CAR_Public/150708.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 8, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 135


                            Headlines


2 BROS. PIZZA: Faces FLSA Class Action in New York
85 PEARL: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages & Damages
AESTHETIC DESIGN: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile Ads, Suit Claims
AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Await 8th Cir. Decision
ANGIE'S LIST: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action

ARKANSAS: State Supreme Court Upholds OT Class Action Status
ARMAAN LLC: "Joha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
ARS NATIONAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
ARTERIORS TOO: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Schacht" Suit Says
ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Recalls Chocolate Candies Due to Peanut

B&R PRODUCTS: Removes "Concepcion" Suit to Florida District Court
BAYER CORP: Faces "Taylor" Suit Alleging Avelox-Related Injuries
BBD HOLDINGS: "Parra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BLCH 3RD: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 26,000 Product Liability Cases Pending

BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Fretter and Korsgaard Class Actions Filed
BOULDER DOG: Recalls Turkey Sprinkles Due to Salmonella
CALIFORNIA: San Quentin Jail Death Row Prisoners File Class Suit
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Fire Prevention Fee Bills
CANADA: Quebec Lawyer Mulls Legionnaire's Outbreak Class Action

CANADA: Class Action Lawyer Willing to Continue Tar Pond Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Note Holders Dismiss Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Filed Writ of Certiorari
CHESWICK GENERATING: Pennsylvania Court Strikes Class Allegations
CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: September 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

CLIFFS NATURAL: Amended Class Action Complaint Filed
CLIFFS NATURAL: Rosenberg Action Referred to Insurance Carriers
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Softsoap Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
COLLINS & 74TH: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Evidentiary Hearing Set for Class Cert Bid

CORDISH COS: Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Class Action
CROSSMARK INC: $1.4MM Tripp Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
CTPARTNERS: Faces Sexual Discrimination Class Action
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Securities Litigation
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Pending in Weinstat Class Action

DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Motion Hearing Rescheduled
DIRECTV: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over NFL Sunday Ticket
E-Z-GO: Recalls Golf Cars, Shuttles and Off-Road Utility Vehicles
EGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
ELGIN, TX: Faces Red Light Camera Class Action

ELITE BENEFIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Olson" Suit Claims
ENERGY CORP: Magistrate Judge Upholds Verdict in Royalties Suit
EXCELSIOR ELECTRIC: Faces Class Actions Over Capital Credits
FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Court of Appeal Ends Privacy Class Action
FANTASY FUN: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FIRST ALERT: Court Tosses Class Suit Over Defective Smoke Alarms
FLOYD COUNTY, KY: Conn Appears in SSA Class Action Hearing
FREE CONTINUING: Court Stays "Degnen" Case Pending FCC Ruling
FRENCH QUARTER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Hays" Suit Says
FRESH AND PROCESS: Dec. 3 Final Hearing on Antitrust Suit Deal

FRESNO, CA: Police Faces Suit Over Inaction on Domestic Violence
GOLDEN EAGLE: Immigrant Farm Workers File Wage Class Action
GRAND BK: Recalls Raw Cashew Products Due to Salmonella
GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: "Morton" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
HEART SAVERS: Faces TCPA Class Action in California

HERTZ CORP: Faces "Lee" Action in California Over FCRA Violations
HERTZ CORP: Suit Over "Unethical Fees" Removed to Federal Court
HILLS BANCORPORATION: Class Action Stayed Pending IA Court Ruling
IDAHO: Police Misled States Officials in Prison Investigation
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Face Fax Advertising Class Action

JUNIPER PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Affirmed
KEURIG GREEN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
KEURIG GREEN: Reply Briefs Due in Class Action
KTOWN TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LAKEWOOD CO: Recalls Nut and Fruit Mix Due to Salmonella

LOGMEIN INC: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Electronic Fund Transfers
LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Ex-CFO to Pay $2.3MM in U.S. Securities Suit
LYFT INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Nokchan" Suit Says
MANITOBA: Apologizes to Indigenous Families for Forced Adoptions
MARRIOTT INT'L: Housekeepers File Class Action Over Chemicals

MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Suit Remains Stayed
MASIMO CORP: Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Defendants Entered Into MOU
MEADOWLANDS RACETRACK: Faces Wage Class Action in New Jersey
MEL S. HARRIS: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation

MICHAEL KORS: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Price Tags
MILANEZZA LLC: "Munoz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MINNESOTA: Must Implement Sex Offer Program Changes, Judge Says
MONSANTO CO: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
NEW LONDON, CT: Shooting Victims Mull Class Action

NEW YORK, NY: Officials Agree to Sweeping Reforms at Rikers Island
NEW YORK, NY: COBA Responds to Rikers Island Settlement
NEWS CORP: Ordered to Face Ad Monopoly Class Action
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Aug. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
OGDEN COUNTY: Aug. 4 Oral Argument in Trece Injunction Class Suit

OGEMAW COUNTY, MI: Former Female Inmates File Class Action
OTTEROO CORPORATION: Recalls Baby Floats Over Risk of Drowning
OUTSOURCING USA: "Conti" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PARADISE FLOWERS: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
PATRIOT ELECTRIC: Faces "Cirillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

PENNYSAVER USA: Removed "Benton" Class Suit to C.D. California
POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To File Reply Brief in Securities Suit
PRESIDIO INTERNATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
QUEBEC, CANADA: Class Action Over Legionnaire's Outbreak Launched
REDBOX AUTOMATED: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.

REPUBLIC SERVICES: July 21 Cert. Hearing in Landfill Odor Case
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 6 Hearing on Motion to Remand
ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Fruit & Nut Trail Mix Due to Salmonella
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Water Price Suit Mulled v. Water District
SCHLUMBERGER NV: Faces "Ogle" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

SEVENTH GENERATION: Bid to Transfer Venue of Tsan Case Denied
SHUTTERFLY: Faces Class Action Over "Faceprints"
SIOUX CITY, IA: Paid Million to Settle Civil Lawsuits, Claims
SONY PICTURES: May Sue Twitter Over Leaked Documents
STATE AUTO: Plaintiffs Settled with State Auto Defendants

STORED VALUE CARDS: Arbitration Bid Denial in Reagan Case Upheld
TECHNOSPORT INC: Recalls Scuba Diving Mask Due to Injury Hazard
THAINUM SOUP: Faces "Ventura" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TPC II LLC: Faces "Onorato" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Investor Class Action in Texas

TRUECAR INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Share Price Decline
TWIN AMERICA: Faces "Mirabel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court to Address Statistical Sampling Issue
UBER TECH: Illegally Obtains Consumer Report, "Nokchan" Suit Says
UBER TECH: To Appeal Employee Classification Ruling

UBER TECH: Labor Commissioner Ruling to Impact "Sharing Economy"
UNION PACIFIC: Sued Over Dispute on Pipelines Along Rail Lines
UNITED POTATO: Settles Price-Fixing Cartel Class Action for $25MM
UNITED STATES: Fed Overstep Authority in AIG Bailout, Court Ruled
UNITED STATES: OPM Sued Over Alleged Cyber-Breach

UNITED STATES: Doesn't Accept Liability for OPM Data Breach
UNITED STATES: GLAD Files Preliminary Injunction Against SSA
UNITED STATES: Eastern Kentucky Lacks Lawyers to Handle SSA Cases
URANIUM ENERGY: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
US BANK: RMBS Investors File Class Action in New York

VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VIVUS INC: 9th Cir. Rejected Petition in Securities Class Action
W.W. GRANGER: Obtains Final Approval of Stovall-Gusman Suit Deal
WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Partial Judgment in Sex Bias Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Settles Action Over All-Natural Cornstarch Label

WATTS WATER: Defending Against "Meyers, "Ponzo" & "Sharp" Actions
WATTS WATER: Defendant in "Klug" Class Action
WELLS FARGO: "Ponce de Leon Case" Dismissed in Its Entirety
WELLS FARGO: 11th Cir. Vacated Order in "Order of Posting" Case
WELLS FARGO: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed

WELLS FARGO: Trial This Year for Pending Securities Lending Cases
WEST AFRICA EXAMINATION: Kofi Adams to Lead BECE Class Action
YAMAHA GOLF:  Recalls Golf Cars and PTVs Due to Crash Hazard
YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls SRViper Snowmobiles Due to Injury Risk
ZEEKREWARDS.COM: Ponzi Scheme Victims to Get Check in August

* CFPB Study Seen as Precursor to Arbitration Regulatory Action
* FCC Rules on Telemarketing, Robocalls and Other TCPA Issues
* Tech Companies Push for New Worker Classification Amid Lawsuits


                            *********


2 BROS. PIZZA: Faces FLSA Class Action in New York
--------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Horney, writing for Law360, reports that a putative class
action was launched against a popular pizza chain in New York
district court on June 19, alleging that the chain violated the
Federal Labor Standards Act by, among other things, failing to pay
employees overtime wages.

The suit, lodged by a host of current and former pizza makers and
cashiers at the chain, alleges that 2 Bros. Pizza, along with a
number of individual defendants who run particular locations in
New York City, violated the FLSA by failing to pay them minimum
wage and refusing to compensate for overtime.  The suit also
alleges that the pizza chain violated the New York Labor Law by
improperly neglecting to provide proper wage statements, claiming
that the workers were paid off the books.  The plaintiffs named in
the suit all either currently work at one the chain's locations or
used to work there dating back to 2009, according to the
complaint.

"Plaintiffs . . . have been victims of a common policy and plan
perpetrated by defendants that has violated their rights under the
FLSA and [New York Labor Law] by denying them pay, including
without limitation, minimum wage, overtime wages, spread of hours
wages and the full amount of wages to which they are entitled,"
the complaint says.

According to the complaint, between October 2012 and January 2014,
plaintiff Ruben Aca worked as a pizza maker and cashier at a
Lexington Avenue location for 72 hours a week but was paid only a
flat fee of $480, equivalent to $6.66 per hour.  The complaint
lists a host of other named plaintiffs featuring similar stories
relating to how much they were or are being paid by the pizza
chain.  According to the complaint, the workers in question were
paid in cash off the books, and their hours were not recorded by
the company.

The complaint also alleges that beginning in September 2014, the
pizza chain began deducting roughly $100 or more each week from
the workers' wages, falsely telling the plaintiffs that the money
was being taken out of their pay for tax purposes.

"Upon information and belief, such amounts deducted have not been
used for taxes and have been kept by the defendants for personal
profit," the complaint says.  "Defendants have substantially
benefitted and profited from the work the plaintiffs . . . have
performed."

The plaintiffs are requesting class certification for any employee
who worked as a pizza maker or cashier at a 2 Bros. Pizza location
beginning from November 2011 and who were not paid their due
overtime wages.  The complaint estimates that the class consists
of roughly 100 individuals.

Additionally, the suit seeks a trial by jury, an award of "100
percent" of all wages owed and further damages in the amount of
$100 per week for every workweek during which violations occurred,
up to a maximum of $2,500 per worker.  The suit also seeks
attorneys' fees and costs, as well as other relief as deemed just
by the court.

A representative for the defendants could not immediately be
reached for comment on June 19.

The plaintiffs are represented by Adam Slater of Slater Slater
Schulman LLP, and Christopher Marlborough of The Marlborough Law
Firm PC.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available on June 19.

The case is Aca et al. v. Halali et al., case number 1:15-cv-
04784, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.


85 PEARL: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Aixa Mercado and Chablis Quarterman, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. 85 Pearl Street Venture Ltd.
d/b/a Stone Street Tavern, and Ronan A. Downs, Case No. 1:15-cv-
05049 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Stone Street Tavern restaurant
located at 85 Pearl Street, New York, New York 10006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com


AESTHETIC DESIGN: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimile Ads, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Aesthetic Design Dental Lab, Case No. 3:15-cv-04712
(D.N.J., June 29, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
transmitting one or more facsimiles advertising the commercial
availability or quality of property, goods, or services, without
having obtained prior express invitation or permission to transmit
said facsimiles.

Aesthetic Dsign Dental Lab owns and operates a dental laboratory
located at 308 North Himes Avenue, Tampa, Florida 33609.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-6667
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com

         - and -

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      369 S. Doheny Dr., #415
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


AMAG PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Await 8th Cir. Decision
-----------------------------------------------------
AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the United States
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has heard oral argument in
an appeal related to the Makena Securities Litigation, and the
parties are awaiting a decision from the Court.

During October and November 2011, three complaints were filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (the "Court") against K-V Pharmaceutical Company ("KV")
(since renamed as Lumara Health) and certain individual
defendants, alleging violations of the anti-fraud provisions of
the federal securities laws on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of KV between February 14, 2011 and
April 4, 2011: Julianello v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed
October 19, 2011); Mukku v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al. (filed
October 31, 2011), and Cheong v. K-V Pharmaceutical Co., et al.
(filed November 2, 2011). On March 8, 2012, the three cases were
consolidated and the consolidated action is now styled In Re K-V
Pharmaceutical Company Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:11-CV-
1816-AGF.

On May 4, 2012, the Court appointed Lori Anderson as the Lead
Plaintiff in the matter, and an amended complaint was filed on
July 24, 2012. The amended complaint alleges class members were
damaged by purchasing KV stock at artificially inflated prices due
to defendants' purportedly misleading statements regarding KV's
exclusivity over Makena. On April 22, 2013, the individual
defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and oral argument was
held before the Court on November 26, 2013. KV joined in the
motion to dismiss on February 10, 2014.

On March 27, 2014, the Court entered an order granting defendants'
motion to dismiss the class action complaint without prejudice to
the plaintiff's ability to file a second amended complaint with
respect to a limited issue of whether defendants' statements about
Lumara Health's financial assistance program for Makena were
materially false or misleading. On April 16, 2014, plaintiff filed
a motion to reconsider asking the Court to reconsider its order
restricting the scope of plaintiff's ability to amend its
complaint. The Court denied plaintiff's motion to reconsider and
entered a judgment granting defendants' motion to dismiss on June
6, 2014.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. The Court
of Appeals heard oral argument on March 12, 2015 and the parties
are awaiting a decision from the Court.

In accordance with the Sixth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of
Reorganization for K-V Discovery Solutions and Its Affiliated
Debtors, which became effective on September 16, 2013, the
recovery in this matter, if any, is limited to the "extent of any
insurance and/or any proceeds therefrom (excluding any self-
insured retention obligation or deductible) that may provide
coverage for any liability of Lumara Health for the claims
asserted in this litigation".


ANGIE'S LIST: Judge Dismisses Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Swiatek, writing for IndyStar, reports that a judge said he
will throw out a potential shareholder class-action lawsuit
against Angie's List that aimed to show a stock price drop in 2013
was caused by its executives' misconduct.

Federal judge William Lawrence's ruling, made June 18, said the
allegations in the lawsuit "are simply too vague and attenuated"
to stand up in court.  But he did give the plaintiffs 28 days to
refile an amended complaint.

The lawsuit in federal court in Indianapolis is a consolidation of
several lawsuits filed by nine law firms from Indianapolis, New
York and the Philadelphia area that alleged securities violations
against Angie's List.  The lead plaintiff in the lawsuit is a
United Food & Commercial Workers union pension fund.

The Indianapolis company is an Internet-based provider of consumer
reviews for home repair services, doctors and other providers. It
went public in late 2011.

Lawyers at four of the key plaintiffs' law firms in the case did
not respond to a request for comment.  Angie's List spokeswoman
Cheryl Reed also declined to comment.

Shareholder class-action lawsuits are common in the corporate
world.  They have led in some cases to multimillion-dollar
judgments or settlements on behalf of shareholders.

But Lawrence said the consolidated Angie's List s lawsuit fails to
make a strong enough case to proceed in court.

The plaintiffs built much of their case on the argument that
Angie's List diluted the quality of its membership in 2013 by
slashing its membership price from $40 to $10 in some markets,
including Indianapolis.  That disrupted the company's membership-
based business model, plaintiffs said, and led to a sharp stock
price decline.  Angie's List stock price fell 50 percent between
July and December 2013, from $28 a share to $14.

"The problem," the judge said in his order, "is that these
allegations . . . are nothing more than unfounded assumptions and
speculation. . . . Simply put, the complaint is devoid of any
facts regarding the outcome of the reduction in membership fee."

In asking the judge to dismiss the case, Angie's attorneys said
the plaintiffs failed to come up with any proof to back their
argument.  "No document supports this assertion; no witness
purports to corroborate it. Plaintiffs are simply wrong."


ARKANSAS: State Supreme Court Upholds OT Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
John Lyon, writing for Times Record, reports that a divided
Arkansas Supreme Court on June 18 upheld a circuit judge's
decision to grant class-action status to a lawsuit alleging that
employees of Arkansas veterans homes were required to work
overtime hours without compensation.

The suit, filed in June 2013 by a group of nurses and nursing
assistants who worked for the Fayetteville Veterans Home and the
now-closed Arkansas Veterans Home in Little Rock, alleges that
their employer, the Arkansas Department of Veteran Affairs, often
required the plaintiffs to work before and after their shifts and
through their lunch breaks without overtime pay.  The plaintiffs
claim that the department automatically deducted 30 minutes per
day from their work hours for a lunch break, even if, as they say
was often the case, they were not able to take a lunch break
because of chronic understaffing.  The suit also alleges that the
department did not allow the plaintiffs to report all the overtime
hours they worked and did not respond to their frequent complaints
about the alleged violations.  The actions by the department
violated the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, the suit claims.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages equal to the amount of overtime
pay they claim they were illegally denied during a period
beginning three years before the suit was filed and ending on the
date the case is resolved.

The Arkansas Department of Veteran Affairs has denied the
allegations.

A Pulaski County circuit judge granted class-action status for the
suit in August 2014.  The judge defined the class as "all hourly,
nonexempt nurses and certified nursing assistants of Arkansas
Veterans Home and Fayetteville Nursing Home who were employed by
ADVA at any time within the three years prior to the filing of the
case through the date of the final disposition of this action."

The state attorney general's office, representing the Arkansas
Department of Veteran Affairs, appealed the ruling, arguing that
it should be allowed to cross-examine each plaintiff and introduce
specific evidence to refute each person's claim, which would make
a single class-action suit unwieldy.

In a 4-3 decision, the state Supreme Court sided on June 17 with
the plaintiffs.

"Certainly, ADVA should be permitted to defend as it sees fit, and
the question is really more about how best to manage the case,
something that the circuit court has broad discretion to
determine," Justice Robin Wynne wrote in the majority opinion.

Justice Rhonda Wood wrote in a dissenting opinion that the
evidence presented at a hearing in circuit court on class-action
status varied widely from employee to employee, and noted that two
plaintiffs already have been dropped from the suit after it was
discovered that they did not work more than 40 hours in a week.

"When a case turns on highly individualized inquiries that differ
from class member to class member, as in this one, our precedent
has been to hold that the class-certification requirements are not
satisfied," Justice Wood wrote in the dissenting opinion.

Justices Karen Baker and Josephine Hart joined in the dissent.


ARMAAN LLC: "Joha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Joha and other similarly-situated individuals v. Armaan
LLC a/k/a Groovy's Pizza, Abdullah V. Karpuz and Kaan Kaleli, Case
No. 1:15-cv-22426-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Groovy's Pizza restaurant located
at 332 Lincoln Road, Miami Beach 33139.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ARS NATIONAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Blimie Schwartz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. ARS National Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-03802-FB-RLM (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARTERIORS TOO: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Schacht" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Schacht, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Arteriors Too, LLC d/b/a Arteriors Home, and
Mark Moussa, Case No. 3:15-cv-02173-G (N.D. Tex., June 29, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

Arteriors Too, LLC is a provider of luxury residential and
commercial lighting, wall decor, decorative accessories, and
furniture.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ATKINS NUTRITIONALS: Recalls Chocolate Candies Due to Peanut
------------------------------------------------------------
Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall of a
limited quantity of Atkins Chocolate Candies, 5 ct. sachets with
UPC code 637480075558 - because it may contain sachets of Atkins
Chocolate Peanut Candies. Although the inner sachets are properly
marked as Chocolate Peanut Candies, there is a chance of consumer
confusion. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
peanut products may run the risk of serious allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

  PRODUCT         UPC CODE       LOT NUMBER      BEST BEFORE DATE
  -------         --------       ----------      ----------------
  Atkins          637480075558   A5118139439C    April 28, 2016
  Chocolate                      A5119139439A
  Candies 5 ct.                  A5119139439B
  sachets
                                 A5119139439C    April 29, 2016
                                 A5120139439A    April 30, 2016

The affected product is marked with one of the following lot
numbers A5118139439C (with a "best before" date of April 28,
2016), A5119139439A, A5119139439B, A5119139439C (with a "best
before" date of April 29, 2016) and A5120139439A (with a "best
before" date of April 30, 2016). A small quantity of Atkins
Chocolate Peanut Candy individual sachets has been inadvertently
placed into outer cartons of Atkins Chocolate Candies - 5 ct.
sachets.

Three consumers who purchased the mislabeled product alerted
Atkins to the issue. To date, no illnesses or allergic reactions
have been reported. Atkins has conducted 100 percent inspection of
the remaining product on hand, and has found no instances of the
mislabeling above. However, in an abundance of caution, Atkins is
issuing a voluntary recall of the affected production lot to
ensure the safety of consumers with peanut allergies and we
apologize to consumers for this inconvenience.

Consumers who have purchased Atkins Chocolate Candies UPC code
637480075558 should look for the manufacturing lot code
A5118139439C, A5119139439A, A5119139439B, A5119139439C and
A5120139439A on the bottom of the carton. No other Atkins products
are affected by this recall. The affected product was distributed
to a limited number of retailers across the United States.

The quality and safety of our products are the top priority for
our company. Atkins has notified its distributors and retailers
and is taking this voluntary action as a precautionary measure.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the Food and
Drug Administration.

Consumers who purchased affected product can request a full refund
by contacting Atkins Consumer Services directly at 1-800-628-5467
Monday through Friday from 7 am to 6 pm MST to receive a pre-paid
envelope for product return.

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc. is a leader in the weight control
nutrition category, and offers a powerful lifetime approach to
weight loss and management. The Atkins Diet focuses on a balanced
diet with reduced levels of refined carbohydrates and added sugars
and encourages the consumption of protein, fiber, fruits,
vegetables and good fats. Backed by research and consumer success
stories, this approach allows the body to burn more fat and work
more efficiently while helping individuals feel less hungry, more
satisfied and more energetic.

Atkins Nutritionals, Inc., manufactures and sells a variety of
frozen meals, nutrition bars, shakes and snacks designed around
the nutritional principles of the Atkins Diet(TM). Atkins' three
product lines: Advantage(R), Day Break(TM) and Endulge(TM) appeal
to a broad audience of both men and women who want to achieve
their weight management goals and enjoy a healthier lifestyle.
Atkins products are available online at atkins.comdisclaimer icon
and in more than 50,000 locations throughout the U.S. and
internationally. For more information, visit atkins.comdisclaimer
icon.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453181.htm


B&R PRODUCTS: Removes "Concepcion" Suit to Florida District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Concepcion v. B&R Products, Inc.,
Case No. 15-09876-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court in Miami Dade, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22126-KMW to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged denial of overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
          1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone: (305) 448-9292
          Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
          E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander D. Del Russo, Esq.
          Allison Oasis Kahn, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A.
          PO Box 150
          525 Okeechobee Boulevard, Suite 1200
          West Palm Beach, FL 33402-0150
          Telephone: (561) 659-7070
          Facsimile: (561) 659-7368
          E-mail: adelrusso@cfjblaw.com
                  akahn@cfjblaw.com


BAYER CORP: Faces "Taylor" Suit Alleging Avelox-Related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
John R. Taylor v. Bayer Corporation, Bayer Healthcare
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Merck & Co., Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00468-SMV-SCY (D.N.M., June 4, 2015) is an action for damages
allegedly suffered by the Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of his use of the pharmaceutical drug Avelox(R), also known
as moxifloxacin.

