result of the Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties,
specifically by continuing to permit a stock fund to be an
investment option for Plan participants despite knowing that it
had become an imprudent investment.

The U.S. Pension Committee, the Administrative Committee, and the
Investment Committee were each a named fiduciary of the Plan
authorized to ensure the prudence of Plan investments and to
effectuate truthful and accurate communication with Plan
participants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel Ethan Bonderoff, Esq.
      Jacob H. Zamansky, Esq.
      Edward H. Glenn Jr., Esq.
      ZAMANSKY L.L.C.
      50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 742-1414
      Facsimile: (212) 742-1177
      E-mail: samuel@zamansky.com
              jake@zamansky.com
              edward@zamansky.com


VENDOME HOLLYWOOD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carla Perez, Ericka Villafana, Deletis Zohara, Carla B. Perez and
other similarly situated v.  Vendome Hollywood, Inc., Paris
Passion, LLC, Mayo Trading, Inc. d/b/a Mambo Fashions and Elliot
Sprung, Case No. 2015-014172-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., June 23, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate apparel stores in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VIPSHOP HOLDINGS: July 20 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Vipshop Holdings Limited ("Vipshop" or the "Company") and
certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, and docketed under 15-cv-3870, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Vipshop securities between February 17, 2015 and May 11, 2015
inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Vipshop securities during
the Class Period, you have until July 20, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Vipshop Holdings Limited, through its subsidiaries, operates as an
online discount retailer for various brands in the People's
Republic of China. It offers a range of branded products,
including women's apparel, such as casual wear, jeans, dresses,
outerwear, swimsuits, lingerie, pajamas, and maternity clothes;
men's apparel comprising casual and smart-casual T-shirts, polo
shirts, jackets, pants, and underwear; women and men shoes for
casual and formal occasions; and accessories consisting of belts,
jewelry, watches, and glasses for women and men.

The Complaint alleges throughout the Class Period, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies. Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Vipshop manipulated and overstated sales,
receivables, profit, cash flows, and asset accounts including
inventory and investments; (2) Vipshop's financial statements
contain GAAP violations by reporting revenue on a 'gross' basis,
despite the fact that the vast majority of the company's sales are
under a consignment arrangement; (3) Vipshop's internal controls
over financial reporting were ineffective; and (4) as a result of
the foregoing, Vipshop's public statements were materially false
and misleading at all relevant times.

On May 12, 2015, Mithra Forensic Research published a report on
Vipshop (the "Mithra Report") asserting, among other things, that:
(1) forensic models suggest Vipshop manipulated sales,
receivables, profit and other asset accounts; and (2) Vipshop's
financial statements have been contradicted by management's own
disclosures in several instances.

As a result of this news, shares of Vipshop fell $1.54 per share,
or over 5%, to close at $25.78 per share May 12, 2015.

On May 14, 2015, during the Company's earnings conference call, it
was revealed that Vipshop was the subject of another shortseller
report issued by J Capital Research (the "J Capital Report").
According to an article published later that day by TheStreet.com,
the J Capital Report presented research "[c]iting discrepancies in
the company's accounting" and stating that the Company's
"financial filings in China are vastly different than the filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, leading to concerns
that the company's results are not accurate."

As a result of this news, shares of Vipshop fell $1.45 per share,
or over 5.4%, to close at $25.21 per share May 14, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.More than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members.


VIRGINIA: NRV Inmates Sue Warden Over Living Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Sturgeon, writing for The Roanoke Times, reported that nearly
50 inmates at the New River Valley Regional Jail, about 5 percent
of the jail's population, have signed a group legal protest of
living conditions in the Dublin lockup.

On arrival at the jail, the inmates' lawsuit said, the men slept
an average of three nights on a concrete floor. The jail packed
the inmates together, 10 to a processing tank, without mattresses,
linens or toiletries and did not allow showers, according to the
litigation, which claims the conditions are inhumane.

"This is a civil rights action filed by prisoners confined at New
River Valley Regional Jail ... alleging cruel and unusual
conditions and denial of medical care under the Eighth Amendment
to the United States constitution," the lawsuit began.

The May 27 filing, signed by James Maurice Wynn and pending in
Roanoke federal court, alleges that the jail provides inadequate
initial health screenings, offers insufficient outdoor time, is
overcrowded and hinders access to legal help by withholding stamps
and charging 50 cents a page for copies.

Wynn, 52, is serving two years of a five-year sentence at the jail
for a Carroll County forgery conviction, online court records
show.

Jail Superintendent Gerald McPeak declined to comment on the
lawsuit's allegations in detail, saying he hadn't seen the
complaint since its filing.

McPeak will receive his copy only after inmates handle additional
filing-related steps that are yet to come.