Avelox is a broad-spectrum synthetic antibacterial agent marketed
and sold in oral tablet, IV solution, and ophthalmic solution,
used to treat lung, sinus, skin, and urinary tract infections
caused by certain germs called bacteria.  Avelox is a member of
the quinolone class of antibiotics.

Bayer Corporation is an Indiana corporation headquartered in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Montville, New Jersey.
Merck & Co., Inc. is New Jersey corporation headquartered in
Whitehouse Station, New Jersey.  The Defendants design, research,
manufacture, test, advertise, promote, market, sell and distribute
Avelox.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin R. Kaufman, Esq.
          HEARD ROBINS CLOUD, LLP
          505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209
          Santa Fe, NM 87501
          Telephone: (505) 986-0600
          Facsimile: (505) 986-0632
          E-mail: jkaufman@heardrobins.com

               - and -

          Vance R. Andrus, Esq.
          David J. Wool, Esq.
          ANDURS WAGSTAFF, P.C.
          7171 W. Alaska Drive
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (720) 208-9414
          E-mail: vance.andrus@andruswagstaff.com
                  David.wool@andruswagstaff.com


BBD HOLDINGS: "Parra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Parra, and all others similarly situated v. BBD Holdings &
Ventures, LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80898-WPD (S.D. Fla., June 29,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

BBD Holdings & Ventures, LLC owns and operates various payday loan
companies within the Southern District of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Scott Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL P.A.
      300 NW 70th Avenue, Suite 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 617-6017
      Facsimile: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: robnorell@aol.com


BLCH 3RD: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Gutierrez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. BLCH 3rd Ave. LLC d/b/a Brick Lane Curry House, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05053 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

BLCH 3rd Ave. LLC owns and operates an Indian restaurant known as
Brick Lane Curry House, located at 1664 Third Avenue, New York,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Flr
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: 26,000 Product Liability Cases Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of May 5, 2015,
there were over 26,000 product liability cases or claims related
to transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat stress
urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse pending against the
Company.

The Company said, "The cases are pending in various federal and
state courts in the United States and include eight putative class
actions. There were also fewer than 20 cases in Canada, inclusive
of three putative class actions, and fewer than 10 claims in the
United Kingdom. Generally, the plaintiffs allege personal injury
associated with use of our transvaginal surgical mesh products.
The plaintiffs assert design and manufacturing claims, failure to
warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state consumer
protection laws and loss of consortium claims."

"Over 2,500 of the cases have been specially assigned to one judge
in state court in Massachusetts. On February 7, 2012, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation (MDL) established MDL-2326 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
and transferred the federal court transvaginal surgical mesh cases
to MDL-2326 for coordinated pretrial proceedings.

"During the fourth quarter of 2013, we received written discovery
requests from certain state attorneys general offices regarding
our transvaginal surgical mesh products. We have responded to
those requests. During April 2015, solely by way of compromise and
without any admission or concession by us of any liability or
wrongdoing, we entered into a Master Settlement Agreement (the
"Agreement") with certain plaintiffs' counsel to settle
substantially all of their inventories of cases and claims pending
against us. The Agreement provides that we will pay approximately
$119 million to resolve 2,970 of the over 26,000 pending cases and
claims, including the case in the District Court of Dallas County
(TX) for which there is a judgment of approximately $35 million
that is currently subject to appeal. Under the terms of the
Agreement, we will make two payments into a settlement fund held
in escrow with full funding to be completed on or before October
1, 2015.  The settlement and the distribution of settlement funds
to participating claimants are conditioned upon, among other
things, achieving minimum required claimant participation
thresholds. If the participation thresholds are not satisfied, we
may terminate the Agreement."


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Fretter and Korsgaard Class Actions Filed
------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 18, 2015,
Denise Fretter and Maria Korsgaard, claiming to represent a class
of current and former female field sales employees at Boston
Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation (BSNC), filed a lawsuit
against BSNC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. The plaintiffs allege gender discrimination in pay,
promotions and differential treatment against them and the
putative class.


BOULDER DOG: Recalls Turkey Sprinkles Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Dog Food Company, L.L.C. is voluntarily recalling the
Turkey Sprinkles (3 oz.) with a "Best By" date of "05/18/16,
05/28/2016 and 05/30/2016", a Lot Number of "743", and a UPC Code
of 899883001224 because the product has the potential of being
contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating
the product, and there is risk to humans who handle the product,
especially if the handler does not thoroughly wash his or her
hands after having contact with the Product or any surfaces
exposed to the product.

Healthy people handling the product contaminated by Salmonella
should monitor themselves for some or all of the following
symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal
cramping, and fever. Although rare, Salmonella may result in more
serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis,
arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract
symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact
with the Product should contact their healthcare providers
immediately.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the Product and has exhibited
these symptoms, you should contact your veterinarian immediately.

This voluntary recall is regarding Turkey Sprinkles 3 oz with a
"Best By" date of "05/18/16, 05/28/2016 and 05/30/2016", a Lot
Number of "743", and a UPC Code of 899883001224. The product is in
a clear poly bag. The UPC Code is located in the lower right hand
corner of the product label on the front of the bag. The "Best By"
date and Lot Number are a label on the back of the bag in the
center.

The recalled product consists of 7 bags that were distributed to
one retail customer in the State of Colorado, one retail customer
in the State of Virginia. Boulder Dog Food Company, L.L.C. has
identified and notified the customers to whom the recalled product
was sent. If you are in possession of the recalled product ("Best
By" date of "05/18/16, 05/28/16 or 05/30/16", a Lot #"743" and a
UPC Code of 899883001224 please discontinue use and return the
unused product to either the retailer where it was purchased or
directly to Boulder Dog Food Company L.L.C.

The recall is a result of a routine sampling program by the Food
and Drug Administration which revealed a "positive" test for
Salmonella in Turkey Sprinkles (3 oz.) with a "Best By" date of
"05/30/16", a Lot Number of "743", and a UPC Code of 899883001224.

One complaint was received from a consumer who had contact with
the product.

Consumers with questions may contact Boulder Dog Food Company,
L.L.C. at 303-449-2540 Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM and
5:00 PM (M.D.T.)


CALIFORNIA: San Quentin Jail Death Row Prisoners File Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco Bay View reports that six condemned men living in
extreme isolation in San Quentin's Adjustment Center filed a class
action lawsuit on June 19 seeking to end the inhumane and
degrading conditions in which they are confined and challenging
the complete absence of meaningful procedures by which they are
placed and retained in those conditions.

The class action lawsuit asserts violations of the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Plaintiffs also assert that the denial by CDCR (California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation) of any meaningful
review of their assignment to the Adjustment Center violates their
right to due process granted by the 14th Amendment.

Approximately 100 prisoners -- out of the 750 men condemned to
death in California -- are confined in San Quentin's Adjustment
Center.  There, they are confined alone in windowless cells for up
to 24 hours a day.

Plaintiffs and the class suffer the deleterious mental and
physical effects of extreme isolation and deprivation of basic
needs including adequate recreation, sleep, sunlight and human
contact.  Adjustment Center prisoners receive no educational or
vocational programming.  Plaintiffs are not allowed to make phone
calls, and all visits occur in booths that separate the prisoner
from his loved ones and deny any physical contact.

Plaintiffs are sentenced to this fate not as a court-imposed
punishment for their criminal convictions but as an administrative
assignment for their alleged affiliation with prison or streets
gangs.  California is the only state that subjects prisoners to
these isolating and inhumane conditions for extended periods of
time based solely on alleged gang affiliation.

CDCR assesses this affiliation by a process that relies primarily
on prison informants and does not require actual evidence that a
prisoner has participated in gang activity.  Nightmarishly, once
confined in the Adjustment Center, plaintiffs are denied any
meaningful review of the factors that condemned them to await the
execution of their sentence in brutal isolation.

The use of solitary confinement for even short periods is under
great scrutiny worldwide.  Isolation for as few as 15 days is
widely accepted to cause irreversible psychological harm, and
confinement in those conditions beyond 15 days is considered
torture under international law.

California is an outlier in the sheer length of time prisoners
spend on death row.  The average prisoner will spend nearly 25
years completing the appeals of his sentence.  As a result, the
men indefinitely confined in the Adjustment Center are faced with
the potential for a quarter of a century in isolation, without
ever being able to feel the caring touch of another human being.

This new lawsuit comes as the Pelican Bay State Prison class
action lawsuit, Ashker v. Brown, which alleges similar
constitutional violations for prisoners held for prolonged periods
in Secure Housing Units around the state, is set to go to trial in
December before federal Judge Claudia Wilken.


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Fire Prevention Fee Bills
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tori James, writing for Mymotherlode.com, reports that fire
prevention fee bills have been arriving in mailboxes across the
Mother Lode over the past several days.  Although it has been two
years since the annual charges were first mandated for over
800,000 rural Californians, it remains a hot topic.

When the fee was instigated in August 2012 it immediately sparked
criticism.  In 2013, Senator Tom Berryhill and Assemblymember
Frank Bigelow issued a joint statement promoting appealing it
during the confusion that entailed early billing attempts by the
Board of Equalization on behalf of CalFire.  Early last year,
Board of Equalization Vice Chair George Runner called on Governor
Jerry Brown to eliminate the charge, as it was enacted while the
state was facing multi-billion dollar deficits.

The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association has initiated steps
towards filing a class action lawsuit over the charge, which,
according to Mr. Runner, is now scheduled for an August hearing.
The suit's argument is, since collected funds are not used to
provide an actual service, the charge is not a fee but an illegal
tax.

"It doesn't provide any hose, or firefighter, or helicopter -- it
goes for fire prevention programs to instruct people how to clear
around their properties," Mr. Runner states, further opining that
rural residents are well aware of how to protect their homes and
meet their insurance requirements.  If legally recognized as a tax
instead of a fee, Mr. Runner says it was passed illegally as the
bill was handled through a simple majority vote instead of
securing a two-thirds majority that a tax requires.

Mr. Runner indicates those interested in joining the effort to
squelch the fire prevention fee may review the process on one of
two websites set up to educate the public and provide the
necessary forms.  "The only folks who will get the money back will
be those who protest it," he explains. In order to qualify for the
suit and to avoid penalties, residents should pay the bill before
it is past due, he cautions.  "It is important that people pay it.
As much as we don't like to," he empathizes. "We believe that the
system has to work out correctly and get this thing removed
through the courts."


CANADA: Quebec Lawyer Mulls Legionnaire's Outbreak Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jocelyne Richer, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that a
lawyer is seeking permission to file a class-action suit on behalf
of the families of 181 people who contracted legionnaires' disease
in Quebec City three years ago.

Fourteen of them lost their lives.  A coroner's report in 2013
said public health authorities did not have the proper tools to
combat the outbreak, which came 16 years after similar cases in
1996 prompted calls for change.  Catherine Rudel-Tessier said not
enough was done to bring about that improvement.

Lawyer Jean-Pierre Menard said on June 18 he believes he will get
the green light to proceed against local health authorities, the
provincial Health Department and a teachers' union that owned the
building where the disease originated in a cooling tower.

The 2012 epidemic, Mr. Menard said, "was one of the biggest in
modern times given the number of victims and how long it lasted."
"The victims have a chance of being compensated," he told a news
conference.  "We can't guarantee it (but) there are a certain
number of facts that are extremely telling."

The request is based primarily on the argument that health
authorities did not take the necessary steps to avoid the
outbreak, with Menard saying they were slow to respond and that
their management of the crisis was "chaotic and disorganized."
It was filed in Quebec Superior Court on June 17 by Solange Allen,
whose husband died in the outbreak.

"I would have liked some empathy from public health officials,"
Allen told the news conference.

She said the crisis never should have occurred.

"That's what's annoying, that's what we can't accept.  This can't
be allowed to happen again."

Mr. Menard said the suit, if it proceeds, could total as much as
$6 million.

A decision is expected in August.

Legionnaires' disease is contracted by breathing in small droplets
of water contaminated with bacteria.  Symptoms include coughs,
fever, chills and respiratory problems.  The deadly bacteria grow
in the stagnant water of cooling systems and spreads in little
droplets through air conditioning.  Heavy smokers and people with
weak immune systems are most at risk of catching the disease,
which is not contagious and cannot be transmitted from one person
to another.  It presents little or no risk to most people,
although elderly people are more vulnerable.


CANADA: Class Action Lawyer Willing to Continue Tar Pond Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Jala, writing for Cape Breton Post, reports that the lawyer
behind a failed class-action lawsuit relating to the effects of
pollution from Sydney's former steel plant and coke ovens says he
is willing to continue the fight.

But Ray Wagner says that depends on the interest of residents
affected by the contamination from a century of steel production
and coke ovens activity.  "We still believe in the merits of the
case," said Mr. Wagner, who spoke before a crowd of about 100
people at Menelik Hall in Whitney Pier on June 18.

"But we can't do it if people in the community are not
interested."

The Sydney native, who now lives in Halifax, organized the meeting
to outline the legal options now available to residents.

In April, the Supreme Court of Canada refused to hear an appeal of
the decision to quash the class-action lawsuit that was started in
2004 and certified by the courts in 2011.

However, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturned the lawsuit's
certification in December 2013.

Mr. Wagner, who was joined by several members of his law firm,
told the packed room of concerned residents that with the class-
action route now closed, there are still options available to
them.  He said they could pursue individual actions, engage in a
mass tort, form a registered society, or lobby politicians to make
cleaning up polluted communities an election issue.  But before
any new action is taken, Mr. Wagner said it is imperative there is
enough interest in the community to proceed.

"It's not a question of sitting back and seeing what happens,
because if we do that nothing will happen," he said.

While Mr. Wagner wouldn't give an exact number of how many people
would need to express interest before his firm continues the
fight, he did say it would probably have to be in the hundreds.

By the time the class-action lawsuit ended, approximately 450
people had signed on, including the four representative
plaintiffs.

Joe Pettipas, who is one of the four who collectively served as
the face of the lawsuit, said he is willing to continue with the
legal battle.

"I guess it's really up to the community now to make a decision
about whether they're going to band together," said Mr. Pettipas,
who along with the other representative plaintiffs is on the hook
for $736,000 in court costs.

"I still think we can win, but we have to do it together."

Meanwhile, Mr. Wagner has asked Sydney residents to let him and
his legal team know if they are interested in pursuing the matter.
He said they should know whether they will proceed or not by the
end of July.

TIMELINE

* 1901 - Steel mill established in Sydney

* 1967 - Black Friday, as owners announce closure of plant

* 1967 - Sysco formed as province takes over mill

* 1968 - Devco takes over coke ovens operation

* 1980 - Studies indicate plant-related pollution in harbour

* 2001 - Remaining steel plant operations permanently shut down

* 2004 - Class-action lawsuit filed in Nova Scotia Supreme Court

* 2007 - Tar ponds cleanup announced

* 2011 - Lawsuit certified by court

* 2013 - Tar ponds cleanup completed

* 2013 - Nova Scotia Court of Appeal overturns lawsuit
certification

* 2015 - Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear plaintiffs'
  appeal

* Today - Lawyer willing to continue legal fight, but only if
there's enough interest from Sydney residents


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Note Holders Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on December 30,
2014, six former holders of the Company's 2019 Notes filed a
putative class action against the Company on behalf of all former
holders who purchased their 2019 Notes before the Company issued
its notice of special early redemption at par in March 2013 and
sold their 2019 Notes after the Company issued the early
redemption notice but before the notes were redeemed at par in May
2013. The plaintiffs alleged that the Company breached the
indenture in connection with its special early par redemption,
causing the market value of the notes to decline and injuring the
class members when they sold their 2019 Notes. The plaintiffs
filed an amended class action complaint on March 2, 2015 and
subsequently entered into a stipulation by which the action was
dismissed with prejudice and without costs on March 16, 2015.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Plaintiffs Filed Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in
the July 2008 Common Stock Offering Litigation have filed a writ
of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.

On February 25, 2009, a putative class action was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors along with
certain underwriters of the Company's July 2008 common stock
offering. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September
11, 2009 alleging that the registration statement for the offering
contained material misstatements and omissions and seeking damages
under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 of an
unspecified amount and rescission. The action was transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on
October 13, 2009. Chesapeake and the officer and director
defendants moved for summary judgment on grounds of loss causation
and materiality on December 28, 2011, and the motion was granted
as to all claims as a matter of law on March 29, 2013.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
affirmed the dismissal on August 8, 2014 and denied the
plaintiffs' petition for rehearing on November 12, 2014. On April
10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a writ of certiorari with the
United States Supreme Court.


CHESWICK GENERATING: Pennsylvania Court Strikes Class Allegations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that underscoring the requirement
that class action plaintiffs clearly and objectively define the
putative class without reference to the underlying merits of
plaintiffs' claims, a federal district court in Pennsylvania
struck class allegations from a complaint in a suit against a
power plant.  The case was back in district court after the Third
Circuit reversed the trial court's dismissal, ruling that the
Clean Air Act did not preempt Plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint asserting nuisance,
negligence, trespass and strict liability claims arising from the
plant's emissions.  Plaintiffs defined the putative class as those
living within a one-mile radius of the power plant "who have
suffered similar damages to their property by the invasion of
particulates, chemicals, and gases from defendant's facility which
thereby caused damages to their real property."

The district court struck the class allegations because the class
definition contained two fatal flaws.  First, the Court held
Plaintiffs had proposed a prohibited "fail-safe" class, meaning
that determining whether individuals fall within the class would
turn on resolving "ultimate issues of liability -- damage and
causation."  Here, class membership would have turned on whether
(1) that person was injured and (2) Defendant's emissions caused
the injury.  Second, the Court concluded that requiring class
members' injuries to be "similar" to Plaintiffs' was too
subjective a standard to apply, therefore falling short of the
class "definiteness" requirement courts have found implicit in the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.


CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS: September 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
IF YOU PURCHASED CHINA MEDIAEXPRESS HOLDINGS, INC. COMMON STOCK OR
CALL OPTIONS AND/OR SOLD CCME PUT OPTIONS FROM APRIL 1, 2010
THROUGH MARCH 11, 2011, INCLUSIVE, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
PAYMENT FROM THIS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on June 11 disclosed that a
Settlement has been reached in a series of proposed class action
lawsuits in connection with alleged misstatements in the financial
statements and other public statements of China MediaExpress
Holdings, Inc.  The Court in charge of the case is the United
States District Court of the Southern District of New York, and
the case is known as In re China MediaExpress Holdings, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Civil Action No.11-CV-0804 (VM).  The
entities that sued and represented the Class in this Action are
Irrevocable Trust FBO Lansing Davis under agreement dated
10/1/1979 and the Davis Partnership LP, as well as John Haughton,
Ethan Lamar Pierce, and John Shaffer and one of the defendants
that has been sued, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu (Hong Kong
Partnership, has entered into a proposed settlement.  DTT denies
all of the allegations, and that it did anything wrong.  DTT
denies that any of the statements in its audit report were
materially false and misleading, and further denies that DTT acted
with scienter in making any of these statements.  DTT also denies
that any of its statements caused CCME shares to trade at
artificially high prices, or that any Class Members suffered
damages related to any of DTT's statements or conduct.  The Court
did not decide in favor of the Class Representatives or DTT.
Instead, the lawyers for both sides of the Lawsuit, with the
assistance of an experienced mediator, have negotiated a
settlement that they believe is in the best interests of their
respective clients.

How Do I Know if I Am Part of the Settlement? The Settlement
includes a "Class" of all Persons who purchased CCME common stock
and/or call options, and/or sold put options between April 1, 2010
and March 11, 2011.  You are a Class Member only if you purchased
shares of CCME common stock and/or call options, and/or sold put
options between April 1, 2010 and March 11, 2011 inclusive.  If
you sold shares of CCME common stock and/or call options, and/or
purchased put options between April 1, 2010 and March 11, 2011,
inclusive, that alone does not make you a Class Member.

What Does the Settlement Provide? The Settlement provides for
$12,000,000 in cash to be paid pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement.  Based on the information currently available to the
Class Representatives and the analysis performed by its damage
consultants, it is estimated that if Class Members submit claims
for 100% of the shares and options eligible for distribution under
the Plan of Allocation, the estimated average distribution per
share of common stock will be approximately $0.26 before deduction
of Court-approved fees, charges and expenses.  Historically,
actual claims rates are less than 100%, which result in higher
distributions per share.  A Class Member's actual recovery will be
a proportion of the Net Settlement Fund determined by that
claimant's recognized claim as compared to the total "Recognized
Claims" of all Class Members who submit valid Proof of Claim and
Release forms.  An individual Class Member's actual recovery will
depend on, for example: (i) the total number of claims submitted;
(ii) when the Class Member purchased CCME common stock or call
options and/or sold put options during the Class Period; (iii) the
purchase price paid for common stock or call options or the sales
price of put options sold; and (iv) whether the CCME common stock,
put options and/or call options were held at the end of the Class
Period or sold during the Class Period or sold after the Class
Period (and if sold, when it was sold and the amount received).

How Do I Get a Payment? To qualify for payment, you must be an
eligible Class Member and you must send in a Proof of Claim.
Claim forms are available at www.ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com
by calling 1-866-985-7592, sending an email to
info@ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com or by writing to CCME
Securities Litigation Claims Administrator, P.O. Box 40008,
College Station, TX 77842-4008.  Read the Proof of Claim
instructions carefully, fill out the form, include all the
documents the form asks for, sign it, and mail it so that it is
postmarked no later than October 2, 2015.

What are My Other Rights and Options? Unless you exclude yourself,
you are staying in the Class, and that means that you cannot sue,
continue to sue, or be part of any other lawsuit against DTT about
the same issues in this case or that could have been asserted in
this case.  All of the Court's orders will apply to you and
legally bind you and you will release DTT and related parties from
any and all claims and causes of action of every nature and
description, whether arising under federal, state, statutory,
regulatory, common, foreign or other law, that arise in any way
from or relate to the Action or CCME.  If you do not want a
payment from the Settlement, but you want to keep any right you
may have to sue or continue to sue DTT and related parties on your
own about the legal claims released by this Settlement you must
exclude yourself from the Class.  Exclusion requests must be
received no later than August 14, 2015.  If you are a Class Member
(and have not excluded yourself from the Class), you can object to
the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or Class Counsel's request
for an award of attorneys' fees, charges and expenses in
representing the Class.  You may also ask the Court for permission
to speak at the Settlement Hearing.  Objections and requests to
appear and speak at the Settlement Hearing must be received no
later than August 14, 2015.  Specific information regarding these
rights and options, and how to exercise them, are provided in the
Settlement Notice and Settlement Agreement, both of which are
available at www.ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com

When and Where Will the Court Decide Whether to Approve the
Settlement? The Court will hold the Settlement Hearing at 9:30
a.m., on September 18, 2015, in Courtroom 11B of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, NY 10007-1312.  At this hearing, the Court will
consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The Court will also consider whether to approve the Plan of
Allocation and Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys'
fees in the amount of 33.33% of the Settlement Fund and expenses
not to exceed $400,000 (to be paid from the Settlement Fund) plus
interest. If these amounts are approved by the Court, the average
cost per share of common stock will be approximately $0.09.

How Do I Get More Information? You can call (206) 623-7292 or
write to Class Counsel at the following address: Chris O'Hara,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, 1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300,
Seattle, WA 98101, or by email at CCMEsettlement@hbsslaw.com
You can also visit the Claims Administrator's website at
www.ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com call the Claims Administrator
toll-free at 1-866-985-7592, or send an email to the Claims
Administrator at info@ChinaMediaExpressSettlement.com


CLIFFS NATURAL: Amended Class Action Complaint Filed
----------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in a class action lawsuit against Cliffs Natural
Resources Inc. was ordered to file and did file an amended
complaint on March 31, 2015, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company said, "In May 2014, alleged purchasers of our common
shares filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio against us and certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company. The action is captioned
Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and Its
Division of Investment v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al.,
No. 1:14-CV-1031. The action asserts violations of the federal
securities laws based on alleged false or misleading statements or
omissions during the period of March 14, 2012 to March 26, 2013,
regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine in Qu‚bec, Canada, and
the impact of those operations on our finances and outlook,
including sustainability of the dividend, and that the alleged
misstatements caused our common shares to trade at artificially
inflated prices. The lawsuit seeks class certification and an
award of monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified
amount, along with costs of suit and attorneys' fees. On October
21, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action, which
was denied as moot. Plaintiff was ordered to file and did file an
amended complaint on March 31, 2015. The lawsuit has been referred
to our insurance carriers."


CLIFFS NATURAL: Rosenberg Action Referred to Insurance Carriers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cliffs Natural Resources Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action
lawsuit by Rosenberg has been referred to the Company's insurance
carriers.

The Company said, "In June 2014, an alleged purchaser of the
depositary shares issued by Cliffs in a public offering in
February 2013 filed a putative class action, which is captioned
Rosenberg v. Cliffs Natural Resources Inc., et al., and after a
round of removal and remand motions, is now pending in Cuyahoga
County Court of Common Pleas, No. CV-14-828140. The suit asserts
claims against us, certain current and former officers and
directors of the Company, and several underwriters of the
offering, alleging disclosure violations in the registration
statement regarding operations at our Bloom Lake mine and the
impact of those operations on our finances and outlook. This
action seeks class certification and monetary relief in an
unspecified amount, along with costs of suit and attorneys' fees.
This lawsuit has been referred to our insurance carriers."


COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Softsoap Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group disclosed that the parties on June 19 announced the
preliminary approval of a settlement agreement in a class action
lawsuit concerning the labeling and marketing of certain liquid
hand soap products from 1992 to 2015, In re: Colgate-Palmolive
Softsoap Antibacterial Hand Soap Marketing & Sales Practices
Litigation in the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire.  The hearing on final approval of the settlement is
scheduled for September 28, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. at the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire, 55
Pleasant Street Room 110, Concord, NH 03301.

The Company denies the plaintiffs' allegations of deceptive
labeling and marketing of liquid hand soaps, but the parties have
agreed to resolve the class action to remove the burden, expense
and uncertainty of litigation.  Colgate's current Softsoap liquid
hand soap products do not make use of the ingredient, labeling or
marketing statements at issue in the action.

The settlement applies to persons who purchased the affected
products in the United States from January 1, 1992 to June 19.
Additional information, including the deadline for submitting any
objections to the settlement, is available at
www.SoftSoapAntibacterialClassActionSettlement.com

The proposed settlement will be reviewed by Judge Paul J.
Barbadoro of the United States District Court for the District of
New Hampshire, where the consolidated class action lawsuit is
pending.  Further information concerning the details of the
settlement are available from the court's docket, Case No. 1:12-
md-02320-PB.


COLLINS & 74TH: Faces "Sarmiento" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Sarmiento, Jose L. Mendez, and other similarly-situated
individuals v. Collins & 74th Street, Inc. d/b/a M & L Food
Market, and Mohamed S. Hossain, Case No. 1:15-cv-22429-JEM (S.D.
Fla., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in retail business that operates a
mini-market, groceries and food-to-go store in Miami Beach,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CONTINENTAL RESOURCES: Evidentiary Hearing Set for Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiffs'
Amended Motion for Class Certification was set for evidentiary
hearing on June 1, 2015.

In November 2010, an alleged class action was filed against the
Company alleging the Company improperly deducted post-production
costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs and other royalty interest
owners as categorized in the petition from crude oil and natural
gas wells located in Oklahoma. The plaintiffs have alleged a
number of claims, including breach of contract, fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and seek
recovery of compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and
attorney fees on behalf of the alleged class. The Company has
responded to the petition, denied the allegations and raised a
number of affirmative defenses. Discovery is ongoing and
information and documents continue to be exchanged.

The Company is not currently able to estimate a reasonably
possible loss or range of loss or what impact, if any, the action
will have on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matter, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, the production years involved, and the ultimate
potential outcome of the matter. The class has not been certified.

Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for Class Certification was set for
evidentiary hearing on June 1, 2015. Plaintiffs have indicated
that if the class is certified they may seek damages in excess of
$165 million which may increase with the passage of time, a
majority of which would be comprised of interest. The Company
disputes plaintiffs' claims, disputes that the case meets the
requirements for a class action and is vigorously defending the
case.


CORDISH COS: Judge Dismisses Racial Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Hendricks, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by two
African-American men who alleged a pattern of racial
discrimination at the Kansas City Power & Light District.

Senior Judge Ortrie Smith threw out the second count of the two-
count lawsuit filed last year on behalf of Dante A.R. Combs and
Adam S. Williams.  The other count was dismissed earlier.

Combs, of Overland Park, and Mr. Williams, of Kansas City, claimed
they were victims of discrimination while visiting the district in
2010 and 2011 -- Mr. Combs on three occasions and Mr. Williams
once.

Judge Smith, in his order filed in U.S. District Court in Kansas
City, threw out the case on both a legal technicality and because
he found no direct evidence to support their claims against Power
& Light owner Cordish Companies and its affiliates.

The Kansas City allegations recently became a matter of discussion
in Philadelphia, where minority leaders are considering whether to
oppose a casino that Cordish plans to build.

Cordish spokesman Nick Benjamin said the company was pleased with
the judge's ruling.  Linda Dickens, the attorney representing
Combs and Williams, said she will ask the judge to reconsider and
intends to appeal to a higher court if he refuses.

"This dismissal does not detract," Ms. Dickens said, "from the
powerful testimony by multiple Power & Light ex-employees who
describe under oath when and how they were told to keep blacks out
of Power & Light."

Her clients' case is based partly on testimony from former
district employees who, in sworn depositions, testified that
managers urged them to limit the number of black patrons in the
downtown entertainment area's bars and restaurants.

Among the supposed tactics was enforcement of a dress code
allegedly aimed at excluding African-American men.  City officials
also found fault with enforcement of the dress code several years
ago, but ultimately settled with the company.  The city human
relations director said there have been no complaints in recent
years.

Another alleged ruse, the federal suit contended, was to make up
excuses for why black patrons were denied entrance to clubs, such
as claims that the establishments were overbooked or that the
customer's reservation had been lost.

Mr. Combs alleged that he was the victim of both tactics.  But the
central allegation by both men was that Cordish and its affiliates
employed so-called "rabbits": white men hired to start arguments
with black men so that district security could intervene and order
the latter to leave, while the white guy would go on to start more
trouble with others.

Both plaintiffs claimed to have been victims of the tactic.
Mr. Combs claimed it happened to him outside a club in the area
when a white man bumped into him and caused him to drop his
cellphone.  Mr. Williams contended that while he was inside the
Maker's Mark bar and restaurant, a white man confronted him after
Mr. Williams allegedly stared at the man's girlfriend.

Judge Smith said that the men's attorney failed to prove that a
rabbit was involved in either altercation.  The man who scuffled
with Mr. Williams testified that he worked for the city of Olathe
and was not employed as a rabbit.

At best, Judge Smith wrote, Ms. Dickens introduced evidence that a
rabbit was allegedly used to pick fights at another club in the
district, the Mosaic Lounge.  But there were no allegations about
the use of rabbits at Mosaic in the federal lawsuit.

Ms. Dickens also represents a former Mosaic manager, Glen
Cusimano, in a Jackson County lawsuit.  Mr. Cusimano alleges that
while working at Mosaic, his supervisor instructed him to hire a
rabbit to help reduce the number of African Americans in the club.

Cordish has previously denied it had anything to do with the
practice and fired Mr. Cusimano, an African American, for other
reasons.

His case is scheduled for trial on Nov. 30.  Jury selection in the
federal case had been set to begin [in July].

The lawsuits' allegations of past racial bias at Cordish's Kansas
City operations have recently become an issue in Philadelphia,
where Cordish wants to build a $475 million hotel and casino
complex on the city's south side.

The NAACP chapter was recently on the verge of opposing the
project by condemning the company's practice at a news conference
and issuing a 21-page report titled "Unwelcome: History of
Allegations of Racial Discrimination By the Cordish Cos."

Much of the report was based on allegations contained within the
two Kansas City lawsuits, as well as other complaints filed
against Cordish for allegedly discriminatory practices in Kansas
City and Louisville, Ky.

Ms. Dickens flew in to attend the June 18 event.  But as news
media began to gather for the event at Philadelphia City Hall, the
press briefing "unraveled," as The Philadelphia Inquirer reported,
when NAACP chapter president Rodney Muhammad didn't show up.

Mr. Muhammad later told The Inquirer that he decided to skip the
event after getting calls from Mayor Michael Nutter and the
national NAACP, whom Nutter had also contacted.

Mr. Nutter denied trying to kill release of the report in advance
of city approvals for the project, but rather asked to discuss the
situation with the local NAACP president before he went ahead.

According to the newspaper, Mr. Muhammad said he hadn't realized
that the report, authored by a New York-based public policy firm,
was commissioned by a labor union that represents hotel and casino
properties.

Jason Ortiz, the managing director of that firm, Metropolitan
Public Strategies, declined The Star's request for comment.

Some Philadelphia leaders speculated that by highlighting the
allegations, the union, Unite Here, was seeking an advantage in
representing future casino workers.

A source with close ties to Unite Here told The Star that the real
intent was to torpedo the Cordish casino, because building it will
mean demolishing a Holiday Inn on the site that now employs 70
union workers.

But Ms. Dickens said it was more complicated than that, now that
she reflects back on her initial discussion with Mr. Ortiz a month
ago when he called to ask about the lawsuits she had filed.

"He said at that time he was doing some background for two labor
unions, and said a hotel is going to be demolished in order to
make room for a new hotel that Cordish would be putting up,"
Ms. Dickens said.

She said Mr. Ortiz told her that a union had offered Cordish a
deal: "We won't oppose your project if you agree to be a union
shop and Cordish said no."

A source within the company told The Star that Cordish fully
expects that the casino's thousands of new employees will be
represented by a union.  But one part of Ms. Dickens' account rang
true, he said.  Unite Here had offered labor peace in each
exchange for a leg up over other unions in representing the
workforce, and Cordish refused.

Again, Mr. Ortiz declined to address the issue and a spokesman for
the Unite Here local representing hotel and food service workers
in Philadelphia did not immediately return phone calls seeking
comment.


CROSSMARK INC: $1.4MM Tripp Settlement Gets Final Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick issued on June 18, 2015,
a judgment and order granting final approval of a class action
settlement in CLAY TRIPP, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CROSSMARK, INC.,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-03480-WHO, (N.D. Cal.), which
provides that:

No objection was filed to the settlement but three Settlement
Class Members opted out of the Settlement. Accordingly, the Court
determined that all Settlement Class Members other than the three
opt-outs, Barbara Martin, Diane Bechtold and Kim Overbeck, are
bound by the Judgment and Final Order.

The Court held that settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate
in all respects, and is the product of good faith, arm's length
negotiations between the parties, and fully complies with all
applicable provisions of law. The Court, therefore finally and
unconditionally approved the Settlement, and specifically:

a. Approves the Gross Settlement Amount of $1,400,000, plus the
employer's share of payroll taxes, as fair, reasonable, and
adequate. Within the deadline set forth in the Settlement
Agreement and Release ("Settlement Agreement"), Defendants must
deposit with the Claims Administrator the amount required to fund
all payments required by the Judgment and Final Order;

b. Approved that $15,000 of the Gross Settlement Amount be
allocated to resolve PAGA claims, and that under Labor Code
section 2699(i), 75% of that amount, or $11,250, be paid to the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency;

c. Approved that $8,000 each be paid to the named Plaintiffs and
Settlement Class Representatives Tripp and Solberg and $5,000 to
named Plaintiff and Settlement Class Representative Smith in
exchange for each providing Defendants with a general release of
claims and as a service award, which is justified by the time and
effort expended by each of the named Plaintiffs on behalf of the
Settlement Class and the risk each assumed in bringing this
action. These amounts will be paid according to the terms of the
Settlement Agreement;

d. Approved Class Counsel's attorneys' fee request of $350,000,
which represents less than Class Counsel's actual lodestar, as
fair and reasonable. Class Counsel's attorneys' fees will be paid
according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement;

e. Approved Class Counsels' request for reimbursement of
litigation expenses of up to $18,566.80, which will be paid
according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement;

f. Approved payment to CPT Group, the Claims Administrator, of
$50,000 as costs and expenses of settlement administration. The
requested payment is reasonable and will be paid according to the
terms of the Settlement Agreement;

g. Approved distribution of any funds represented by uncashed
settlement checks to any later discovered Settlement Class Members
or Settlement Class Members who submit late but otherwise valid
clams. If there are no such recipients or if any funds remain, all
remaining amounts will be paid to the California Department of
Industrial Relations Labor Code Sec. 96.7 Unpaid Wage Fund; and

h. Approved as timely any otherwise valid claims postmarked no
later than June 17, 2015 and the payment from the Net Settlement
Fund of amounts determined by the Claims Administrator to be due
to Settlement Class Members who are determined to be Authorized
Claimants in the time and manner specified in the Settlement
Agreement.

"This action shall be dismissed with prejudice," wrote Judge
Orrick his order, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1JPxcAo from leagle.com.  "The consolidated action
Smith v. Crossmark, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-04461 WHO, shall be
dismissed with prejudice," he added.


CTPARTNERS: Faces Sexual Discrimination Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugan, writing for New York Post, reports that the hits keep
coming for embattled Wall Street recruiter CTPartners.  The
executive search firm, whose stock has been battered by sexual
discrimination allegations, is facing fresh accusations of
wrongdoing in new court papers filed, adding to its litany of
woes.

Shareholders filed an amended class-action suit that claims former
CEO Brian Sullivan and COO William Keneally withheld information
about discrimination allegations to "artificially inflate" the
stock price.  The complaint, filed in Manhattan federal court,
comes as the shares have been in a free-fall for six months.

The stock, which closed at an all-time low of $1.34 on June 18,
has plunged 93 percent drop since December, when The Post first
reported the company is facing an investigation by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission into whether senior executives
stripped women of profitable accounts and discriminated against
female employees.

Mr. Sullivan, who stepped down amid the scandal, also subjected
his employees to lewd behavior, including stripping naked at a
boozy company event in 2012, workers alleged in the complaint
filed with the EEOC.

In the amended shareholder complaint, five former employees
describe a den of discrimination where men did little work and saw
few consequences, while women were let go when the company didn't
want to pay them.

One former employee claims that top executives would muscle into
women's assignments in order to get a portion of the finder's fee
even if they did no work.

An unnamed male managing partner would read the newspaper during
client calls and disparaged a woman to a client while they were
both on a call -- and still he got a 65 percent cut of the fee,
according to the complaint.

When the woman complained to human resources, she was told, "It's
going to be wasting your breath if you talk to Brian [Sullivan]
about it," the suit said.

Another former employee claims she was the 13th woman over the age
of 40 to be let go in 18 months.  Men who hadn't made billings in
three years stayed on the company's dole while women who brought
in $500,000 were let go without the pay they had earned, according
to the suit.

"We wouldn't comment on any pending litigation," Jennifer Silver,
a CTPartners spokeswoman, told The Post.


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Settlement Reached in Securities Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Delcath Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties have
agreed to a settlement in principle subject to the Court's
approval in the Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation,
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
(Case No. 13-cv-3116).

On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan
Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,
v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-
03116-LGS.  On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,
Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

At a hearing on August 2, 2013, the Court consolidated the Green
and Connico actions under the caption In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-3116, appointed Lead Plaintiff,
Delcath Investor Group, and approved Pomerantz Grossman Hufford
Dahlstrom & Gross LLP as Lead Plaintiff's choice of counsel.

On September 18, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, naming the Company and Eamonn P. Hobbs as defendants
(the "Defendants").  The consolidated amended complaint asserts
that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by allegedly making false and
misleading statements or omissions regarding the Company's New
Drug Application for its Melblez Kit (Melblez (melphalan) for
Injection for use with the Delcath Hepatic Delivery System), for
the treatment of patients with unresectable metastatic ocular
melanoma in the liver.  The putative class period alleged in the
amended complaint is April 21, 2010 through and including
September 13, 2013. Lead Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees and
other costs.  On October 31, 2013, Defendants filed their motion
to dismiss, which was subsequently denied on June 27, 2014.  On
July 25, 2014, Defendants filed their respective answers to Lead
Plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint.  On July 29, 2014, the
Court held a scheduling conference setting forth a case management
plan.  The parties are proceeding with discovery.

On October 15, 2014, Lead Plaintiff served Defendants with a
Motion for Class Certification to which Defendants served an
opposition on December 16, 2014.  On February 4, 2015, Lead
Plaintiff served Defendants with a reply in support of the Motion
for Class Certification and the parties filed all class
certification pleadings with the Court.  The parties have agreed
to a settlement in principle subject to the Court's approval.

The Company believes that the In re Delcath Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation action lacks merit and to the extent the
settlement does not become final intends to defend the case
vigorously.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Appeal Pending in Weinstat Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the appeal is
pending in the class action filed by Marvin Weinstat, DDS and
Richard Nathan, DDS.

On June 18, 2004, Marvin Weinstat, DDS and Richard Nathan, DDS
filed a class action suit in San Francisco County, California
alleging that the Company misrepresented that its Cavitron(R)
ultrasonic scalers are suitable for use in oral surgical
procedures. The Complaint seeks a recall of the product and refund
of its purchase price to dentists who have purchased it for use in
oral surgery. The Court certified the case as a class action in
June 2006 with respect to the breach of warranty and unfair
business practices claims. The class that was certified is defined
as California dental professionals who, at any time during the
period beginning June 18, 2000 through September 14, 2012,
purchased and used one or more Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scalers for
the performance of oral surgical procedures on their patients,
which Cavitrons(R) were accompanied by Directions for Use that
"Indicated" Cavitron(R) use for "periodontal debridement for all
types of periodontal disease." The case went to trial in September
2013, and on January 22, 2014, the San Francisco Superior Court
issued its decision in the Company's favor, rejecting all of the
plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs have appealed the Superior
Court's decision, and the appeal is now pending. The Company is
defending against this appeal.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: Class Cert. Motion Hearing Rescheduled
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENTSPLY International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court
rescheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' class certification motion in
the lawsuit filed by Carole Hildebrand, DDS and Robert Jaffin,
DDS.

On December 12, 2006, a Complaint was filed by Carole Hildebrand,
DDS and Robert Jaffin, DDS in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(the Plaintiffs subsequently added Dr. Mitchell Goldman as a named
class representative).  The case was filed by the same law firm
that filed the Weinstat case in California.  The Complaint asserts
putative class action claims on behalf of dentists located in New
Jersey and Pennsylvania. The Complaint seeks damages and asserts
that the Company's Cavitron(R) ultrasonic scaler was negligently
designed and sold in breach of contract and warranty arising from
misrepresentations about the potential uses of the product because
it cannot assure the delivery of potable or sterile water.
Following grant of a Company Motion and dismissal of the case for
lack of jurisdiction, the plaintiffs filed a second complaint
under the name of Dr. Hildebrand's corporate practice, Center City
Periodontists, asserting the same allegations (this case is now
proceeding under the name "Center City Periodontists"). The
plaintiffs moved to have the case certified as a class action, to
which the Company has objected and filed its brief. The Court
subsequently granted a Motion filed by the Company and dismissed
plaintiffs' New Jersey Consumer Fraud and negligent design claims,
leaving only a breach of express warranty claim, in response to
which the Company has filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. The
Court has rescheduled a hearing to early May 2015 on plaintiffs'
class certification motion.


DIRECTV: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over NFL Sunday Ticket
------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reports that a big
part of the success of DirecTV has been a deal with the National
Football League for rights to carry broadcasts of all of the
league's out-of-market games.  The satellite giant pays $1.5
billion a year for these rights.  They are now being challenged in
a class-action lawsuit alleging violations of federal antitrust
law.

A class of fans led by Thomas Abrahamian launched the lawsuit on
June 17.  The case follows similar class actions targeting the
broadcast arrangements made for professional baseball and hockey
leagues.  A federal judge agreed to certify those class actions in
May, and afterward, the NHL came to a proposed settlement that
would result in its fans having the option to purchase their
favorite teams' out-of-market games at a discounted price.

Now, it's time for the NFL to face the same sort of antitrust
scrutiny over its TV rights deals.  The wave of litigation can in
some respects be traced to a 2010 Supreme Court ruling that NFL
teams are capable of conspiring when making licensing deals.

The newest lawsuit objects to the way that NFL teams divide
markets, enforce blackouts, and end up costing consumers who might
only wish to see certain games instead of bundles.

"Thus, a Cleveland Browns fan living in California cannot watch
the Browns play, except occasional games on network television,
unless he purchases the entire package of League games from NFL
Sunday Ticket," states the complaint.

DirecTV -- which was also a co-defendant in the actions targeting
NHL and MLB -- is said to have "joined the conspiracy" by
enforcing regional blackout agreements. (Last September, the FCC
voted to end a rule that gave the NFL cover for its blackouts.)

In the absence of territorial restrictions, the lawsuit suggests
that teams would be competing on the licensing front and
increasing the availability of games "over a wider range of media,
including cable, the internet, and wireless devices."

If the lawsuit follows the path of the NHL case, fans of
professional football might have have the option of having a
cheaper way to watch their favorite team instead of their current
"all-or-nothing" choice.

And if the lawsuit follows the path of the MLB case -- which
hasn't settled -- the NFL could be headed to trial to present the
pro-competitive effects of bundled packages.  When arguing with
the FCC for the continuation of the blackout rule, for instance,
the league said that territorial restrictions ensured more games
are televised.

The NFL reaps billions from DirecTV for satellite rights, billions
more from Verizon for mobile rights, and most recently, a good
chunk of money from Yahoo for the streaming rights to a single
game between two of the league's worst-performing franchises.  The
newest lawsuit asks for an injunction that could put this at risk.


E-Z-GO: Recalls Golf Cars, Shuttles and Off-Road Utility Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
E-Z-GO, a division of Textron Inc. and Textron Specialized
Vehicles Inc., of Augusta, Ga., announced a voluntary recall of
about 8,200, Golf cars, shuttles and off-road utility vehicles.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The gas tank can leak, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves E-Z-GO gas-powered TXT Fleet golf cars, E-Z-
GO Freedom TXT, TXT2+2 and Valor golf cars, E-Z-GO Express, E-Z-GO
Terrain and Cushman Shuttle vehicles with bench seats for the
driver and passengers. The E-Z-GO Terrain and the Cushman Shuttle
have a cargo bed on the back.  The recalled vehicles have date
codes ranging from G2015 through L0515.  E-Z-GO or Cushman and the
model name are printed on the side and front panels of the
vehicles. Date codes are printed on a plate or label inside the
cab below the driver's seat.  The first letter of the date code
identifies the month of production in sequence, with G
corresponding to January and L to May. There is no letter I. The
first two numbers in the date code identify the two-digit day of
production and the final two numbers identify the two-digit year
of production.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/QlZYrF

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at E-Z-GO and Cushman dealers nationwide from January 2015 through
May 2015 for between $5,300 and $12,100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and
contact E-Z-GO or an authorized dealer for a free repair. E-Z-GO
and E-Z-GO dealers are contacting known owners.