Individual prisoner lawsuits over conditions of incarceration
course through the federal court on a regular basis, and a large
share are dismissed at an early stage as frivolous or otherwise
legally insufficient. The Dublin inmates' lawsuit -- a handwritten
claim with attached signatures -- is one of a small number of
attempted group actions the Roanoke federal court has received in
recent years, said Chief Deputy Court Clerk Frances McNulty.

In addition to McPeak, the suit names director Harold Clarke of
the Virginia Department of Corrections. The jail belongs to an
authority for the city of Radford and the counties of Bland,
Carroll, Floyd, Giles, Grayson, Pulaski and Wythe, and currently
houses 757 men and 121 women, McPeak said.

According to the filing, a major source of contention is the
intake procedure. The suit said the jail places prisoners awaiting
trial in holding cells with the windows covered for two to four
days without basic necessities. "The plaintiffs were forced to
sleep in these small areas on concrete floors for an average of 72
hours," the suit said.

Asked to respond to that allegation generally, McPeak wrote by
email: "All inmates who have completed the intake process are
assigned to a bed."

It's unclear whether the allegations will get a full hearing in
court.

The court has accepted the lawsuit on only a conditional basis.
Inmates face a deadline later to complete all required filing
steps. Each one must name a date and specific perpetrator for each
alleged violation he suffered and demonstrate that he has
exhausted the administrative complaint system inside the jail, or
risk being tossed out of court. Each man owes court fees unless he
applies for and receives a waiver on the basis of indigency.

In addition, Wynn asked unsuccessfully for the case to be handled
as a class action, in which the court bundles into one case
plaintiffs citing common facts and legal questions too numerous to
process individually. When he received the case, Magistrate Judge
Robert Ballou broke it into 48 individual lawsuits, saying it
would be impractical for multiple inmates acting as their own
lawyers to proceed as a group. Cell reassignments, lockdowns and
personal disagreements would likely get in the way, the judge
said.

A Roanoke attorney not involved in the case said the case could
later become a class action, but the inmates will likely find it
difficult to present a strong case for that treatment without
legal help.

"It's not enough just to sign a piece of paper to be certified as
a class," attorney Micah Wright said.

However, the workings of the legal system allow the court to
appoint lawyers at no cost to assist indigent inmates with civil
litigation over conditions of incarceration deemed potentially
meritorious by a judge.


VISION FINANCIAL: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eugene Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vision Financial Corp., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03694 (E.D.N.Y., June 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


WASTE FACILITIES: "King" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin King and Christopher Frisco, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Waste Facilities, Inc. and Mud
Puddles Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00282 (S.D. Tex., June 22,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate environmental surface disposal and
bio-remediation facilities that offer the handling, disposing and
reclaiming of drilling fluids and cuttings associated with
drilling waste from natural gas rigs across the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued Over Unauthorized Bank Services Enrollment
------------------------------------------------------------
Kaylee Heffelfinger, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case
No. 4:15-cv-02942 (N.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' unfair, deceptive, illegal, and fraudulent practices
of enrolling customers in numerous accounts and services without
the customer's authorization or knowledge.

Wells Fargo & Company operates the fourth biggest bank in the
United States, and is the largest bank headquartered in
California.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a subsidiary of Wells Fargo & Company,
and provides banking products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
      Khesraw Karmand, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1129 State Street, Suite 8
      Santa Barbara, CA 93101
      Telephone: (805) 456-1496
      Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
      E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com
              kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

      Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
      Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com


WELLS FARGO: Transferred "Goodman" Class Suit to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Coby Goodman, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated and the general public v.
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Cal-Western Reconveyance Corporation, and
Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, Case No. 2:14-cv-03171,
was transferred from the California Central Court to the U.S.
District Court California Northern District (San Francisco)
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02856-VC to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts unlawful foreclosure practices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathon H. Kaplan, Esq.
      Yitz E. Weiss, Esq.
      KAPLAN WEISS LLP
      355 S Grand Avenue Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-9500
      Telephone: (213) 553-4550
      Facsimile: (213) 553-4590
      E-mail: kaplan@kaplan-lee.com
              yitz.weiss@kaplan-lee.com

         - and -

      Leslie Hurst, Esq.
      Paula Michelle Roach, Esq.
      Thomas Joseph O'Reardon II, Esq.
      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST AND O'REARDON LLP
      701 B Street Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: lhurst@bholaw.com
              proach@bholaw.com
              toreardon@bholaw.com
              tblood@bholaw.com


WESTMOUNT, QC: Ex-Hockey Coach Faces New Sexual Abuse Allegation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Leclair, writing for Global News, reported that less than a
week after the first alleged victim filed a petition in court to
launch a class action lawsuit against the City of Westmount, at
least one more person has stepped forward with a similar story.