EGS FINANCIAL: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Rufo, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
EGS Financial Care, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04718-JLL-JAD (D.N.J.,
June 29, 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


ELGIN, TX: Faces Red Light Camera Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Patty Finney, writing for Elgin Courier, reports that Elgin City
Council members on June 18 unanimously approved a letter of
agreement for legal services with Taylor, Olson, Adkins, Sralla,
Elam attorneys and counselors in defense of a recently filed class
action case regarding red light cameras.

James H. Watson vs. Allen, et al, filed April 28, in the 153rd
Judicial District County in Tarrant County, names approximately 70
cities, including Elgin, in a class action suit contesting the
constitutionality of red light cameras.

The City Council action authorized City Attorney Charlie
Crossfield to sign the letter of agreement on behalf of the City.
Mr. Watson, a resident of Shreveport, La., was charged on Oct. 31,
2014, in Southlake for a red light camera ticket, a $75 penalty.
He claimed the face shown on the camera cannot be proven 'beyond a
reasonable doubt' to be him and that he was not even in Texas when
the offense allegedly occurred.

Mr. Crossfield told City Council members and guests at the meeting
that the offense is not a criminal case.  "It is just a civil
case, which is not required to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
-- just a more than likely not proven," said Mr. Crossfield.

Among the 70 or more cities included in the class action suit are
Austin, Bastrop, Hutto and Round Rock.  Also names in the suit are
the foreign-owned companies, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.,
American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (also American Traffic Solutions,
LLC), Xerox State and Local Solutions, Inc. and the State of Texas
Attorney General Ken Paxton.

The red light camera laws were created on Sept. 7, 2007.
According to the filed documents, Elgin received $1,510,328.63
over the last two years in red light camera penalties.

Mr. Watson, in the documents filed, stated Chapter 707 of the
Transportation Code changes the act of running a red light from
being a misdemeanor criminal charge to being a civil penalty,
which usurps the rights guaranteed under the Texas Constitution to
a trial by an impartial jury, the right to cross examine,
presumption of innocence, and the right against self-
incrimination.

The civil penalty seeks to impose a penalty on registered vehicle
owner for criminal conduct without giving the owner the rights of
one accused of a crime, stated the suit.

The suit also claims mail fraud in that the penalty notice states
the registered owner is liable for the penalty plus it fails to
include the penalty, if not paid, can be turned over to a
collection agency and possibly ruin the credit of the vehicle
owner.

Mr. Crossfield said he felt very positive Elgin would overcome the
suit.  He added that working with attorneys that are representing
more than just Elgin would save the city money in attorney fees
since the hourly rate would be split amongst several cities.

Elgin has had red light cameras since 2007 according to Finance
Director Buck LaQuey.  He reported that in 2014, the city had
$715,000 in gross income from red light camera penalties.

Of the gross income, $498,000 was paid out in expenses, including
the half the state gets and the administration expenses involved
in the ticketing process.

The leftover $218,000 has been used to purchase anything to do
with police and traffic.

"It has been very beneficial for the City of Elgin," said
Mr. LaQuey.  The city purchased two new police cruisers, ordered
three for this coming year and purchased the speed trailer seen
around town.

The money has also been used for police officer overtime, radios
and tazers.


ELITE BENEFIT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Olson" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Olson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Elite Benefit Group LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-80894-DMM
(S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls to the cellular telephones of
the Plaintiff and others using an automatic telephone dialing
system and an artificial or prerecorded voice, as well as for
marketing calls made to persons who have registered their
telephone number on the National Do Not Call List.

Elite Benefit Group LLC is a call-center based insurance agency
engaged in the business of placing telemarketing calls to
potential customers, and then attempting to sell them insurance
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott David Owens, Esq,
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com

         - and -

      Bret L. Lusskin, Esq.
      BRET LUSSKIN, P.A
      20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (954) 454-5841
      Facsimile: (954) 454-5844
      E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com


ENERGY CORP: Magistrate Judge Upholds Verdict in Royalties Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal magistrate judge has upheld a verdict in favor of a
class of landowners who claimed they were shortchanged on
royalties from an oil and gas company drilling on their property.

In the class action, Pollock v. Energy Corp. of America, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District of
Pennsylvania denied Energy Corp. of America's motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict on an award of roughly $911,000 to the
class members.

According to Judge Mitchell's memorandum, the plaintiffs sued ECA
for breach of contract, contending that the company improperly
deducted gas transportation and marketing costs from the royalties
set forth in their leasing agreements with the company.  ECA
argued there was no evidence that class members did not receive
their full share of the royalties.

Under Pennsylvania law, in order for a gas producer to be able to
deduct those expenses, it must incur the expenses before taking
the deduction.  Judge Mitchell said that was not the case in the
matter at hand.

"Plaintiffs' theory for recovery was that it was illegal for ECA
to deduct post-production charges incurred after it sold the gas.
If the jury found that the post-production charges were incurred
after the gas was sold and title passed, then ECA was not
permitted to deduct the charges under any circumstances and
regardless of whether ECA had to absorb the post-production
costs," Judge Mitchell said.

"Moreover, the jury received evidence that ECA deducted post-
production charges from plaintiffs' royalties," he continued.
"Funds paid for the gas were deposited into an ECA-controlled
account, and plaintiffs' royalty statements reflected deductions
taken for post-production costs including interstate
transportation charges and marketing fees.  Accordingly, ECA's
argument is rejected."

ECA also argued there was not enough evidence to conclude that it
did not incur charges while it still had the gas title.

"This argument conflates the issues before the jury, as the
question posed was not whether charges were not incurred by ECA
while ECA held title, but rather, whether ECA deducted charges
incurred after it sold the gas and title passed or deducted
charges it did not incur," Judge Mitchell said.  "The court finds
that there was sufficient evidence of record for a jury to
determine that ECA breached the leases by improperly deducting
these post-production charges."

Judge Mitchell said testimony from a plaintiff's expert showed the
title passed at the receipt pool and before interstate
transportation expenses were incurred.

"Therefore it was reasonable for the jury to determine it was
improper for ECA to deduct interstate transportation charges, as
such charges were incurred after title passed to the third-party
purchasers," Judge Mitchell said.

The plaintiffs also had to prove the marketing costs were incurred
after the title had passed.

According to Judge Mitchell, the jury learned that another company
-- EMCO, with which ECA had a long-term sales contract -- incurred
the marketing costs when it sold the gas to third-party
purchasers.

Judge Mitchell said it was reasonable for the jury to conclude
that ECA never incurred marketing expenses in a way that would
allow it to deduct from the royalties.

In its final issue, ECA claimed it was entitled to judgment
notwithstanding the verdict because the class members did not
prove that the amount of royalties they received was any less than
what they would have received if the gas had been sold directly to
the buyers, Judge Mitchell said.

But Judge Mitchell added the argument ignored the issues of the
case.

"Plaintiffs did not have to prove what ECA is arguing here -- they
only needed to prove that the deductions were improper as they
were incurred after the gas was sold, and thus could not be
deducted from plaintiffs' royalties regardless if ECA directly
sold its gas directly to an end user," Judge Mitchell said.

William R. Caroselli of Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Coleman,
representing the class members, did not return a call seeking
comment.  Nor did the defendant's attorney, Kevin Abbott of Reed
Smith.


EXCELSIOR ELECTRIC: Faces Class Actions Over Capital Credits
------------------------------------------------------------
Holli Deal Saxon, writing for Statesboro Herald, reports that two
class action lawsuits filed in Candler County in May against
Excelsior Electric Membership Corporation seek compensation for
capital credits not refunded to members, past and present.

One suit, filed by Bobbie Dismuke, representing the estate of the
late Fred Dismuke Jr., and Norma June Bowen, on behalf of the
estate of the late Fred Irwin Bowen Sr., is a class action suit
for all deceased or former members of Excelsior EMC, based in
Metter.  Attorneys Bobby T. Jones and Julian B. Smith with Jones &
Smith PC of Metter and Thomas B. Tucker and John B. Long with
Tucker, Long PC of Augusta are representing Ms. Dismuke and
Ms. Bowen.

Fred Dismuke was a member since 1976, while Fred Bowen had been a
member since 1953, until their deaths, according to the suit.

A second suit, filed by Bulloch County resident John T. Hodges,
MD, is a class action suit on behalf of current Excelsior EMC
members.  Mr. Hodges is represented by L. Gregory Hodges, with
Oliver Maner, LLC in Savannah.

Each suit states members and their representatives are seeking
relief for "breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties,
violations of the Georgia EMC Act, and EMC bylaws."

Excelsior EMC formed in 1938 as a nonprofit corporation owned by
its members, serving portions of Bulloch, Bryan, Candler,
Tattnall, Evans,  Effingham, Emanuel  and Jenkins counties.

Capital credits

Each suit claims capital credits have not been refunded to
numerous members, alive and deceased, over a span of more than 50
years.  According to the lawsuits, the Rural Electricification
Administration (now known as the RUS - Rural Utilities Service)
ruled in 1964 that capital credits must be returned to customers
on a revolving basis as the financial condition of the EMC allows.

However, "there is a reason for that," said Gary Drake, Excelsior
EMC manager.  "The cooperation has never returned capital
credits."  The money isn't "sitting in a bank account somewhere,"
but has been invested in the company through equipment, stations
and other areas, he said.

Excelsior EMC is being represented in the case by Steve Minor of
Tisinger Vance, PC of Carrollton.

As a non-profit cooperative, Excelsior EMC does not have
"shareholders."  Instead, Excelsior EMC is owned by its customers,
referred to as "members."  Each consumer who receives electric
service from Excelsior EMC is a member.

"EMC members include individuals, private entities and, upon
information and belief, governmental entities," the suits read.

According to the lawsuits, the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association states an EMC has legal obligation to retire capital
credits, but Excelsior EMC has "failed for decades to have a
system of retirement or rotation."  The EMC must retire capital
credits to members in order to "obey its own bylaws and to remain
a nonprofit" organization.

Each EMC member has an account, creditor debit, that represents
capital furnished for the cooperative's use, and federal law
demands the capital be returned to users, the lawsuit states.

Georgia law mandates that EMCs operate at cost by requiring they
exist as nonprofits.  The lawsuits allege that "EMC has $33
million in patronage capital on its books."

Invest in company

Mr. Drake said the Excelsior EMC board decided to invest back into
the company, as there was not a way to locate so many past
members.  Capital credits are to be refunded "first in, first
out," meaning credits are to be refunded to customers depending on
the date of their initial service. Locating a member who may have
had service a few decades ago would be virtually impossible, he
said.

Excelsior EMC has not returned capital credits to members since
1963, for years 1948, 1949 and 1950, he said.  Since 1964, the
cooperative has not returned any capital credits.  Mr. Drake did
not know reasons why.

Credits, or money, owed to members that could not be located or
who may be deceased would be treated as unclaimed money and must
be returned to the state unless reinvested by the company, he said
on June 17.

"It's not the best situation in the world, but when you get
lemons, you have to make lemonade out of it," he said.

If not for the capital credits reinvested in the company, "We
would have had to borrow money" to continue operation, Mr. Drake
said. "Excelsior EMC rates are among the lowest in the state, and
have been for many years.  Our rates are much lower than Georgia
Power, and I am very proud of that."

Excelsior bylaws

Greg Hodges said his clients hold a different view of the matter.

"It is our position that Excelsior EMC is holding its customers'
money," he said.  "They've not given credits to anyone that we
know of."

He said the EMC's bylaws are clear in stating credits must be
returned to members.

Both he and Drake referred to similar lawsuits against other EMCs,
including one settled in Cobb County for "a significant sum of
money," Mr. Hodges said.

Tommy Tucker, representing the Dismuke and Bowen suit, said the
Cobb County case was settled awarding members with $98 million.
He declined to speak further about the Excelsior EMC lawsuits.
Neither Minor or other attorneys with Tisinger Vance, PC were
available and did not return phone calls seeking comment.

However, Minor told the Metter Advertiser in May that "cases like
this are becoming more common.

"This is the first time (Excelsior EMC) has been sued, but it is
not the first time a lawsuit like this has been filed," he told
the Advertiser.  "There are a number of cases very similar in
nature in Georgia and across the country with similar
allegations."

He said Excelsior's Board must decide how to balance their
financial structure in a way that meets customer's needs.

"The board routinely looks at these factors ---equity, debts and
rates -- to determine how best to serve the needs of the
community," he said, adding the EMC can opt to issue capital
credits or to reinvest them into the business.

No court date has yet been set for the cases, according to the
Candler County Clerk of Courts Office.


FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Court of Appeal Ends Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Johnson, writing for CBC News, reports that the B.C. Court of
Appeal has sided with Facebook, ending a class-action lawsuit
launched by a Vancouver woman, who claimed the social media giant
was violating users' privacy by using their photos in paid ads
without their consent.

Videographer Debbie Douez sued Facebook, saying its now defunct
"Sponsored Stories" program manipulated users for commercial gain.
But in a unanimous decision on June 19, the Appeal Court didn't
rule on the heart of the matter: whether Facebook broke B.C.
privacy law.  Instead, the court decided B.C. law doesn't apply to
the California company, due to a clause in Facebook's terms of use
-- which every user must agree to, whether they read it or not.

Three years ago, after Facebook started the "Sponsored Stories"
program, Ms. Douez had hit the "like" button on a couple of
businesses, because it was the only way to get more information
about them.  Soon, she found her name and photo popping up in her
friends' news feeds, in ads paid for by the companies -- as though
she had endorsed them.  Ms. Douez argued that was a violation of
the B.C. Privacy Act, which says no one can use the name or
portrait of another person for advertising or promotion without
their consent.

A B.C. Supreme Court judge certified her lawsuit last year, based
on a section of the act that says "an action under this act must
be heard and determined by the Supreme Court."

But Facebook argued its terms of use said all claims and disputes
must be dealt with in Santa Clara County, Calif.

"I agree with Facebook," wrote Chief Justice Robert Bauman in the
unanimous decision released on June 19.

"The B.C. Supreme Court has jurisdiction to the exclusion only of
other courts in B.C., not other courts worldwide."

The ruling puts an end to the B.C. class-action case, though Judge
Bauman notes, "Ms. Douez is at liberty to bring her action in
California."


FANTASY FUN: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jodie Williams v. Fantasy Fun Wear Of Panama City Beach, Inc. and
Dani Azoulay, Case No. 5:15-cv-00151-RH-GRJ (N.D. Fla., June 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate multiple retail store locations
within Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP PA
      1515 S Federal Hwy Ste 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


FIRST ALERT: Court Tosses Class Suit Over Defective Smoke Alarms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on June 15
dismissed with prejudice a class action against First Alert smoke
alarms, for lack of standing.

The case is Cynthia Bird v. First Alert, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:14-cv-03585-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


FLOYD COUNTY, KY: Conn Appears in SSA Class Action Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------
Alix Casper-Peak, writing for WYMT, reports that Floyd County
Lawyer Eric C. Conn made an appearance in court on June 19 to
discuss a class action lawsuit that was filed against him.  He did
not speak at the proceedings.

More than a dozen people in Floyd County were in the courtroom on
June 19 in hopes of hearing Conn would speak.  While Mr. Conn did
not get his chance to speak in court, representatives from both
sides argued about the class action lawsuit filed by two of his
former clients after the social security administration suspended
disability benefits for them and hundreds more.  One of the
biggest arguments was whether immediate harm was done to the 900
clients who received the letter from SSA.

"Not one of those folks at this point in time lost one penny. The
benefits are being paid on a monthly basis just as they've always
been paid," says Joseph Lambert, Conn's attorney.

As for the plaintiffs argument,

"15-hundred people still facing a loss of benefits and for them to
argue that my clients haven't been damaged is preposterous," says
Ned Pillersdorf.

Both sides were given about 15 minutes to make a statement.

The judge continued the temporary restraining order that restricts
Conn from moving his assets and prevents him from destroying
potential evidence.

Now due to an emergency in Pike County the judge had to postpone
the hearing until June 24.  The judge is allowing Conn to continue
paying his employees working at his law office.


FREE CONTINUING: Court Stays "Degnen" Case Pending FCC Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
SUZANNE DEGNEN, D.M.D, P.C., Plaintiff, v. FREE CONTINUING
EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, LLC d/b/a FCEA, et al., Defendants, NO.
4:15-CV-527-RLW, (E.D. Mo.) is a class action complaint alleging
that Defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA) by faxing or having an agent send
unsolicited fax advertisements without a proper opt-out notice as
required by 47 C.F.R. Section 1200 (Class Action Junk-Fax
Petition.

Defendants requested that the action be stayed pending resolution
of the Petition of Free Continuing Education Association, LLC
d/b/a FCEA for Retroactive Waiver, filed with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) on April 30, 2015 on behalf of
Free Continuing Education Association, LLC, Daniel Nava, and
Michael McHenry (collectively, FCEA). Defendants argued that
resolution of their Waiver Petition by the FCC "will determine
whether Plaintiff's claims are viable and will have a significant
impact on class certification issues" and, therefore, Defendants
argue that "this Court should not be forced to spend resources on
this matter while the [Waiver] Petition is pending before the
FCC."

Plaintiff opposed saying it will be prejudiced by an indefinite or
lengthy stay, particularly because witnesses' memories will fade.
Plaintiff also pointed out that courts in other jurisdictions have
refused to grant stays in TCPA junk-fax cases.

In the interests of reaching consistent results in similar TCPA
cases, District Judge Ronnie L. White granted the Defendants'
motion to stay the case. The Court said it is not persuaded that
Plaintiff will be unduly prejudiced by such a stay.

The case is stayed until final rulings are issued by the FCC on
the Petition of Free Continuing Education Association, LLC d/b/a
FCEA for Retroactive Waiver, and on any appeals filed in
connection with the ruling.

"Every 90 days, beginning September 17, 2015, Defendants will
advise the Court of the status of the proceedings before the FCC
and any appeal filed in connection thereto," Judge White wrote in
his June 17, 2015 memorandum and order, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1ReMypdfrom leagle.com.  "Plaintiffs
Motion for Class Certification is denied, without prejudice.
Plaintiff may refile this motion, if necessary, after the stay is
lifted and pursuant to a Case Management Order entered by the
Court."

Judge White further ordered the Clerk of Court to administratively
close this matter.

Suzanne Degnen, D.M.D., P.C., doing business as Sunset Tower
Family Dentistry, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Schultz --
rschultz@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P. & Ronald
J. Eisenberg -- reisenberg@sl-lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND
ASSOCIATES, L.L.P..

Free Continuing Education Association, LLC, doing business as
FCEA, Defendant, represented by Cicely I. Lubben --
cicely.lubben@stinsonleonard.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP &
Kimberly Means Steuterman --
kimberly.steuterman@stinsonleonard.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP.

Michael Keith McHenry, individually and doing business as FCEA,
Defendant, represented by Cicely I. Lubben, STINSON AND LEONARD
LLP & Kimberly Means Steuterman, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP.

Daniel Nava, individually and doing business as FCEA, Defendant,
represented by Cicely I. Lubben, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP &
Kimberly Means Steuterman, STINSON AND LEONARD LLP.

John Does 1 - 10, Defendant, represented by Cicely I. Lubben,
STINSON AND LEONARD LLP & Kimberly Means Steuterman, STINSON AND
LEONARD LLP.


FRENCH QUARTER: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Hays" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hays, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. French Quarter Partners, LLC, d/b/a French Quarter, et
al., Case No. 6:15-cv-06065-RTD (W.D. Ark., June 29, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay proper minimum
wages and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

French Quarter Partners, LLC owns and operates an adult
entertainment club at 903 Central Avenue, Hot Spring, Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 221-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Stephen Rauls, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC
      1800 S. Fillmore St.
      Little Rock, AR 72204
      Telephone: (501) 993-7857
      E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com


FRESH AND PROCESS: Dec. 3 Final Hearing on Antitrust Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge B. Lynn Winmill granted preliminary approval
of a settlement in IN RE: FRESH AND PROCESS POTATOES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, CASE NO. 4:10-MD-2186-BLW, (D. Idaho).  The ruling
applies to all indirect purchaser actions.

The Court provisionally certified the case as a class action, for
the purposes of settlement only, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(e). The Classes are
defined as:

"Injunction Class: All individuals and entities who purchased
fresh potatoes from retailers in Arizona, California, Florida,
Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin for end
use and not for resale, between October 14, 2004 and April 10,
2015.

Monetary Relief Class: All individuals and entities who purchased
fresh potatoes from retailers in Arizona, California, Florida,
Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New
York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin for end
use and not for resale, between October 14, 2004 and April 10,
2015."

The Court held that Plaintiffs Jonathan Rizzo; Trang Nguyen; Kelly
Tschantz; John Brashears; Jeffrey Keel; Crystal Tschantz; Gary
Tschantz; BreAnne Krabbenhoft; Paul Langer; Kory Pentland; Abigail
Rizzo; Julie Ewald; Brendan Farrell; Robert Finch; Benedetto
DiLorenzo; Suzy Ivey McCrory; Jeff Potvin; Navtej Bhandari; and
Joyce Rizzo have fairly and adequately represented the interests
of the Classes and satisfy the requirements to be Class
Representatives.

Milberg LLP and Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, previously appointed
by the Court as Interim Class Counsel for IPPs, are appointed
Class Counsel.

A Final Approval hearing will be held on December 3, 2015, at 3:30
p.m., before the Honorable B. Lynn Winmill in Courtroom 3 of the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho, located in
Boise, ID.

At the Final Approval hearing, the Court will consider:

a. the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the Proposed
Settlement, including timely objections, if any;

b. whether the Court should grant its final approval to the
Settlement;

c. the application of Class Counsel for an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses;

d. the application of service awards to the Class Representatives;
and

e. other matters as the Court may deem proper and necessary.

The Court approved KKC as the Claims Administrator and authorizes
Kurtzman Carson Consultants ("KCC") to perform the duties set for
in the Settlement Agreement regarding settlement administration.

Class Counsel must file their Application for Attorney's Fees and
Costs and Service Awards for Class Representatives by August 28,
2015. Class Counsel must file their Motions for Final Approval and
all supporting papers by November 27, 2015.

A copy of the June 17, 2015 Order is available at
http://bit.ly/1LKjuSEfrom leagle.com.


FRESNO, CA: Police Faces Suit Over Inaction on Domestic Violence
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Ellis, writing for The Fresno Bee, reports that a federal
civil rights lawsuit filed on behalf of two domestic abuse victims
-- one deceased, the other living but paralyzed -- says Fresno
police didn't do enough to help the women even though they were
clearly in dangerous situations.

Fresno attorney Kevin Little was flanked by a wheelchair bound
Pamela Motley and the daughter of Cindy Raygoza, as well as other
family members and supporters, at a June 19 news conference.  He
said the lawsuit was not only for them, but for "all the women who
are suffering in silence."  Fresno has a high rate of domestic
violence, he said, and the true numbers are greater because many
women don't report the abuse.

"This is a community that desperately needs vigorous, full
enforcement of the domestic violence laws," Mr. Little said.

The lawsuit names specific Fresno officers, as well as the city,
as defendants.  It alleges police were slow to respond, and when
they did, they failed to provide victims with information on
domestic violence as required by state law. They also allegedly
belittled one victim who reported domestic violence.

Fresno police Chief Jerry Dyer said he hasn't seen the lawsuit,
but he defended his department's actions on the issue.

Last year, he said, the department recorded 7,974 domestic
violence reports, made 2,632 arrests and issued 1,126 emergency
protective orders for victims.  In addition, he said the
department does quarterly operations with the violent crime impact
team to locate and arrest people wanted for domestic violence
crimes, and works with Crime Stoppers on highlighting domestic
violence.

"We do everything that we possibly can to combat domestic violence
and to prevent people from becoming victims of domestic violence,"
Mr. Dyer said.

In Motley's case, her estranged husband had admitted to police he
was aggressive and in physical confrontations with her, but he
still wasn't arrested.  Had he been, he likely would have remained
in custody for violating bail conditions from an earlier incident
where Motley, her husband and his mistress had a meeting.  At that
meeting, Paul Motley hit his mistress with a beer mug, seriously
injuring her. He was then arrested, but released.

The lawsuit documents several incidents of subsequent harassment
by Motley, as well as calls to Fresno police and alleged law
enforcement inaction.

On April 12, 2014, Paul Motley was lying in wait for Motley as she
returned to her parents' home after work.  He shot his estranged
wife in the face at close range and then shot himself.

"I'm a victim of domestic violence, which has left me
quadriplegic," Pamela Motley said on June 19.  "My hope is for
awareness, education and prevention of domestic violence and to
educate the police department."

In the case of Ms. Raygoza, the lawsuit says she called police in
February 2014 because her ex-boyfriend, Michael Reams -- who had
been terrorizing her -- broke into her home, attacked her, pinned
her to the floor by her throat and choked her.  He fled before
police arrived.

Ms. Raygoza told a Fresno officer that she was a domestic violence
survivor from a prior marriage.  The officer then allegedly
criticized Ms. Raygoza for her "choices of men."  He then told
Ms. Raygoza that she now knew of Mr. Reams' tendencies, and so any
additional calls to police would get no response because of that.
But the incidents continued, and Ms. Raygoza never again called
police because of that statement, the suit says.

On July 14, 2014, a knife-wielding Reams again broke into
Ms. Raygoza's home.  He pinned Ms. Raygoza to the ground, and
stabbed her repeatedly.  Neighbors called police, but by the time
officers got to the apartment, it was too late.

Mr. Reams was still stabbing Ms. Raygoza's lifeless body when
officers arrived, the suit says.  They shot him in the head,
killing him.

Mr. Little on June 19 encouraged other women to come forward and
said the lawsuit could be amended later to add more plaintiffs.
If it gets large enough, Mr. Little even said he may seek class-
action status for the lawsuit.


GOLDEN EAGLE: Immigrant Farm Workers File Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that about 35 immigrant farm workers
have filed a class action lawsuit against Golden Eagle Farms in
Snohomish, claiming they planted blueberries last fall but haven't
been paid.  The complaint filed in King County Superior Court
claims that Golden Eagle hired an unlicensed, unbonded labor
contractor who failed to pay wages that were owed in 2014 or
follow labor laws, such as keeping employment records, according
to the Daily Herald of Everett reports.

A state Department of Labor & Industries official said the
contractor, Father Like Son Farm Labor Supply, and owner Alfredo
Garcia Jr. did not have the proper license or surety bonds to hire
workers.

Golden Eagle's lawyer Adam Belzberg said the farm gave the
contractor money to pay the workers.  He wasn't sure if the farm
checked the contractor's credentials.  Now the farm can't find the
contractor, Mr. Belzberg said.

And Lourdes Margarito of Everett and her coworkers still haven't
been paid.  Their Wenatchee-based lawyer, Joe Morrison, said
Golden Eagle is liable for paying the wages because it failed to
check the contractor's credentials before the workers were hired.

The lawsuit said most of the employees are immigrants with limited
income, education, understanding of the U.S. court system and
English-language proficiency. Many communicate primarily in
Spanish or Mixtec, a dialect.

Morrison declined to discuss the immigration status of his clients
because whether they were working legally in the U.S. is not
relevant to the court case.

"Anyone is entitled to these protections under the law," he said.

Speaking in Spanish, Ms. Margarito said she started working at the
farm in late September.  She and at least 20 others from Snohomish
County planted blueberries from 7 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. After working
all day in the fields, Ms. Margarito went to a second job, washing
dishes at a restaurant until midnight.

The native of the southern state of Oaxaca, Mexico, said the
schedule was exhausting but she needed the work.  She is raising a
son, 7, and a daughter, 1, in Everett.

Ms. Margarito said the workers were verbally offered 10-hour
shifts at $12 an hour.  They were paid several days late for work
in September, with cash in envelopes with names handwritten on the
front, she said.

The workers say they haven't been paid wages for October.  Each
person is owed about $650, according to their lawyers.


GRAND BK: Recalls Raw Cashew Products Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
GRAND BK CORP. of MASPETH, NEW YORK is recalling 450 UNITS OF
GOODIES CASHEW RAW 9OZ, because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The product was labeled as "GOODIES BY NATURE RAW CASHEWS 9oz."
and was packed in 9oz. clear plastic tubs. The recalled product
has sell-by dates of 04.29.2016 and 05.02.2016 and a UPC code of
846034010055.

Recalled items were sold in NY, NJ, PA, VA, MD, and GA in "H Mart
"retail stores.

No illnesses have been reported to-date. Based upon routine
testing conducted by an FDA-contracted laboratory, it was
determined that the raw cashew tested positive for Salmonella.

Customers who have purchased this product should discard it and
may bring in their receipt to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 718-
417-5607, Monday through Friday 9am,-5pm, EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453007.htm


GYRO TECHNOLOGIES: "Morton" Suit Moved From W.D. to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Morton v. Gyro Technologies, LLC
d/b/a Vaughn Energy Services, Case No. 5:15-cv-00290, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas (Corpus Christi).  The Southern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-00244 to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, Gyro Technologies, Inc., doing
business as Vaughn Energy Services, required and permitted the
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees to work in excess
of 40 hours per week but refused to compensate them properly for
those hours -- in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rachael Victoria Rustmann, Esq.
          THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1001 S. Harrison St., Suite 200
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331-1800
          Facsimile: (806) 398-9095

               - and -

          Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
          THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
          112 W. 8th Avenue, Suite 900-D
          Amariool, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331-1800
          Facsimile: (806) 398-9095

The Defendant is represented by:

          Frederick J. McCutchon, Esq.
          WOOD, BOYKIN & WOLTER, P.C.
          615 N Upper Broadway, Suite 1100
          Corpus Christi, TX 78477
          Telephone: (361) 888-9201
          Facsimile: (361) 888-8353
          E-mail: fjm@wbwpc.com


HEART SAVERS: Faces TCPA Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit claims a body
imaging center in California illegally contacted people through
their telephones.

Kevin Amini and Mona Amini filed the lawsuit June 10 in U.S.
District Court in California against Heart Savers, claiming the
company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by
contacting cellphone numbers soliciting services.  The plaintiffs
said in the lawsuit they were each contacted on their cellphones
by Heart Saver at least five times over a seven-day period in
April via an automatic telephone dialing system. Each time they
were contacted, the plaintiffs left a message with the company
asking to be taken off the company call lists, they say.  The suit
further said Heart Saver didn't have the plaintiffs' permission to
contacting them using an automatic telephone dialing system.

The plaintiffs are seeking class status for those who received
unwanted solicitation calls from Heart Saver within the last four
years.  The plaintiffs are also seeking more than $5 million in
damages plus court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by Todd M. Friedman, Suren N.
Weerasuriya and Adrian R. Bacon of the Law Offices of Todd M.
Friedman, P.C. in Beverly Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 8:15-cv-00916.


HERTZ CORP: Faces "Lee" Action in California Over FCRA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Peter Lee filed a lawsuit June 9 in
federal court in California against The Hertz Corp., claiming the
company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it didn't hire
him for its business at the Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group.  The
lawsuit claims Hertz used the credit reporting law when
determining Lee's possible employment at the company.  However,
the company isn't using the information gathered in the report
legally, it claims.

Mr. Lee claims Hertz doesn't give potential employees a sufficient
amount of time to challenge any adverse claims on the report
before denying employment.  Mr. Lee is seeking class status for
those who were also denied employment by Hertz due to the consumer
report.  He is also seeking an unspecified amount in damages plus
court costs.

Mr. Lee is represented by Jahan C. Sagaif and Katrina L. Eiland of
Outten & Golden LLP in San Francisco, and Meredith Desautels and
Stephanie Funt of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San
Francisco Bay Area in San Francisco.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California-San
Francisco Division case number 4:15-cv-02545.


HERTZ CORP: Suit Over "Unethical Fees" Removed to Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Dawn Cooks and Emma Bradley filed a
lawsuit on May 1 in St. Clair County Circuit Court in Illinois
against Hertz Corp., claiming they were "compelled" by Hertz to
pay two types of fees. The defendant removed the case to federal
court on June 10.

One of the fees is the "energy surcharge" and the other is a fee
to recover the cost of vehicle registration, the lawsuit said.
The fees are charged in both Illinois and Missouri, and are
"improper, deceptive and unethical," according to the lawsuit.
Hertz said the fees are to reimburse it for some costs, but the
plaintiffs claim the fees charged "greatly exceed" the costs and
are meant to generate the company a profit.

The lawsuit claims Hertz instituted the energy surcharge fee in
order to offset rising energy costs.  However, the fee was
allegedly imposed when energy costs were going down, the lawsuit
claims.  The plaintiffs are seeking class action for those in
Illinois and Missouri who rented cars from Hertz. The suit is also
seeking an unspecified amount in damages.

The plaintiffs are represented by Richard S. Cornfeld of the Law
Office of Richard S. Cornfeld in St. Louis; Richard S. Bender --
rbender@rgsz.com -- and David G. Bender -- dbender@rgsz.com -- of
Rosenblum Goldenhersh in St. Louis; and Anthony S. Bruning and
Anthony S. Bruning Jr. of Leritz, Plunkert & Bruning, P.C. of St.
Louis.


HILLS BANCORPORATION: Class Action Stayed Pending IA Court Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hills Bancorporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties and
District Court have put a class action case on hold pending a
ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court in an appeal filed by West Bank
on a similar issue under dispute in the Hills Bank case.

On April 24, 2014, a suit was filed against the Bank in the Iowa
District Court for Johnson County by a customer alleging that the
fees associated with the Bank's automated overdraft program in
connection with its debit and ATM cards constitute unlawful
interest in violation of Iowa's usury laws and that the collection
of such interest violates the Iowa Debt Collection Practices Act.
The suit seeks class-action status for Bank customers who have
paid overdraft fees arising from debit or ATM card transactions on
their consumer accounts.  The Bank filed a motion to dismiss the
case, which the Court denied. The Bank filed an application for
interlocutory appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court, which the Court
denied. The parties and District Court have put the case on hold
pending a ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court in an appeal filed by
West Bank on a similar issue under dispute in the Hills Bank case.

"At this stage of the proceedings, it is not possible for
management of the Bank to determine the probability of a material
adverse outcome or reasonably estimate the amount of any potential
loss," the Company said.


IDAHO: Police Misled States Officials in Prison Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Idaho Statesman reports that in 2013, the Idaho Department of
Correction's top investigator held off conducting his own inquiry
into a private prison operator's staffing discrepancies because he
was led to believe the Idaho State Police had already begun that
investigation, according to public records recently obtained by
the Idaho Statesman.

The records -- released by the state police after a public records
request from the Statesman -- offer new details on the year in
which the state police allowed state and legal officials --
including a federal judge, lawyers for the ACLU, other IDOC
officials and the attorney general himself and some of his key
deputies -- to believe that its investigators were looking into
possible criminal actions at the private prison:

  -- The documents help explain the widespread belief that ISP was
investigating alleged fraud by Corrections Corporation of America.
A state police major introduced himself to IDOC Deputy Warden
Timothy Higgins as the investigator in the case, did an interview
with Higgins and took IDOC's documents about the CCA allegations.

  -- A Feb. 10, 2014, ISP staff meeting document says: "The
directors of ISP and IDOC met regularly from the time of the
initial request (for an investigation) until now, and at each
meeting Colonel Ralph Powell stated Idaho State Police was not
conducting an investigation of CCA . . . . This appeared to be a
breach of contract dispute, and therefore a civil, not a criminal
matter."

But Mr. Higgins, who attended the same meetings as Powell, told
ISP detectives he never heard Powell making such statements.  No
minutes were taken at the meetings and ISP provided no documents
showing that the agency had communicated its decision not to
investigate the CCA case.

   -- While IDOC officials believed that ISP had investigated
alleged fraud by CCA, prison officials reached a $1 million civil
settlement with the company.  Mr. Higgins said that if IDOC knew
that ISP had not investigated CCA, that would have factored in the
department's settlement negotiations.  That sentiment was echoed
by a member of the Board of Corrections who refused to sign off on
the settlement; he said the board believed the State Police had
investigated and found nothing wrong.

   -- In a Feb. 7, 2014, letter, Deputy Attorney General Paul
Panther admonished ISP: "(T)he only entity really qualified to
make a determination of whether criminal activity took place in
this matter" was the county prosecuting attorney. "(T)he proper
thing (for ISP) to do would be to complete the investigation,
submit it to that office and let them decide if charges should or
should not be filed."

  -- The State Police did not correct a year's worth of incorrect
assumptions and multiple media reports about the existence of the
criminal investigation.  Why not? "No one contacted ISP to inquire
whether or not ISP had a criminal investigation open in this
matter," an ISP spokeswoman said in an email exchange with an
Associated Press reporter contained in the public records.

AFTER FALSE START, WASDEN URGES INVESTIGATION

Once allegations about falsified CCA staffing documents were
reported by The Associated Press, IDOC Director Brent Reinke
formally asked in February 2013 that ISP Col. Ralph Powell launch
a criminal investigation.  That is the investigation that IDOC and
other officials believed was underway for the next year.

In February 2014, after the State Police announced it had not
conducted the assumed investigation, Attorney General Lawrence
Wasden urged Gov. Butch Otter to order one.  Mr. Otter, after
initial delay, agreed.  But that investigation did not last long;
detectives quickly determined that the ISP had a conflict because
its investigation might entail examining State Police command
staff or other employees.  The investigation was turned over to
the FBI.

It is the documents and reports that State Police investigators
assembled before they turned the investigation over to the FBI
that were obtained by the Statesman in its public records request.

As soon as they were assigned the case in February 2014, the first
person ISP detectives interviewed was Higgins.  He headed IDOC's
investigation unit, oversaw prison contracts and was among the
first people to uncover discrepancies in CCA staffing.

Mr. Higgins declined to be interviewed by the Statesman; his
account is drawn from the ISP records.

Mr. Higgins told detectives he held off on continuing his
investigation into CCA because he assumed the investigation was
underway once Reinke had formally asked Powell to conduct the
probe.  "We saw the colonel all the time," Mr. Higgins told the
detectives.  "Every time we had a meeting discussing this, the
colonel was present."

Mr. Higgins also told detectives he was not the only one who
assumed ISP was conducting the investigation.

"Everybody, from the ACLU to us to my legal counsel -- every one
of these meetings I had legal counsel present -- we were all
frankly under the impression a criminal investigation was going,"
Higgins said.

'I AM THE DETECTIVE'

Mr. Higgins told detectives he learned there was no criminal
investigation from press accounts of ISP's Feb. 5, 2014,
announcement that it had not done an investigation and had not
assigned a case number or detective.

"Up to that point, I had assumed somebody would be doing what you
guys are doing here.  Going in and interviewing the staff, taking
the KPMG report and putting closure to this thing, because frankly
I do not consider this closed," Mr. Higgins told the detectives.

Mr. Higgins told detectives he had already provided documents six
months previously to Major Steve Richardson, the ISP investigator
he believed was assigned to the criminal investigation, according
to the investigation report.

"He said, 'I am the detective assigned to the case,'" Mr. Higgins
told detectives.  "He sat next to me in the meeting. . . . We
talked quite a bit."

While he was not personally involved in the settlement
negotiations, Mr. Higgins said that knowing that ISP had not
investigated CCA could have factored in the department's
settlement negotiations.  "If I had known there was not going to
be any criminal investigation, you better believe I would be
interviewing those people who falsified this .  . . trying to find
out how far this went, because that would have been a key item
that we would have used in the discussions on settlement,"
Mr. Higgins told investigators.

In declining to be interviewed, Mr. Higgins referred the Statesman
to an IDOC spokesman who issued this statement: "The records you
obtained from the Idaho State Police show that from the start we
have fully cooperated with investigators.  We have turned over
tens of thousands of pages of documents and spent countless hours
answering questions -- often the same questions multiple times.
In fact, there's not a single question we have refused to answer
nor a single document we have refused to produce."

IDOC said that with the FBI investigation concluded, "we do not
believe it is productive for us to go over this well-plowed ground
yet again and speculate about what might have been."

ISP did not respond to Statesman requests to comment on
Richardson's role or answer what happened to the investigative
materials Higgins turned over.

MISCOMMUNICATIONS, NOT CRIMINALITY

On May 20, U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson said that the subsequent
yearlong FBI investigation into Corrections Corporation of America
staffing discrepancies found evidence of false entries and
understaffing, but "did not produce evidence of a federal criminal
violation."

The federal prosecutor also looked at whether the Idaho State
Police, the governor's office or the Idaho Department of
Correction had sought to delay, hinder or corruptly influence a
state investigation into contract fraud at the prison.

What Olson described as "miscommunications" and "uncorrected
assumptions" created "suspicion," she said. But state officials'
actions did "not rise to the level of criminal misconduct."  While
she declined to offer specifics, she did say "a number of other
actions or inactions . . . may be of concern" to state agencies
and Idaho voters.

WHAT WERE THE RIPPLE EFFECTS?

Why is this more than just an embarrassing misstep for the State
Police and the governor who publicly defended the agency's work?

What Olson described as miscommunication and "uncorrected
assumptions" also slowed a federal lawsuit against CCA.  It led
state officials to withhold public documents, based on what they
believed was a pending criminal investigation.  A top IDOC
official and a deputy attorney general had to explain why they had
not committed perjury by telling a federal judge about an
investigation that apparently did not exist.

When the ACLU issued a subpoena for documents it needed for its
class-action lawsuit against CCA over violence at the prison it
ran, Idaho Department of Correction refused to provide ACLU the
documents, saying such a release might interfere with the ongoing
criminal investigation.  The ACLU later got the documents.

In that same case, the court declined ACLU's request for an order
related to CCA staffing because the judge said he would "not
intrude on CCA staffing decisions when a criminal investigation is
ongoing."

NEGOTIATING IN THE DARK?

Even a member of the Board of Correction expressed concerns about
being misled about the investigation.

J.R. Van Tassel was the only board member to vote against the
state's $1 million settlement agreement with CCA and the only one
to talk about it.  He told The Associated Press that at the time
the board voted, it believed the State Police had done the
criminal investigation and decided there were no crimes to
prosecute.

"I was at a loss for words," Mr. Van Tassel told The AP about the
lack of an investigation.  "I think that the board may have
treated this a little differently had it been clear to us that
Col. Powell wasn't going to present us with any factual findings
pursuant to an investigation, which we felt were coming."


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Must Face Fax Advertising Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson, writing for Reuters, reports that a Johnson &
Johnson unit must face a class action accusing it of sending
unsolicited advertisements by fax for its antibiotic Levaquin in
violation of federal law, a New Jersey judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson on June 19 denied Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc's motion for summary judgment, finding that
there were disputed issues of fact about whether a pair of faxes
the company sent in 2008 were advertisements.


JUNIPER PHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Securities Action Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juniper Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
affirmed the dismissal of securities class action complaints in a
written opinion.

Between February 1, 2012 and February 6, 2012, two putative
securities class action complaints were filed against Juniper and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey. These actions were
filed under the captions Wright v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et
al., and Shu v. Columbia Laboratories, Inc., et al. and asserted
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Exchange Act on behalf of an alleged class
of purchasers of the common stock during the period from December
6, 2010 through January 20, 2012. Both actions were consolidated
into a single proceeding entitled In re Columbia Laboratories,
Inc., Securities Litigation, under which Actavis and three of its
officers were added as defendants. The Consolidated Amended
Complaint alleged that Juniper and two of its officers, one of
whom is a director, omitted to state material facts that they were
under a duty to disclose, and made materially false and misleading
statements that related to the results of Juniper's PREGNANT study
and the likelihood of approval by the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") of a New Drug Application ("NDA") to market
progesterone vaginal gel 8% for the prevention of preterm birth in
women with premature cervical shortening. According to the amended
complaint, these alleged omissions and misleading statements had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
common stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees.

On June 11, 2013, the Court dismissed the amended complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted,
holding that the plaintiffs did not adequately plead facts
supporting an inference of an intent to deceive investors. The
Court permitted the plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint,
which they did on July 11, 2013. Juniper moved to dismiss the
second amended complaint, which the court did on October 21, 2013.
The Court ruled that changes the plaintiffs made to their first
amended complaint "still do not create a strong inference that the
Defendants acted with an intent to deceive, manipulate or
defraud." The Court ordered that if the plaintiffs sought to
attempt to plead a cognizable action in a third amended complaint,
they must do so within thirty days and specifically address why
the attempt would not be futile. The plaintiffs chose not to file
any further amendments and the case was dismissed with prejudice
on December 2, 2013.

On December 20, 2013, the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Court
heard oral arguments on December 9, 2014. On March 10, 2015, the
Court affirmed the dismissal in a written opinion. Juniper
believes that the action is without merit, and intends to defend
it vigorously. At this time, it is not possible to determine the
likely outcome of, or to estimate the potential liability related
to this action, and Juniper has not made any provision for losses
in connection with it.


KEURIG GREEN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on June 19
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. securities from
February 4, 2015 through May 14, 2015, both dates inclusive.  The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Keurig Green Mountain
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Keurig Green Mountain class action, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-616.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 Northern 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 during the Class Period made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) defendants' projections for sales were unrealistic and
unattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over Keurig
Green Mountain's Keurig 2.0 brewing system; (2) the retail
distribution of Keurig Green Mountain's new cold brewing system,
Keurig Kold, would be delayed; and (3) as a result, Defendants'
statements about Keurig Green Mountain's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 18, 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-616.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.


KEURIG GREEN: Reply Briefs Due in Class Action
----------------------------------------------
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 28, 2015, that the Company's
reply briefs were due May 11, 2015, in a class action lawsuit.

On February 11, 2014, TreeHouse Foods, Inc., Bay Valley Foods,
LLC, and Sturm Foods, Inc. filed suit against Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters, Inc. and Keurig, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (TreeHouse Foods, Inc. et
al. v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc. et al., No. 1:14-cv-
00905-VSB).  The TreeHouse complaint asserts claims under the
federal antitrust laws and various state laws, contending that the
Company has monopolized alleged markets for single serve coffee
brewers and single serve coffee pods, including through its
contracts with suppliers and distributors and in connection with
the launch of its next generation coffee brewer.  The TreeHouse
complaint sought monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.

On March 13, 2014, JBR, Inc. (d/b/a Rogers Family Company) filed
suit against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California (JBR, Inc. v. Keurig
Green Mountain, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00677-KJM-CKD).  The claims
asserted and relief sought in the JBR complaint were substantially
similar to the claims asserted and relief sought in the TreeHouse
complaint.

Beginning on March 10, 2014, twenty-seven putative class actions
asserting similar claims and seeking similar relief were filed on
behalf of purported direct and indirect purchasers of the
Company's products in various federal district courts.  On June 3,
2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted a
motion to transfer these various actions, including the TreeHouse
and JBR actions, to a single judicial district for coordinated or
consolidated pre-trial proceedings.  The actions are now pending
before Judge Vernon S. Broderick in the Southern District of New
York (In re: Keurig Green Mountain Single-Serve Coffee Antitrust
Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02542-VSB).