". . . I received an email from someone who had a very sad and
troubling story and his identity will be kept confidential," said
lawyer Annabel Busbridge.

The court motion claims the city turned a blind eye and failed to
put a stop to decades of alleged abuse by former hockey coach and
long-time city employee John Garland.

Former Westmount resident turned Hollywood independent film
director Matthew Bissonette was the first to step forward with
allegations of abuse against his former PeeWee hockey coach.

Westmount's mayor Peter Trent called the case "one person's
unsupported allegations", but at least one more alleged victim has
contacted lawyers to join the lawsuit.

"I can confirm with absolute certainty that this went on to other
boys aside from Matt, who have now become men and who have dealt
with this for many, many years," said Busbridge, who filed the
court petition.  But before a judge will authorize a class action
lawsuit, more people need to come forward.

"I can't reveal how many have come forward. We are keeping that
information strictly confidential," insisted Busbridge. "We want
to make sure everyone feels comfortable coming forward and that
they know their names will never be published."

Lawyers expect to get a court date, and it will be up to the judge
to give the class action lawsuit the green light depending on a
long list of criteria, including if the number of victims is
enough to warrant class action.

Bissonette is hoping someone from City Hall will reach out before
the case goes to trial.

"I'm completely open to meeting with Peter Trent the mayor or with
Mike Deegan who runs the city," said Bissonette from his home in
Los Angeles. "I believe in seeing if we can work together and find
a way for a healthy and a positive solution to the abuse that was
allowed to happen there."


XUNLEI LIMITED: Aug. 7 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Xunlei Limited and certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central
District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Xunlei American Depository
Shares ("ADSs") (1) pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
registration statement and prospectus (defined below) issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering on or about
June 24, 2014 (the "IPO" or the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the
open market between June 24, 2014 and May 20, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act") and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Xunlei securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 7, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Xunlei Limited operates an Internet platform for digital media
content in the People's Republic of China.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance.  Specifically, the Company failed to
disclose the material risk that its focus on Project Crystal and
its mobile initiative would have a detrimental impact on the
Company's financial condition.

On June 24, 2014, Xunlei conducted its initial public offering
("IPO") and raised approximately $88 million. On May 20, 2015,
Xunlei announced its unaudited financial results for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2015, which revealed revenues of $30.2
million, down 8.4% year-over-year, and an operating loss of $1.4
million, compared with an operating income of US$3.8 million in
the corresponding period.

On this news, shares of Xunlei fell sharply during intraday
trading on May 21, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Florida, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms
in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members.


YINGLI GREEN: Says Class Suits Are Groundless
---------------------------------------------
Brian Publicover, writing for Recharge, reported that China's
Yingli Green Energy has spoken out about one of at least two
class-action lawsuits it may face in the US, describing it as
groundless.


* Harke Clasby Managing Partner Named in Fla. Legal Elite 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
The commercial litigation and consumer class action law firm of
Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP (www.harkeclasby.com) announced that
Managing Partner Lance A. Harke has been named to Florida Trend
Magazine's Legal Elite 2015 in the practice area of commercial
litigation.

Voting for Legal Elite began in October 2014 when Florida Trend
invited all in-state members of the Florida Bar to participate.
Lawyers were asked to name attorneys whom they hold in the highest
regard or would recommend to others. The prestigious list
represents less than 2% of active Florida Bar members who practice
in the State of Florida.

Harke concentrates his trial practice in the areas of products
liability, insurance and complex class action and other commercial
and consumer litigation matters. He is AV rated by Martindale-
Hubbell and admitted to practice law in the State of Florida, the
United States District Courts for the Southern and Northern
Districts of Florida, and the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit. Harke graduated from the University of
Florida, with high honors and received his B.A. degree in
Philosophy. He received his law degree from University of Miami
School of Law, where he graduated cum laude, and was Editor-in-
Chief of the University of Miami Law Review.

Miami Shores-based Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP was established by
founding partner and trial lawyer, Lance A. Harke in 2000. The
firm represents clients throughout the State of Florida and in
courts across the country in a wide range of commercial law
matters related to commercial litigation, business torts, consumer
class actions, securities class actions, product liability,
insurance litigation, general civil litigation, general commercial
litigation, civil appeals, prescription drug issues, employment
matters, bad faith issues, professional malpractice, medical
malpractice and appellate practice.

Mr. Harke may be reached at:

         Lance August Harke, Esq.
         HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN LLP
         9699 NE Second Avenue
         Miami, FL 33138
         Tel: (305) 536-8220
         Fax: (305) 536-8229


                            *********

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  * * *