On August 11, 2014, JBR filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction, which the Company opposed.  The Court held a hearing
on September 3-4, 2014, and by order dated September 19, 2014,
denied JBR's motion for a preliminary injunction.  On September
24, 2014, JBR filed a notice of appeal of the denial of the
preliminary injunction.  JBR filed its opening appeal brief on
November 17, 2014.  The Company filed its answering brief on
February 17, 2015, and JBR filed its reply brief on March 3, 2015.
The Court of Appeals has not yet indicated whether oral argument
will be heard.

Consolidated putative class action complaints by direct purchaser
and indirect purchaser plaintiffs were filed on July 24, 2014.
The Company filed motions to dismiss these complaints and the
complaints in the TreeHouse and JBR actions on October 6, 2014.
On November 25, 2014, all plaintiffs filed amended complaints and
on February 2, 2015 the Company again moved to dismiss.
Plaintiffs filed opposition briefs on April 10, 2015, and the
Company's reply briefs were due May 11, 2015.


KTOWN TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard R. Konarski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. KTown Transportation, Inc., Lynda Jean Orsburn, Jayne
Phillips, and William Phillips, Case No. 2:15-cv-00781-DEJ (E.D.
Wis., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

KTown Transportation, Inc. provides non-emergency medical
transportation services in vehicles to individuals who are
disabled and elderly and are in need of transportation assistance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      Barbara Zack Quindel, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL SC
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: tmaynard@hq-law.com
              bquindel@hq-law.com


LAKEWOOD CO: Recalls Nut and Fruit Mix Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------
Lakewood, CO, Vitamin Cottage Natural Food Markets Inc., a
Lakewood, Colo., based natural grocery chain, is recalling one lot
of Natural Grocers brand Caribbean Nut & Fruit Mix as the product
contains macadamia nuts that have the potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.

Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience fever,
diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal
pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result
in the organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more
severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

This recall was initiated after being notified of positive
Salmonella findings in product sampled by the FDA.

The recalled product is packaged in clear plastic bags with the
following Natural Grocers label:

  UPC Code       Description                       Packed on Date
  --------       -----------                       --------------
  000080444558   Caribbean Nut & Fruit Mix 10oz    15-148

The product was distributed to Natural Grocers' 97 stores located
in Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Missouri, Montana,
Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon,
Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming. Consumers can find the
specific locations of Natural Grocers stores at:
http://www.naturalgrocers.com/store-locationsdisclaimericon.
Only packages bearing the Julian packed on dates listed above are
subject to recall.

To date, the company has received no reports of illness. Consumers
who may have purchased this product should return it to the store
for credit or refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company by calling
Customer Service at (303)-986-4600, ext. 531, Monday through
Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. (MST).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453518.htm


LOGMEIN INC: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Electronic Fund Transfers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Britt Stoker, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Logmein, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01258-PSG-JPR (C.D.
Cal., June 29, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate
result of the Defendants illegal actions of charging the
Plaintiff's and also the Class members' credit cards for
unauthorized sums, on a recurring basis without obtaining proper
written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for
preauthorized electronic fund transfers and without properly
disclosing the price changes.

Logmein, Inc. is a Delaware company that provides users remote
access to their computers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      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


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Ex-CFO to Pay $2.3MM in U.S. Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that the former chief
financial officer of Chinese technology company Longtop Financial
Technologies has agreed to pay $2.3 million after a U.S. jury
found that he acted recklessly in making untrue statements or
omitting facts about the firm.

The settlement with former CFO Derek Palaschuk was disclosed in
papers filed in Manhattan federal court on June 19, seven months
after the jury delivered its verdict in a rare securities class
action trial.

Neither a lawyer for Mr. Palaschuk nor the plaintiffs' attorneys
responded to requests for comment.

The lawsuit, filed in 2011, was one of several cases launched
around that time amid accounting scandals at Chinese companies
trading on U.S. stock exchanges.

When the New York Stock Exchange halted trading in Longtop in May
2011, the Xiamen-based company had a $1.08 billion market value.

Days later, Longtop's auditor, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd,
resigned, citing "recently identified falsity" in the company's
financial records.  Mr. Palaschuk, who had joined Longtop in 2006,
tendered his resignation the same day.

Before resigning, Palaschuk spoke with Longtop Chief Executive
Officer Weizhou Lian.  In an email presented at trial that talked
about the call, Palaschuk said Lian "informed me the company had
been a fraud since 2004".

In the lawsuit, lawyers for Longtop investors contended that
Palaschuk missed "red flags" pointing to the fraud, but
Mr. Palaschuck denied wrongdoing.

In November, a jury found Mr. Palaschuk liable and ordered him to
pay damages that lawyers for the plaintiffs estimate provided for
a maximum recovery of $6.2 million, assuming all eligible
investors submitted claims.

The investors had also sued Longtop and Mr. Lian, but neither
appeared in court.  A judge entered a $882.3 million default
judgment against Longtop and Mr. Lian in 2013.

The trial was a rarity for a shareholder class action. Only 13
such securities cases have reached a verdict since 1995, when the
laws governing them were changed, according to Adam Savett,
director of class action services at Kurtzman Carson Consultants.

The lawsuit was brought by Danske Invest Management A/S and
Pension Funds of Local No. 1, IATSE, on behalf of holders of
Longtop's American depositary shares traded from Feb. 21, 2008
through May 17, 2011.

The settlement is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge Shira
Scheindlin.

The case is In re Longtop Financial Technologies Limited
Securities Litigation, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
New York, No. 11-03658.


LYFT INC: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, "Nokchan" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Nokchan, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. LYFT, Inc. and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No.
3:15-cv-03008 (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide the class members with stand-
alone written disclosures before obtaining a credit or background
report in connection with their hiring process.

LYFT, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of Delaware that operates transportation network company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.

      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      SET AREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-01 09
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
              tuvia@setarehlaw.com


MANITOBA: Apologizes to Indigenous Families for Forced Adoptions
----------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reports that the Canadian province of Manitoba has
apologized to indigenous families for decades of forced adoptions.

Premier Greg Selinger said on June 18 the practice left
"intergenerational scars and cultural loss".

The program sought to integrate children into mainstream Canadian
society, but in doing so rid them of their native culture.

The Canadian government apologized in 2008, but this is first time
a province has taken responsibility.

"I hope that we can join together down a new path of
reconciliation, healing and co-operation," Mr. Selinger said.
"There is a long road ahead of us. It takes time to heal great
pain."

Hundreds of thousands of indigenous children were taken away from
their parents by welfare services and put into the care of mostly
white families between the 1960s and 1980s in Canada.

In some cases, the forced adoptions resulted in the rape and
beatings of the indigenous children by their adoptive parents.

Justice Murray Sinclair, head of Canada's Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, said he was happy about the apology, but if there is
no action, it is meaningless.  The Commission's work recently
concluded.  Its report found rules that required Canadian
aboriginals to attend state-funded church schools were responsible
for "cultural genocide".

The group was created in 2006 as part of a $5bn (GBP3.3bn) class
action settlement between the government, churches and the
surviving students.

"The real question though is how are they going to change?" he
said.  "Everyone needs to accept the fact that they have been
responsible for the perpetuation of the cultural genocide that we
identified."

Survivors are still healing.  Survivor Joseph Maud was separated
from his family when he was five and sent to a Canadian
residential school for indigenous students in Manitoba, he told
the BBC.

The worst part was being separated from his parents, cousins,
uncles and aunts, he said.

"I cried going down on my knees, and my thoughts were 'when is
this going to end? Somebody help me,' calling out for my parents."


MARRIOTT INT'L: Housekeepers File Class Action Over Chemicals
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Brinkerhoffand Danny Biederman, writing for AllGov, report
that a group of housekeepers is suing Marriott International for
forcing them to use hazardous chemicals to clean hotel rooms.

Some of the chemicals used at Marriott hotels come with warnings
to wear protective clothing such as a respirator, glasses or both,
according to the class action lawsuit.  The staff was allegedly
made to transfer the chemicals into non-descript bottles that bore
no warning labels.  The complaint says Marriott not only required
housekeepers to use the hazardous chemicals, but also denied they
were dangerous and threatened to fire anyone who complained about
them.

Additionally, housekeepers who did not speak English were forced
to sign documents written in English that they didn't understand.
Among the documents were liability waivers, which the housekeepers
were told they had to sign under threat of termination.

Rosa Arias, the lead plaintiff, says the chemicals caused
irritation in her eyes and throat, forcing her to see a doctor who
diagnosed her with "heart or respiratory complications."
Following her diagnosis, Ms. Arias asked for and received four
months of leave from work at the hotel -- which then fired her the
day before she was scheduled to return to her job.  Two weeks
earlier, she had given a deposition in a similar lawsuit that had
been filed against Marriott.

The complaint cites $10,000-per-day statutory damages for
Marriott's violation of federal law, which would total $43.8
million in damages for violating Ms. Arias's rights alone.


MASIMO CORP: Physicians Healthsource Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that on January 2, 2014, a
putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California by
Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The complaint alleges that the
Company sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements in violation of
the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 and related regulations. The
complaint seeks $500 for each alleged violation, treble damages if
the District Court finds the alleged violations to be knowing,
plus interest, costs and injunctive relief. On April 14, 2014, the
Company filed a motion to stay the case pending a decision on a
related petition filed by the Company with the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the District
Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a ruling by
the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC granted some
of the relief and denied some of the relief requested in the
petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision on the
petition. On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the
parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a
decision on the appeal. The Company believes it has good and
substantial defenses to the claims, but there is no guarantee that
the Company will prevail.


MASIMO CORP: Motion for Summary Judgment Pending
------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that the Company's motion
for summary judgment in a putative class action is currently
pending before the Court.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. A
previous version of the complaint also alleged a wrongful death
claim, which the Court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney
fees and injunctive and other relief.

On January 30, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment, which is currently pending before the Court. The Company
believes it has good and substantial defenses to the remaining
claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.


MEADOWBROOK INSURANCE: Defendants Entered Into MOU
--------------------------------------------------
Meadowbrook Insurance Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company
and each of the other defendants have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs providing for the settlement of
the Litigation.

On December 30, 2014, the Company, entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"), by and among the Company,
Miracle Nova II (US), LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
("Parent"), and Miracle Nova III (US), Inc., a Delaware
corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub").  The Merger Agreement provides for, subject to the
satisfaction or waiver of specified conditions, the acquisition of
the Company by Parent at a price of $8.65 per share in cash
pursuant to a merger (the "Merger") of Merger Sub with and into
the Company.

Following announcement of the Merger Agreement, two purported
shareholders of the Company each filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan on behalf of a purported class of
shareholders.  The complaints named Meadowbrook, each current
director of the Company, a former director of the Company, Fosun
International Limited, Parent and Merger Sub as defendants, and
were subsequently consolidated (the "Litigation").

On April 20, 2015, the Company and each of the other defendants
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs
providing for the settlement of the Litigation.  In the Memorandum
of Understanding, the Company agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures to the definitive proxy statement of the Company dated
March 25, 2015 relating to the Merger and the Merger Agreement
(the "Proxy Statement"), which were made by issuance of a Form 8-K
on April 21, 2015.

The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates completion of certain
confirmatory discovery by the plaintiffs, following which the
parties will enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for
settlement of the Litigation, subject to notice to the class,
certification of the class by the court, and court approval of the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. If
approved by the court, the settlement will resolve and release all
claims that were, or could have been, brought in any of the
actions challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for appraisal made by shareholders of Meadowbrook
in accordance with the Michigan Business Corporation Act), as more
fully described in the notice to be provided to the class. There
can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve the
settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. If the court does not approve the settlement, such
proposed settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of
Understanding, may be terminated.


MEADOWLANDS RACETRACK: Faces Wage Class Action in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Bricketto, writing for Law360, reports that the operator of
Meadowlands Racetrack in East Rutherford, New Jersey, has been hit
with a putative class action claiming the company has violated
state law by failing to pay workers at the facility required
hourly rates.

Darlene Sharpe contends in a June 16 complaint in Bergen County
Superior Court that New Meadowlands Racing and Entertainment LLC
has run afoul of New Jersey's State Building Service Contracts
Act.  The law covers the company because it operates the racetrack
on state-owned land through an agreement with a state agency,
Sharpe suggests.

The Lyndhurst, New Jersey, resident wants to represent a class of
workers who have been with New Meadowlands or other, currently
unidentified employers since June 2009 and whose duties are
subject to compensation requirements under the law, including
security positions, cleaners, painters, electricians, laborers and
grounds workers, according to the complaint.

"Defendants' ongoing illegal policies of failing to pay class
members at the proper hourly rate has resulted in class members
being denied substantial legally required compensation," the
complaint said.

The statute imposes prevailing wage requirements "only for
building service workers and only when such services are performed
under a contract with the state (not municipalities or counties)
for the performance of same for a property or premises owned or
leased by the state," according to information from the state
Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

Ms. Sharpe argues that the statute reaches New Meadowlands because
it entered an agreement with the New Jersey Sports and Exposition
Authority to operate the racetrack on land that the public agency
owns within the Meadowlands Sports Complex, which also includes
MetLife Stadium.

Under the law, there are different wage rates for different
classifications of employees and regions.  For example, the
current rate for a laborer in Bergen County is $14.74, while the
rate for security guards in that area ranges from $17.98 to
$20.36, according to information from the state.

The complaint doesn't detail the size of the would-be class or the
amount by which it has allegedly been underpaid.  But Ms. Sharpe
does contend that the value of the matter falls below the Class
Action Fairness Act's $5 million threshold for removal to federal
court.

Representing New Meadowlands, Angelo J. Genova --
agenova@genovaburns.com -- of Genova Burns said in a statement on
June 19 that the plaintiff is a security guard and that the
complaint comes as a surprise "given the commitment of the
Meadowlands ownership to pay competitive and fair wages and
benefits to its union-represented security guards."

That commitment is demonstrated by the racetrack's partnership
with Hard Rock International to launch a casino at the site, which
would include an estimated 4,000 "good paying" jobs, according to
Mr. Genova.  The establishment of a New Jersey casino outside of
Atlantic City would require an amendment to the state
constitution.

"Never has the union, which is not a party to this suit but
represents security guards, demanded the payment of New Jersey's
'prevailing wage' as condition of their contract," Mr. Genova
said.  "We think that is because the idea is so farfetched and
without sound legal support, conclusions which we will surely
test."

"Or maybe its because many know that the cost of surviving in
racing, like other entertainment ventures, has a tipping point.
You need only look at the recent closing of the Izod Center to
know when that tipping point topples," Mr. Genova added,
referencing the currently shuttered entertainment venue at the
Meadowlands.

An attorney for Sharpe, Ravi Sattiraju, contended on June 15 that
the claims are on firm legal footing.

"We intend to rely on the plain language of the statute, which
sets forth how these workers must be paid, as well as the
underlying public policy behind this statute," he said.  "We
believe that the Court will rule that this employer failed to meet
its legal obligations to this class of workers."

Ms. Sharpe is represented by Ravi Sattiraju of the Sattiraju Law
Firm PC.

New Meadowlands is represented by Genova Burns.

The case is Sharpe v. New Meadowlands Racing and Entertainment
LLC, case number L-5665-15 in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Bergen County.


MEL S. HARRIS: Sued Over Fair Debt Collection Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joel Perlstein and Chany Perlstein, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated consumers v. Mel S. Harris &
Associates, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-03803 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHAEL KORS: Settles Class Action Over Misleading Price Tags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
team of Fort Lauderdale attorneys helped their clients win a
nearly $4.9 million nationwide settlement from Michael Kors in a
class action suit over allegedly misleading price tags.

Jason Alperstein -- alperstein@kolawyers.com -- Jeff Ostrow --
ostrow@kolawyers.com -- and Scott Edelsberg of Kopelowitz Ostrow
Ferguson Weiselberg represented shoppers who said price tags were
misleading at the fashion retailer's outlet stores.

The July 2014 lawsuit alleged the price tags in the outlet stores
listed prices as discounts from "original prices" or
manufacturer's suggested retail prices that were never used.

"Michael Kors manufactures certain goods for exclusive sale at its
Kors Outlets, which means that such items were never sold -- or
even intended to be sold -- at the 'MSRP' price listed on their
labels," according to the false advertising and deceptive sales
complaint filed in the Southern District of New York.

The plaintiffs, led by California shoppers Tressa Gattinella and
Kristina Lengyel, settled with New York-based Michael Kors for
$4.875 million June 12. The settlement requires court approval.
"It's the first class action against an outlet retailer that has
settled on a classwide basis as far as we know," Mr. Ostrow said.

News organizations have highlighted the outlet pricing discrepancy
in the past few years, leading consumers to contact lawyers,
Mr. Ostrow said.  He is in the midst of similar suits against
Guess, Levi's and Nordstrom.

"There definitely is misrepresentation in the manner in which most
of the outlets are presenting their prices," he said.  "They want
you to think that you're getting a discount when in reality you
might not be."

Under the settlement, Michael Kors agreed to change its pricing
practices.  Prices on tags will no longer be called an "original
price" or "MSRP."  In-store signs will describe how pricing is
determined for items sold in the outlets.

"We think that's a significant achievement because it provides
better information to consumers," Mr. Ostrow said.

The settlement class could include thousands of people who shopped
at Michael Kors Outlet Stores from July 25, 2010, to July 25,
2014.  To be eligible for a settlement payment, shoppers must
submit claim verification forms by mail or online by a deadline to
be determined later.

Other plaintiffs attorneys were Hassan A. Zavareei and Jeffrey D.
Kaliel of Tycko, Zavaeei & Spiva in Washington and Wayne Scott
Kreger of the Law Offices of Wayne Kreger in New York.

The defendants were represented by Leslie Gordon Fagen --
lfagen@paulweiss.com -- Walter Rieman -- wrieman@paulweiss.com --
and Darren Wright Johnson -- djohnson@paulweiss.com -- of Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York.  The attorneys did
not respond to requests for comment by deadline.

Both sides reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit
April 2 at a meeting in New York.  Eric Green of Resolutions LLC
in Boston served as a mediator.


MILANEZZA LLC: "Munoz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Munoz, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Milanezza
LLC, Maxmiliano D. Waicman and Marco Moreno, Case No. 1:15-cv-
22428-RNS (S.D. Fla., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Argentinian-Italian restaurant
located at 700 Crandon Blvd., Key Biscayne Florida 33149.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


MINNESOTA: Must Implement Sex Offer Program Changes, Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Red Wing Republican Eagle's Don Davis and The St. Paul Pioneer
Press report that a federal judge says sex offenders have rights,
too, and told state officials on June 17 to either make the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program constitutional or he may release
some offenders.

It is a debate that began after the kidnapping and killing of Dru
Sjodin in 2003, when the number of sex offenders committed to the
treatment program began a dramatic increase.

U.S. District Court Judge Donovan Frank did not order specific
changes to the program and said no sex offenders will be released
immediately.  However, without changes, he indicated that closing
the program or releasing sex offenders is possible.

"The stark reality is that there is something very wrong with this
state's method of dealing with sex offenders in a program that has
never fully discharged anyone committed to its detention
facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter since its inception in
1994," wrote Judge Frank, who as a St. Louis County, Minn.,
prosecutor and state judge dealt with sex offender cases.

"It is undisputed that there are civilly committed individuals at
the MSOP who could be safely placed in the community or in less
restrictive facilities," Judge Frank wrote about the program that
keeps some sex offenders in prison-like hospitals for years after
they finish serving prison terms.

The ruling gives state officials one last chance, after several
warnings, to change the program before the judge makes the
decisions for them.

"We are going to have to make it a real treatment program," said
Sen. Tony Lourey, D-Kerrick, a key legislative player on the
issue.

Gov. Mark Dayton and Human Services Commissioner Lucinda Jesson
disagree with the ruling and pledged to defend the program.

"He has not ordered any specific changes," Ms. Jesson said in an
interview.  "We are just continuing to run the program."

Some changes that Judge Frank suggested already are in the works,
she added, including putting some offenders in less restrictive
facilities.  Another Judge Frank idea matches one from Dayton,
which did not pass the Legislature, to regularly evaluate the
progress that sex offenders make in treatment.

Judge Frank, who then-U.S. Sen. Dayton recommended be named a
federal judge in 1998, asked state leaders to attend an Aug. 10
meeting to design a constitutional treatment program.  He said
that among those he wants at the meeting are Dayton, House Speaker
Kurt Daudt and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk.

"There may be changes that could be made immediately, short of
ordering the closure of the facilities, to remedy this problem,"
Frank wrote.

Ms. Jesson said that legislators would have to change state law
and appropriate money for most of Frank's ideas. If he insists
that happen before the Legislature convenes next March 8, it would
require a special session.

Mr. Lourey said that Mr. Frank wants politicians reluctant to be
seen as letting sex offenders go free to get the message "that we
really do have to do something."

Senators already have voted to make changes, some of which fit
with Judge Frank's proposals.  The House has not taken action.

The attorney for sex offenders who brought the class-action
lawsuit against the state was happy that Judge Frank said that
offenders have rights.

"This order highlights the complete failure of the political
system in Minnesota with respect to these important issues but
more importantly, it reaffirms that all people, no matter how
disliked they are or how reprehensible their prior conduct, are
entitled to constitutional protection," Dan Gustafson said.

Judge Frank said in a 76-page ruling that the sex offender
treatment in Moose Lake and St. Peter state hospitals gives sex
offenders no "realistic hope of ever getting out," even though
some offenders could live outside the treatment centers.

Sjodin tragedy

The debate about what to do with sex offenders after their prison
terms end began when Ms. Sjodin was killed in 2003.

Shortly before Ms. Sjodin disappeared, Mr. Rodriguez completed his
23-year prison term and was released, but was not committed to the
Minnesota Sex Offender Program.

Federal and state laws changed after Ms. Sjodin was kidnapped on
Nov. 22, 2003, from a Grand Forks, N.D., mall parking lot.  Her
body was found five months later and Alfonso Rodriguez Jr. of
Crookston, Minnesota, was convicted of her death.

The fact that Mr. Rodriguez did not go into treatment raised such
an uproar among Minnesotans that politicians, prosecutors and
judges began putting more and more offenders into treatment,
boosting the number of clients from 150 then to 714 today.

Minnesota politicians increased prison terms for the worse sex
offenders, but did little with the treatment program. In the past
couple of years, legislators expected Frank to order major
changes, but they mostly avoided voting to let sex offenders go
free.

Ms. Sjodin was a University of North Dakota student and a Pequot
Lakes High School graduate.

           Future of Sex Offender Program Still Unclear

Briana Bierschbach, writing for MinnPost, reports that last
February, a federal judge warned Minnesota lawmakers that a state
program to treat its most dangerous sex offenders probably didn't
pass constitutional muster.  If that wasn't clear enough, U.S.
District Judge Donovan Frank drove the point home in the word
choices peppered throughout his court order: "draconian," "clearly
broken," "systemic problems" and "grave deficiencies."

Despite his stern warnings to make changes before it was too late,
two legislative sessions passed with no action from lawmakers.  On
June 17, Judge Frank issued a 76-page ruling on a class action
lawsuit on behalf of offenders in the program to make his
intentions crystal clear: The Minnesota Sex Offender Program
(MSOP) is unconstitutional and must be changed.

The crux of the constitutional problem is the program's low rate
of release.  MSOP currently houses more than 700 sex offenders in
its maximum-security facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter, where
most of the offenders go after having already served their prison
sentences.  There, offenders become clients and receive treatment.
But in the 20-year history of the program, only two people have
ever been successfully released on a provisional basis.  No one
has ever been given full, unconditional release from MSOP, leading
clients to liken the program to Minnesota's version of Guantanamo.
On June 18, Minnesota commits more sex offenders per capita than
any other state in the nation.

"It is fundamental to our notions of a free society that we do not
imprison citizens because we fear that they might commit a crime
in the future," Frank wrote in his ruling.  "This strikes at the
very heart of what it means to be a free society where liberty is
a primary value of our heritage."

But while Judge Frank's intentions have become clear, the future
of the program is not.  The ruling didn't order any immediate
changes to MSOP -- or direct the state to release any offenders.
And it still leaves the solution to the problem partially in the
hands of lawmakers, the very group that has repeatedly punted on
finding a fix.  Here's a breakdown of what the ruling means, and
what's next for the program in Minnesota.

So why, specifically, is MSOP unconstitutional?
In his ruling, Judge Frank specifically argues with the way
Minnesota's civil commitment statute for sex offenders is written.
Among the problems: The law doesn't require periodic review of
offenders in the program and how they are progressing through
treatment; it's far easier for a judge to commit someone to the
program than it is for an offender to petition to get out; and it
puts the burden on the individual, not the state, to prove they
are progressing through treatment.  What's more, offenders must
prove they are ready for a life outside the razor wire in less-
restrictive facilities, when no less-restrictive options have been
made available, he said.

These things combined have made it nearly impossible for an
offender to be released, violating their constitutional rights.
It has also led to a hopeless "environment" and "emotional climate
of despair" among clients at MSOP, he said.

So what's the fix?
In the ruling, the judge lays out 16 specific things he'd like to
see changed.  At the top of the list is a requirement for all
current clients to be re-evaluated, starting with the oldest and
moving on to those with substantive physical or intellectual
disabilities; and then to the offenders in the program with no
adult criminal record, only juvenile offenses.  He also wants
periodic reviews of offenders and the risk they pose to society.
On top of that, Judge Frank says the state should create new,
less-restrictive places to put offenders, and provide them with
qualified defense counsel and experts as they are petitioning for
release.  All of these changes should be monitored by a "special
master," he said.

What's the next step?
Big changes like that can't happen without the sign-off of
lawmakers -- and probably some new funding.  Judge Frank has
ordered an Aug. 10 hearing where all stakeholders, including
legislators and representatives of the executive branch, will be
asked to present "suitable remedies" to the problems with the
program.  Specifically, Judge Frank wants to see DFL Gov. Mark
Dayton, Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt, and DFL Senate
Majority Leader Tom Bakk at the hearing.

Does that mean politicians are now on board with making changes?
Not exactly. While Judge Frank wants them to participate in
finding a solution, lawmakers weren't enthusiastically jumping at
the opportunity on June 17.  In a statement, Mr. Dayton defended
the program's constitutionality.  The state has the option to
appeal the ruling, but no one in Dayton's administration has said
yet whether they will do that.  "We continue to believe that both
the Minnesota Sex Offender Program and the civil commitment
statute are constitutional," Mr. Dayton said.  "We will work with
the attorney general to defend Minnesota's law.  As the federal
judge has not ordered any releases, there will be no immediate
changes to this program as a result of this ruling."

Republican House Health and Human Services Finance Chairman Matt
Dean was even more dismissive, saying the Legislature is "not a
party to this lawsuit and does not have any legal obligation to
respond."

"While we reject Judge Frank's opinion regarding the
constitutionality of the program," Mr. Dean continued, "the
Legislature will continue to work with MSOP to improve the program
in a matter that protects our primary obligation to protect
vulnerable Minnesotans."

Dan Gustafson, the attorney representing MSOP clients, said he
understands why politicians are wary of finding a fix, but time
has run out. "Who wants to be the first person to stand up and say
I'm in favor of releasing sex offenders?" he said.  "There's just
no reason why any political leader would do that."

Do any lawmakers support changing the program?
Support might be overstating it, but Bakk has acknowledged the
state needs to make changes to the program.  In 2013, the state
Senate passed legislation that adopted many recommendations from a
court-appointed task force set up to review program.  The proposal
would have put only the most dangerous offenders in the program,
while others would be placed in a new, less-restricted
environment.  It also established a two-step hearing process that
would determine if civil commitment to the program is needed and,
if necessary, the terms of that commitment.  But action on that
legislation has repeatedly stalled in the House.

Rep. Nick Zerwas, R-Elk River, who has worked with the
administration on reforms in the past, said he could see
bipartisan agreement in adopting recommendations to standardize
the process of civil commitment across the state.  Republicans
also support moving some offenders who are less likely to be a
danger to the public -- the elderly and those who have
intellectual and physical disabilities -- into less-restrictive
facilities: outside the razor wire but still on the campus of
Moose Lake or St. Peter.

Will any offenders be released?
Not right away, but if lawmakers don't make changes, Judge Frank
has the option to release people from the program.  In his ruling,
he calls out specific groups of offenders who are particularly
concerning to him, including Rhonda Bailey, the only woman ever
committed to the program.  Ms. Bailey is currently being treated
in MSOP with all men.  He also mentions Eric Terhaar, an offender
who is part of a class of more than 50 clients in the program who
have no adult criminal record.

Currently, there are about 40 offenders in the final phase of
treatment before release, Department of Human Services
Commissioner Lucinda Jesson said.  That's an increase from recent
years, and her staff has also put out requests to halfway houses
and group homes around the state for potential less-restrictive
options.  "I don't think it's ever easy to be a defendant in a
lawsuit, but having said that, I don't think it should be awkward
to continue to improve the program," Ms. Jesson said.  "We have
made efforts already and we will continue to make improvements."

Will changing the program be expensive?
The problem is expensive, and so is the solution.  As of last
July, the cost of housing an offender in MSOP was more than
$120,000 per year, three times more than it costs to keep them in
a correctional facility.  And the number of people in the program
has exploded since 2003, when North Dakota State college student
Dru Sjodin was kidnapped and murdered by a Minnesota sex offender
who was released after his prison sentence but not committed to
the program.  By 2022, officials anticipate the population inside
MSOP will grow to 1,215 individuals.

In Mr. Dayton's initial budget proposal, he recommended spending
$6.8 million over the next two years to evaluate offenders every
other year and cover one-time transitional costs for offenders to
less-restrictive facilities.  He also proposed $10.7 million in a
bonding proposal to design and construct a community-based
residential treatment alternative to MSOP. Neither proposal gained
traction with legislators in the 2015 session.

Will Mr. Dayton have to call a special session to deal with this?
That part is unclear.  Judge Frank didn't outline any specific
timeline, outside of the Aug. 10 hearing, and he didn't lay out
what should happen next.  Mr. Gustafson said it will take time to
come up with changes and implement them, but after three years of
waiting for legislators to act, he doesn't expect the federal
courts will let lawmakers "wring their hands" over a solution for
much longer.  "This is an indictment of the Minnesota political
system," he said.  "These issues are not new to the state of
Minnesota, but the political system has failed to act on it."


MONSANTO CO: Faces False Advertising Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that Elvis Mirzaie, Edison Mirzaie and Romi
Mirzaie filed a lawsuit April 20 in Los Angeles Superior Court
against Monsanto Co., maker of Roundup.  The defendant removed the
suit to federal court on June 9.

Roundup advertises that it targets an enzyme found in only plants
and not people, but the lawsuit claims that isn't true and the
enzyme is found in both.

"Therefore, where (Monsanto) advertises that Round targets an
enzyme 'not found in people,' such claim is objectively false and
inherently misleading," the lawsuit said.

The specific enzyme in question is called EPSP synthase, which is
produced by "weeds, plants, bacteria, fungi, algae and other
microbes," the lawsuit said.  The suit added "over one hundred
trillion bacteria" that produce the enzyme can be found in humans.

The plaintiffs are seeking a court order to have that information
taken off all Roundup labels.  The plaintiffs are seeking class
status for those that purchased Roundup within the last four
years.  The suit is also seeking an unspecified amount in damages
plus court costs.

The plaintiffs are represented by T. Matthew Phillips, an attorney
in Las Vegas.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California case
number 2:15-cv-04361.


NEW LONDON, CT: Shooting Victims Mull Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Greg Smith, writing for The Day, reports that the city and the
New London Housing Authority are facing the possibility of a
lawsuit related to a shooting at a high rise apartment complex off
Crystal Avenue.

New London Attorney Robert Reardon on June 18 filed a notice of
intent to sue, claiming security and overall maintenance at the
Thames River Apartments were neglected for years leading to
dangerous conditions for residents.

Police said a 17-year-old was shot in the arm and a 4-year-old
sustained a minor graze wound to her leg on May 25 when two men
fired multiple shots in a courtyard area of the apartment complex.
No arrests have been made in the case, which remains under
investigation.

Mr. Reardon's notice of intent to sue, filed with the City Clerk's
office, identifies the victims in the shooting as Tiyana Boyd and
Serenity Reels.  He claims Ms. Boyd suffered permanent injury to
her arm and her mother, Kalilah Hightower, suffered severe
emotional distress, he said.  Reels suffered a leg injury and her
mother, Sharandra Rickae, and sister, Skye Reels, both suffered
emotional distress, Reardon claims.

"They were just out there having a good time," Mr. Reardon said on
June 18.  "It appears, from what we've been told by witnesses,
there were multiple shots being fired back and forth. Two men were
shooting at each other."

Mr. Reardon secured a judgment last year in a class action lawsuit
against the housing authority on behalf of more than 300 tenants
of the apartment complex.

A judge has ordered the New London Housing Authority to follow a
three-year schedule of rehabilitation of the 124-unit low income
housing complex.

"The New London Housing Authority and the City of New London have
neglected to maintain this apartment complex for many years
allowing it to be a known area for criminal activity, gang
members, drug dealers and others intent on committing violent
criminal activity exposing the tenants to risk of injury or
death," Mr. Reardon wrote in his notice to the city.

Among others security lapses Mr. Reardon cites in his notice are
broken gate locks, a lack of security guards, inadequate lighting
and slow responses to 911 calls.

Criminals and trespassers are regularly allowed to loiter in the
playground and plaza area, "providing them with an open invitation
to use it as a base for criminal activities," Reardon wrote.

"The Housing Authority aggressively defended a class action
lawsuit brought by the tenants seeking safe, habitable housing
. . . for over a decade," Reardon wrote.

Reached by email, New London Mayor Daryl Justin Finizio said it is
the policy of the city not to comment on pending litigation.


NEW YORK, NY: Officials Agree to Sweeping Reforms at Rikers Island
------------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Weiser, writing for The New York Times, reports that
New York City officials have tentatively agreed to sweeping
reforms that would remake Rikers Island, including the appointment
of a federal monitor to oversee the jail complex, explicit
prohibitions against guards' striking prisoners in the head and
even the introduction of body cameras worn by guards.

Other reforms city officials are poised to endorse include the
development of a computerized system to better track the use of
force by correction officers, the implementation of an early
warning program to flag guards who use force against inmates three
or more times in six months, injuring at least one of them, and
the installation of 8,000 new surveillance cameras throughout the
jail complex.

The measures are part of a far-reaching legal settlement that has
been largely agreed upon, after months of negotiation, by lawyers
for the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio and the office of
Preet Bharara, the United States attorney for the Southern
District of New York, as well as the Legal Aid Society and a group
of private lawyers who in 2011 filed a class-action lawsuit
against the city, which Mr. Bharara's office joined in December,
according to people who have been briefed on the talks.

They cautioned that there was no final deal and that certain
remaining disputes could still get in the way of a settlement.
But Mr. Bharara's office and the city's Law Department told a
federal magistrate judge two weeks ago that they expected a deal
to be completed by Monday, June 22.

Some of the measures that lawyers for the city have tentatively
agreed to would have seemed unimaginable as recently as early
2014, underscoring the suddenness with which Rikers reform has
leapt to the forefront of the agenda of the de Blasio
administration over the last year.

The city's Department of Correction has been under extraordinary
scrutiny after articles by The New York Times, The Associated
Press and The New Yorker, as well as reports by the city's
Investigation Department, documented widespread brutality,
corruption and dysfunction at Rikers.

In August, Mr. Bharara's office, after a two-and-a-half-year
investigation, issued a blistering report that found a "deep-
seated culture of violence" directed toward adolescent inmates at
Rikers, and a systematic deprivation of their civil rights.

Saying he was frustrated with the pace of change at Rikers,
Mr. Bharara announced plans in December to sue the city and seek
court-ordered reforms.  His office joined in an existing class-
action lawsuit on brutality at Rikers, Nunez v. City of New York,
filed by the Legal Aid Society and two law firms, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady and Ropes & Gray.

There have been "dozens and dozens" of negotiating sessions, a
city lawyer said recently in court.  The sessions have been
attended at times by Mr. Bharara; Zachary W. Carter, the
corporation counsel for New York City; and Joseph Ponte, the
correction commissioner, whom Mr. Bharara, at a news conference
about charges being filed in a 2010 beating death of a Rikers
inmate, praised as "dedicated to the cause of reform."  But
Mr. Bharara has also expressed impatience with the grinding
progress of the talks.

"Every day that goes by where we don't have enforceable and
enduring reform at Rikers Island is one day too many," he said.

Even as bigger issues were resolved, some of the obstacles in
recent weeks were over finer points.  The city objected, for
example, to a provision that would require the Correction
Department to notify United States prosecutors whenever it
referred a potentially criminal occurrence involving the use of
force to the city's Investigation Department.

The agreement that now appears close would seem to address many of
Mr. Bharara's concerns as well as those voiced by Mr. de Blasio,
who, when he visited the jail in March, vowed to make Rikers a
"national model of what is right again."

A spokeswoman for Mr. de Blasio, in a statement on June 18, said
the agreement would be "a major step" toward his administration's
goal of reducing violence in the jails. She added, "We fully
expect a successful conclusion to this process within a few days."

The correction commissioner, Mr. Ponte, who came into the job a
little over a year ago, has already undertaken major changes that
track some areas of agreement between the parties.  In December,
for example, Mr. Ponte ended solitary confinement for 16- and 17-
year-olds at Rikers.  The tentative agreement mandates doing just
that, and would also prohibit placing 18-year-old inmates with
serious mental illness in isolation.

Mr. Ponte, in a recent interview with The Times, expressed
openness to the idea of a federal monitor, a remedy he once said
he had hoped to avoid.  "I don't think a monitor hinders anything
we want to do," Mr. Ponte said.

The city already has court-appointed monitors overseeing reforms
in the Police Department's stop, question and frisk policies and
the Fire Department's hiring practices.

Under the proposed Rikers agreement, the monitor would have broad
access to the jails and records, and the ability to interview
inmates confidentially and to speak with staff members outside the
presence of their colleagues or supervisors.  The monitor would
review all policies adopted under the settlement, including a new
training curriculum for the staff.

The monitor would report to the federal judge in Manhattan who is
overseeing the Nunez lawsuit, Laura Taylor Swain, and the monitor,
in publicly filed reports, would regularly evaluate the status of
the department's compliance with the settlement. Judge Swain would
be asked to approve any settlement.

The agreement itself would end only when the court finds that the
city has achieved and maintained substantial compliance with the
terms of the settlement for two years.

A critical part of the proposed deal is a requirement that the
Correction Department, in consultation with the monitor, develop a
comprehensive new policy on the use of force by guards.

Another provision would require the use of hand-held video cameras
to record the removals of prisoners from cells -- often a violent
process -- and other actions.  Such recordings would have to be
continuous, and any breaks would have to be documented and
explained.  Staff members wearing or carrying cameras who
repeatedly failed to capture sensitive incidents on video would be
referred for discipline.

Much of the proposed agreement focuses on bettering conditions for
teenage inmates, which was the primary focus of Mr. Bharara's
report last August.

Additional video cameras would have to be installed in the jail
for teenage inmates, the Robert N. Davoren Center, with a goal of
ensuring total camera coverage of areas that are accessible to 16-
and 17-year-olds.

The agreement also pushes the city to look into taking teenage
inmates off Rikers Island completely.  City officials, in
consultation with the monitor, would be required to make their
best efforts to find a new location for inmates under age 18.  The
site should have access to recreation and educational services.
And it should be accessible by public transportation, to make it
easier for family members to visit.

The city would be required, in periodic reports to the monitor, to
detail its search process, the places under consideration and how
long it would take before they would be available for housing
inmates.  But the proposal would allow the city to report that
after a diligent search, it could not find a suitable location.


NEW YORK, NY: COBA Responds to Rikers Island Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Colby Hamilton and Gloria Pazmino, writing for Capital New York,
report that the Correction Officers' Benevolent Association took
to Twitter on June 19 to respond to details of a reported
settlement between the city and plaintiffs in a class-action
lawsuit that alleges systemic violence directed at inmates by
correction officers at Rikers Island.

"We want real Rikers reform but @nytimes & other media fail to
mention very real issues facing inmates, jail workers & their
families," the official COBA account tweeted in the first of five
tweets on June 19 in response to news reports about the deal.

Much of the announced reform proposals that have come from Mayor
Bill de Blasio and Department of Correction commissioner Joseph
Ponte, including a 14-point plan to reduce violence at the city
jail, have, until now, largely focused on inmates and visitors to
Rikers.

By contrast, the broad details of the settlement in the Nunez v.
the City of New York suit are mainly focused on accountability
measures for correction officers, including a new use of force
policy for the D.O.C. and a federal monitor to oversee
implementation of the settlement.

The other tweets said:

"There's no mention of inmates who commit crimes while jailed, of
criminal justice system that begins in street & only ends in NYC
jails."

"no mention of a Dept of Health which uses City Jails as a dumping
ground for overflow of mentally ill patients.

"No mention of D.A's who hide away low-level street criminals.  No
mention of a system that uses NYC Jails as overflow homeless
shelters."

"We must address ALL aspects of system. Stand with @COBA to demand
real action & real reform on Riker's Island"

Norman Seabrook, the union president, did not return multiple
phone calls from Capital.

Mr. Seabrook regularly tweets out from the account, often adding
the signature "NSeabrook" to tweets that provide proported details
of corrections officers who were attacked on the job.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara has sent a letter to the judge in the
case, Laura Taylor Swain, alerting her that the parties had agreed
to a June 22 deadline for the settlement.  COBA is not part of the
settlement negotiations.


NEWS CORP: Ordered to Face Ad Monopoly Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that News Corp. has
been ordered by a Manhattan federal judge to face a class action
lawsuit accusing it of monopolizing the market for in-store
promotions at some 52,500 retail stores across the United States.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley said consumer packaged goods
companies such as Dial Corp, H.J. Heinz Co. and Smithfield Foods
Inc. may pursue their antitrust claims as a group, potentially
boosting overall damages.

News Corp spokeswoman Laura Adams said the company, which is
controlled by Rupert Murdoch, is reviewing the June 18 decision.

The litigation is part of a long-running battle over News Corp's
marketing operations.  In January 2010, the New York-based company
agreed to pay $500 million to end rival Valassis Communications
Inc.'s antitrust lawsuit over the newspaper coupon market.

News Corp. has an estimated 80 percent of the U.S. market for in-
store promotion services, where it acts as a middleman to help
companies promote goods through coupon dispensers, electronic
signs, end-of-aisle displays and shopping cart ads.

The plaintiffs said News Corp has monopolized this market since
2004 by locking up exclusive long-term contracts with retailers.
They said this anticompetitive conduct has forced them to pay
artificially high prices to promote such goods as Dial-brand soap,
Heinz ketchup and Smithfield's Eckrich hot dogs.

In certifying a class action from April 5, 2008, to the present,
Pauley rejected News Corp.'s arguments that damages would be too
hard to measure.  He noted that the plaintiffs' damages expert
estimated overcharges of 31 percent to 43 percent in the 2008-13
period.

The judge also said "central questions regarding liability" for
alleged supra-competitive prices were "susceptible to common
proof" that could be addressed in a single trial.

John Briody, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, declined to comment.

Pauley said Valassis is News Corp's only remaining competitor in
the in-store promotion services market.  Valassis has also accused
News Corp of unfairly dominating that market, and is suing the
company in Detroit federal court.

Heinz is owned by Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc and
Brazil's 3G Capital, and plans to merge with Kraft Foods Group
Inc.

Smithfield was bought in 2013 by the Chinese company now called WH
Group Ltd.  Dial is a unit of Germany's Henkel & Co.

The case is Dial Corp et al v. News Corp et al, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-06802.


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Aug. 21 Class Action Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Morris, Esq. of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an article
for JDSupra, reports that March 26 marked the beginning of the end
for the storied 14-year litigation concerning Northwestern Mutual
Life Insurance Pre-MN annuities when the Eastern District of
Wisconsin granted preliminary approval of a proposed class action
settlement in LaPlant v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
Company.

Plaintiffs in LaPlant alleged that, starting in 1985, Northwestern
Mutual changed its dividend calculation methodology so that the
amount of dividends credited to the class annuity accounts would
be based on interest earned on "short-term bonds exclusively and
secretly chosen by" the company, rather than on the purported
contractually-required "share of Northwestern's annual profits or
'divisible surplus'" basis.  If the settlement is ultimately
approved by the federal judiciary, those who terminated or
annuitized their policies prior to 1994, which is estimated to be
over half of the 33,000 annuitant class members, will each be
eligible for $250.  The remaining $84 million fund, minus fees and
costs, will be available for the rest of the class members, based
on each annuity's average net cash value and number of years the
annuity was held.

LaPlant is not the first attempt by class counsel to recover funds
from the company regarding this alleged change.  In Noonan v.
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company, a 2001 Wisconsin state
court case, class certification status was denied, a result
affirmed by the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin in 2006.

Nevertheless, Noonan remains pending as a stayed individual
action.  Cases brought by class counsel against Northwestern
Mutual in Florida, California, and Washington also remain pending
and will be dismissed if the settlement is ultimately approved.

A hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for August 21,
2015.


OGDEN COUNTY: Aug. 4 Oral Argument in Trece Injunction Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Gurrister, writing for Standard-Examiner, reports that oral
arguments are set for the class action lawsuit pending against
Weber County and Ogden police over the now-defunct Ogden Trece
Injunction and a judge has agreed to let prosecutors file a final
brief in defense.

Second District Judge Noel Hyde set oral arguments for Aug. 4 in
the suit brought by the Utah branch of the ACLU and former Trece
defense attorneys on behalf of the estimated 55 Trece gang members
convicted under the injunction.  Monetary damages could follow if
the suit is successful.

Modeled after similar efforts in use in California and elsewhere,
the Trece injunction was designed to keep known members of the
city's oldest street gang off the street, banning association and
gun possession in public.  It had imposed an 11:00 p.m. curfew on
Treces in a 25-square mile area encompassing virtually all of
Ogden.  The injunction's supporting memoranda documented years of
assaults, drug dealing, a car theft ring and several murders by
Treces, considered the city's largest gang with over 300 members.

After a three-year run, the injunction was voided by the Utah
Supreme Court in September of 2013 on procedural grounds, the high
court never ruling on the constitutional violations claimed by the
ACLU and other critics.

Fellow 2nd District Judge Michael DiReda formally overturned the
conviction of former Trece LeLand McCubbin on two violations of
the Trece injunction, for curfew and weapons possession, for which
he served 180 days in jail.

After a testy hearing in April, as the same lawyers pressing the
class action suit sparred with prosecutors on the exact wording
for the dismissals, Judge DiReda issued the final order, basically
citing the Supreme Court's concerns with the injunction.

The McCubbin lawsuit was filed in September of 2014, the class
action suit a month later.  Despite the lawsuits, Weber County
Attorney Chris Allred has said his office is considering
resurrecting the injunction, as it was successful in decreasing
gang crime.  A key issue in the class action suit, filed under
Utah's Post Conviction Relief Act, or PCRA, is that the Treces
missed a deadline by several weeks for filing the suit.

The ACLU argues in pleadings that dismissing the suit for such a
technical, administrative reason as PCRA deadlines would amount to
an "egregious injustice."

County and city lawyers had requested time, which Judge Hyde
granted, to respond to those claims in a motion, writing, "This
issue requires significant briefing as it is a request to consider
the constitutionality of the PCRA's time limits . . . and the
court should be fully apprised of all the legal issues."

Judge Hyde, ironically, has just finished presiding over a two-
week trial that resulted in the conviction on June 10 of Ruben
Nava on manslaughter charges for fatally shooting a Trece during a
brawl at an Ogden party.


OGEMAW COUNTY, MI: Former Female Inmates File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Young, writing for The Ogemaw County Herald, reports that
three former Ogemaw County female inmates are representing all
female inmates of the Ogemaw County Jail in a class action lawsuit
against Ogemaw County, Sheriff Howie Hanft and former Sheriff's
Work Crew Supervisor James Gustafston.

The plaintiffs are seeking judgement "in an amount excess of
$75,000 and whatever the trier of facts finds the plaintiff to be
entitled," according to documents filed in U.S District Court.

Gustafson pleaded no contest last year to two counts of criminal
sexual conduct second-degree assault after being accused of
engaging in sexual contact with two female inmates of the Ogemaw
County Correctional Facility while he was serving as the work crew
supervisor Sept. 16, 2003 and Oct. 2, 2003.  He was later
sentenced to 20 months to five years in prison on both counts.

The class action suit claims Gustafson "unlawfully assaulted,
battered and sexually harassed female inmates who were
incarcerated in the Ogemaw County Jail," according to the filing.

Mr. Hanft is joined as part of the lawsuit "for his failure to
take corrective action against the employee," and the county is
joined due to its "policy of indifference to inmate reports of
inappropriate sexual contact between Gustafson and female
inmates."

The plaintiffs include Stacy McIntyre of Luzerne, Candy Ostrom of
Jackson and Heather Miles of Beecher, all former inmates at the
Ogemaw County Correctional Facility.  They are suing on five
counts, including deprivation of civil rights, gross negligence,
assault and battery, invasion of privacy and negligent and
intentional infliction of emotional distress.

No future court dates have been set at this time.

Ogemaw County shuttered the sheriff's work program in May 2014,
after District Court Judge Richard Noble eliminated participation
in the program as part of a jail sentence.  Circuit Court Judge
Michael Baumgartner had already stopped allowing inmates to serve
on the program at that time.

Former inmate June Beach also sued the county, the sheriff and two
sheriff's office employees, demanding $75,000.  Ms. Beach alleged
that a lack of supervision had led to her being sexually assaulted
while serving on the Sheriff's Work Crew.  That suit was settled
out of court, though the amount of the settlement has not yet been
disclosed.


OTTEROO CORPORATION: Recalls Baby Floats Over Risk of Drowning
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Otteroo Corporation, of San Francisco, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,000 Otteroo Inflatable Baby Floats.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The seam on the flotation device can leak air and deflate, posing
a risk of drowning.

The Otteroo Inflatable Baby Float is an inflatable round ring made
of clear and blue plastic material. It has two air chambers that
fasten around a baby's neck with a white buckle. The floats have a
chin rest, two handles and two circular openings on the back of
the ring to allow the device to expand as the child grows with
age. There are three colorful balls that move freely around inside
the ring.  The name "Otteroo" is imprinted on the top of the float
in large, orange letters with an Otter logo.

The firm has received 54 reports of broken seams on the product.
No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/4G0D21

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Otteroo.com and Amazon.com and Zulily.com from January 2014
through July 2014 for about $35.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled inflatable
baby floats and contact the firm to receive a free replacement.


OUTSOURCING USA: "Conti" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alanna Conti, Angelina Matthews, Esteban Mercado, and William
Dwyer v. Outsourcing USA, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-01276-RDM (M.D.
Pa., June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Outsourcing USA, LLC is engaged in the business of advertising
production for newspapers, with a principal place of business
located at 1200 Twin Stacks Drive, Dallas, Pennsylvania 18612.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George A. Reihner, Esq.
      WRIGHT & REIHNER, PC
      148 Adams Avenue
      Scranton, PA 18503
      Telephone: (570) 961-1166
      E-mail: gareihner@wrightreihner.com


PARADISE FLOWERS: Faces "Valdez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Danilo Valdez, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Paradise Flowers And Plants, L.L.C., Abbott Florist, L.L.C., and
Raul O. Encio, Maximiliano A. Chaves, Myriam Chaves Encio, and
Patricia L. Pineirua, Case No. 1:15-cv-22424-DPG (S.D. Fla., June
29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are Florida corporations that own and operate
plants and flowers shops in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PATRIOT ELECTRIC: Faces "Cirillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Cirillo and Stylianos Politis, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Patriot Electric Corp., Cititek
Electrical Contractors, Inc., and Michael Tek, Case No. 2:15-cv-
03770 (E.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are electrical contractors that maintain a
principal executive office located at 58-71 57th Road, Maspeth,
New York 11378.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PENNYSAVER USA: Removed "Benton" Class Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Luann Benton, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pennysaver USA, LLC,
Opengate Capital, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-02015-00789540-CU, was removed from the Orange County Superior
Court to the United States District Court for the Central District
of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01036 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Luann Benton
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kathryn Teresa McGuigan, Esq.
      MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP
      300 South Grand Avenue, 22nd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
      Telephone: (213) 612-2500
      Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
      E-mail: kmcguigan@morganlewis.com


POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: To File Reply Brief in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Powersecure International, Inc. has been expected to file its
reply brief in a securities class action, Powersecure said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014,
two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the
other in the Western District of North Carolina. On October 10,
2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, and a
lead plaintiff was appointed."

"As consolidated, the lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons
or entities that purchased our common stock during a purported
class period from August 8, 2013 through May 7, 2014, which is the
longer of the two different purported class periods used in the
pre-consolidation lawsuits. A consolidated amended complaint was
filed on December 29, 2014. The action alleges that certain
statements made by the defendants during the class period violated
federal securities laws and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount. We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
February 26, 2015, to which plaintiffs responded on April 30,
2015. We expect to file our reply brief in June 2015, after which
the court will rule on our motion to dismiss. We believe that the
claims asserted in this class action litigation are without merit,
and we intend to vigorously defend against all such allegations."


PRESIDIO INTERNATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ericka Zorrilla v. Presidio International, Inc., a/k/a Armani
Exchange and Nikea Russell, Case No. 1:15-cv-22422-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate several high end fashion retail
stores in Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


QUEBEC, CANADA: Class Action Over Legionnaire's Outbreak Launched
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that families of people who died or fell ill
during an outbreak of Legionnaire's disease have filed a request
to launch a class-action lawsuit.

The 2012 outbreak in Quebec City killed 14 people.  More than 180
others became ill from bacteria that was found to be in a cooling
tower of a downtown office building.

The lawsuit alleges public health director Francois Desbiens
failed to inform the public quickly enough about the outbreak.  It
cites the building's owner, the CSQ union federation, for failing
to properly clean its cooling towers.  It also says the government
failed to prevent the outbreak because it did not act on
recommendations following a smaller outbreak in 1996.

At the time, public health officials recommended creating a
registry of all buildings with cooling towers.

The suit is claiming $50,000 for people who fell ill, $140,000 for
surviving spouses, and $30,000 for victims' children.

"This gives me hope that finally things will be settled," said
Nadia Champagne whose father died in the 2012 outbreak.

"It's the best news I could get.  I'll be able to have some
closure."

Brigitte Arbour's mother died in her arms.  She says the class-
action lawsuit is too little, too late.

"I didn't expect anything," said Ms. Arbour.  "If there's a suit,
fine.  If not, too bad.  Whatever the outcome, it won't bring my
mother back."

A spokeswoman for the CSQ says the labor federation is analyzing
the request for the class action.  She said the CSQ will respond
in court.

The class action still has to be approved by a judge.


REDBOX AUTOMATED: Accused of Violating Disabilities Act in Pa.
--------------------------------------------------------------
April Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03100-
JS (E.D. Pa., June 4, 2015) is brought under The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence Kalikhman, Esq.
          KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
          1051 County Line Rd., Suite 102
          Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
          Telephone: (215) 364-5030
          E-mail: lkalikhman@kalraylaw.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: July 21 Cert. Hearing in Landfill Odor Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brianna Bailey, writing for NewsOK.com, reports that the Southeast
Landfill in Oklahoma City has been the subject of an ongoing
federal lawsuit by some homeowners in the neighborhood for the
past three years.  Records show the landfill, operated by the
Arizona-based waste management company Republic Services Inc., has
had ongoing problems with combustible methane gas levels that
exceed regulatory limits.

Operator is sued

Complaining of "pollutants, air contaminants, dust, debris and
noxious odors," southeast Oklahoma City residents Tommy McCarty
and Beth Thomas moved to sue Republic Services in 2012 on behalf
of all of their neighbors.  The lawsuit claims the landfill is a
nuisance and its operators have been negligent in the way they run
the facility.

Republic spokesman Russ Knocke said the landfill "is safe and
well-managed."

"It is closely monitored in coordination with the DEQ (Oklahoma
Department of Environmental Quality), and it is fully compliant
with regulatory requirements," Mr. Knocke said.

A hearing is scheduled for July 21 on whether to certify the case
as a class-action lawsuit, which would allow the plaintiffs to sue
on behalf of other neighborhood residents.

McCarty declined to comment, because he said his attorney advised
him not to talk to the media about the lawsuit until after the
hearing.

Mr. Knocke said landfill gas is a common byproduct of decomposing
waste, and monitoring allows operators to react to any issues with
the gas.  "It is important to note the distinction between gas
migration within the soil, which does not present an odor concern,
and gas that might release into ambient air," Mr. Knocke said.
"The landfill's surface emissions monitoring program helps ensure
that there are no substantial gas emissions that could lead to
odor."

Mr. Knocke said Republic has not had an odor concern confirmed by
state regulators in more than a year "or any notice of violation
since 2011, and we are unaware of any or recent confirmed
allegations."

Thomas and three attorneys for the plaintiffs did not respond to
multiple requests for comment.

The plaintiffs are being represented by the Detroit environmental
class action law firm Liddle & Dubin, which says on its website
that it has won more than $100 million on behalf of its clients
and class members nationwide.

In landfill's shadow

The neighborhood where the plaintiffs live is just north of the
landfill near SE 59 and S Bryant Avenue -- where the Indian
Territory Illuminating Oil Co. drilled the Oklahoma City Discovery
Well that marked the opening of the Oklahoma City Oil Field in
1928.

The homes in the area date back to the 1930s, when oil companies
housed workers there in wooden homes that were hauled in on
trailers.  It's a quiet area filled with mature trees and modest
bungalows, some more well kept than others.  Some of the streets
in the area, including Empire and Itio avenues, were named for the
oil companies that pioneered the Oklahoma City Oil Field.

Resident Gary Popel's yellow brick bungalow on Empire Avenue was
once a general store and post office for the oil-field
neighborhood.  Mr. Popel, who has owned the house since the early
1980's, said the odor as well as the fine grit and dust that
drifts over from the landfill have diminished the value of his
property.

"When I bought the house, that landfill was just a hole in the
ground," Mr. Popel said.

The same landfill now is a sizable mound of dirt that is visible
from the end of his street.  Red dust from the site drifts over to
the homes on Empire and is a common complaint from area residents,
he said.


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Aug. 6 Hearing on Motion to Remand
--------------------------------------------------------
The putative class action captioned "City of Warren Police and
Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc. et al.," Case
No. CIV 533635 was filed on May 1, 2015, in San Mateo Superior
Court alleging violations of the Federal Securities Laws.

On June 5, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to federal
court.

The parties stipulated on June 9, 2015, under Civil L.R. 6-1(a)
that, in light of the anticipated remand motion and opposition,
and in the interests of judicial economy and preservation of the
Court's and the parties' resources, Defendants need not respond to
the pending Complaint, but would respond within 30 days of
Plaintiff amending the Complaint or designating an operative
complaint.

The Plaintiff then filed a motion to remand the action to state
court, indicating August 6, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. as the date and time
for hearing on the motion.

Defendants intend to oppose the remand motion.

To accommodate scheduling conflicts and Counsel's travel
commitments, Defendants require a brief extension of time to
respond to the motion to remand.

Accordingly, District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., signed a
stipulation on June 17, 2015, which provides that:

1. Defendants' opposition to the motion to remand was to be filed
July 2, 2015.

2. Plaintiff's reply to the opposition to the motion to remand
must be filed on or before July 14, 2015.

3. The hearing on the remand motion will occur as currently
scheduled on August 6, 2015, at 2:00 p.m.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://bit.ly/1HGc8yXfrom leagle.com.

The case is CITY OF WARREN POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. REVANCE THERAPEUTICS, INC., L. DANIEL BROWNE, LAUREN
P. SILVERNAIL, JACOB WAUGH, ROBERT BYRNES, RONALD W. EASTMAN,
PHYLLIS GARDNER, JAMES GLASHEEN, JONATHAN TUNNICLIFFE, RONALD
WOOTEN, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., BMO CAPITAL
MARKETS CORP., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, LLC, AND DOES 1-25,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 3:15-CV-02512-HSG, (N.D. Cal.).

JOHN C. DWYER -- dwyerjc@cooley.com -- SHANNON M. EAGAN --
seagan@cooley.com -- ADAM C. TRIGG -- atrigg@cooley.com -- COOLEY
LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, REVANCE
THERAPEUTICS, INC., L. DANIEL BROWNE, LAUREN P. SILVERNAIL, JACOB
WAUGH, ROBERT BYRNES, RONALD EASTMAN, PHYLLIS GARDNER, JAMES
GLASHEEN, JONATHAN TUNNICLIFFE, and RONALD WOOTEN.

Joshua D.N. Hess -- joshua.hess@dechert.com -- DECHERT LLP, San
Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC,
PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., WILLIAM BLAIR &
COMPANY, LLC.

JAMES I. JACONETTE -- jamesj@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLAR RUDMAN
& DOWD LLP, San Diego, CA, and SHAWN A. WILLIAMS, Post Montgomery
Center, San Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff.


ROCKY MOUNTAIN: Recalls Fruit & Nut Trail Mix Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rocky Mountain Foods, Inc. is voluntarily recalling certain lots
of Island Fruit and Nut Trail Mix packaged under the Free Range
Snack Co. Brand and certain lots of bulk Macadamia Nuts due to
possible Salmonella contamination. Salmonella is an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

Consumers who have recently purchased the items with the BEST BY
DATES listed below at stores located in AZ, CO, KS, NM, OK, TX,
UT, and WY should not consume this product and should return it to
the store of purchase for a full refund or replacement.

  AFFECTED PRODUCT     PACKAGE      UPC CODE         BEST BY DATE
  ----------------     SIZE         --------         RANGE
                       -------                       ------------
Free Range Snack Co.   16 oz. Tub   0-76958-55077-5  11/15/2015
Island Fruit and Nut
Trail Mix
Free Range Snack Co.
Macadamia Nuts  Bulk                None             4/15/2016 -
                                                     5/28/2016

No illnesses have been reported to-date.
Based upon routine testing conducted by an FDA-contracted
laboratory, the presence of Salmonella was detected in Macadamia
Nuts.

Rocky Mountain Foods, Inc. is communicating with distributors and
stores that have received the affected product.

Contact for Consumers:
Consumers who have questions about the above recall may contact
Rocky Mountain Foods, Inc. Customer Service at (303) 371-3511
Monday through Friday from 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Mountain Time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453119.htm


SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Water Price Suit Mulled v. Water District
------------------------------------------------------------
Kurtis Alexander, writing for San Francisco Chronicle, reports
that Marin County California Attorney General Kamala Harris is
going to battle over water conservation, seeking to ensure water
agencies hold the power to sock big users with higher prices.

In a recent letter sent to the state Supreme Court, the attorney
general's office asked the high court to limit the scope of a
lower court decision that struck down tiered water rates designed
to penalize waste.  The appellate court in April ruled that prices
must be a reflection of the cost of water -- not a tool to entice
savings.

The attorney general's office is requesting that the Supreme Court
"depublish" that decision, meaning the ruling would apply only to
San Juan Capistrano -- the subject of the court case -- and
couldn't be used as precedent to challenge water bills elsewhere.
State attorneys warned of a "chilling effect" on the conservation
efforts of agencies using tiered rates as California grapples with
a fourth year of drought.

A dust devil makes its way across hot land made white from dried
minerals as a result of the natural lake-bottom buildup and
evaporation process April 10, 2015 near Kings County, Calif.  The
land is situated in part of the San Joaquin Valley that used to
contain the Tulare Lake, the largest freshwater lake in the
western half of the continental United States.  The lake was dried
up by the year 1900 due to emerging agriculture in the region.

Running dry: How the drought is forging a new California Hundreds
of White-faced Ibis take off at dawn at Merced National Wildlife
Refuge April 16, 2015 in Merced, Calif.  The refuge is a restored
wildlife area that reflects the habitat that used to be found in
the Central Valley and provides much-needed breeding and wintering
habitat for thousands of birds.  Because of the drought, the
refuge received no surface water allocation and were forced to
pump groundwater to keep up the wetlands and the crops they grow
for habitat.  Wildlife refuges grapple with California drought's
impact a micro sprinkler irrigates an almond orchard near Hillmar,
Calif., as seen on Fri. April 3, 2015. California drought: Charge
true cost of agricultural water Parched state rethinks water
rights But it may be too late.  Already, water rates in other
places are being targeted in the wake of the ruling -- with the
latest protest emerging in Marin County.

"What we had with the Capistrano case is something that's very
similar to what's going on in Marin," said attorney Beau Burbidge,
who is representing a Mill Valley woman who filed suit against the
Marin Municipal Water District over its four price tiers for
water.  "That (case) gives us some indication of how our case will
be treated in the courts and gives us some precedential value."

The suit in Marin County, like the Southern California case, rests
on Proposition 218.  The voter-approved measure doesn't allow
public agencies to charge more for a service than what it costs to
provide it.

The Fourth District Court of Appeal deemed San Juan Capistrano's
higher rates unconstitutional because the city didn't incur
additional expenses delivering extra water.  The city is in the
process of reimbursing residents for charging too much.

According to Mr. Burbidge, Marin County's tiered rates similarly
don't reflect higher operating costs, only large and arbitrary
price increases.  The water agency bills single-family households
$3.74 for each 748 gallons of water used -- about a two-day supply
-- if usage every two months in the summer is below 19,500
gallons.  If a household's consumption spikes to more than 75,000
gallons, it faces the top-tier rate of $22.45 for every 748
gallons.

"It's purely a penalty or tax for excess water use," Mr. Burbidge
said.  "We're absolutely for any measure of conservation,
including tiered rates.  But there's a method in which the water
district has to go about doing that."

The agency, Mr. Burbidge said, must prove that its divergent
charges are based on different costs -- or go to voters to get
approval for higher rates.

The lawsuit against the Marin Municipal Water District was filed
in Marin County Superior Court on May 26 by Anne Walker.
Mr. Burbidge, however, said he plans to turn the case into a class
action on behalf of the agency's customers.  The potential
financial damages haven't been determined.

Marin County water officials declined to discuss the litigation,
as a matter of policy, but said they're reviewing their water
prices to ensure they're in line with expenses.

"Our understanding is that our current rate structure meets cost-
of-service requirements, is legally defensible and follows Prop.
218 protocol," spokeswoman Libby Pischel wrote in an e-mail to The
Chronicle.

Statewide, more than half of all water agencies embrace some form
of tiered pricing, which has been shown to dampen consumption.

Most water providers, as of this month, are under state orders to
cut back water use. Gov. Jerry Brown has urged the agencies to use
pricing to help ensure the reductions, but the San Juan Capistrano
case called the tactic into question.

"The court's sweeping statement couldn't come at a worse time with
the state trying to manage this drought," said Michael Lauffer,
chief counsel for the State Water Resources Control Board, which
asked the attorney general's office to come to its aid and
petition the Supreme Court for depublication of the court
decision.

Mr. Lauffer said tiered water rates remain legal if agencies show
that prices correlate with the cost of providing service.

"In many respects, the decision is really a show-your-math
exercise," he said.

The Association of California Water Agencies, the California State
Association of Counties and the League of California Cities also
wrote a letter to the high court requesting that the appellate
court opinion be depublished.

Mr. Lauffer said he expects the Supreme Court to make a decision
on the matter within two months.


SCHLUMBERGER NV: Faces "Ogle" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Marty Ogle v. Schlumberger N.V. (Schlumberger Limited), Case
No. 3:15-cv-02181 (N.D. Tex., June 29, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours per week.

Schlumberger N.V. own and operates an oilfield services company
located at 16055 Space Center, Suite 235, Houston, TX 77062.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEVENTH GENERATION: Bid to Transfer Venue of Tsan Case Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar denied a motion to transfer venue
filed in the case captioned MAGGIE TSAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SEVENTH GENERATION, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 15-CV-00205-JST,
(N.D. Cal.).

Seventh Generation filed the Motion to Transfer.

According to Judge Tigar, although the Defendant sells products to
putative class members in New York, Plaintiffs Maggie Tsan and
Erica Wildstein are residents of the Northern District of
California and the Southern District of Florida, and their claims
are based on their purchases of Seventh Generation products in
those districts.

"Because there is no connection between the named Plaintiffs'
claims and Defendant's activities in the Southern District of New
York, that district could not exercise specific personal
jurisdiction over Seventh Generation in this case," Judge Tigar
wrote in his order entered June 17, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1emj5Yzfrom leagle.com.

"The Court concludes that the Southern District of New York is not
a district "where [this action] might have been brought" because
venue there would be improper . . . Accordingly, the motion to
transfer venue must be denied," Judge Tigar concluded.

The Court set a case management conference for July 22, 2015, at
2:00 p.m.  A case management statement is due by July 8, 2015.

Maggie Tsan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel --
jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei, LLP, Melissa Weiner
Wolchansky -- wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- Halunen And Associates
& Michael Robert Reese -- mreese@reeserichman.com -- Reese LLP.

Erica Wildstein, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Douglas Kaliel, Tycko
& Zavareei, LLP, Melissa Weiner Wolchansky, Halunen And Associates
& Michael Robert Reese, Reese LLP.

Seventh Generation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Herling -- DJHerling@mintz.com -- Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky
& Popeo P.C. & Michelle Gillette -- MGillette@mintz.com -- Mintz
Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo P.C.


SHUTTERFLY: Faces Class Action Over "Faceprints"
------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reports that a Chicago man
claims the popular photo-book service Shutterfly is violating a
law that restricts how companies collect biometric data, and is
seeking at least $5 million on behalf of others whose faces have
been added to the Shutterfly database without permission.

The class action lawsuit, filed on June 17 in Illinois federal
court, comes amid increased scrutiny over how companies are using
facial recognition technology to create so-called "faceprints,"
which provide a unique identifier -- akin to a fingerprint --
based on a person's face.  Faceprints are helpful for tagging
photos on services like Facebook or Shutterfly, but also pose a
privacy danger because they provide a way to identify a person on
the internet or even in public.

In the lawsuit, Brian Norberg claims he has never used Shutterfly
but that someone else uploaded his photo and "tagged" it with his
name; this led the company to add his face to an enormous
biometrics database, and create a distinct profile based on
biometric.  Months later, when the other person uploaded more
photos, Norberg claims Shutterfly automatically recognized
pictures of him.

Mr. Norberg argues Shutterfly is violating a state law that
requires companies to inform people about when and how they use a
person's biometric data.  The lawsuit, which seeks $1,000 or
$5,000 for every Illinois resident whose face was added to
Shutterfly's database, resembles a similar case filed against
Facebook in late March.

Both lawsuits were filed in Chicago because Illinois is one of
only two states in the country with a law that restricts how
companies use biometric data (Texas is the other, while Washington
state is exploring a similar measure).

Shutterfly did not immediately respond to an email request for
comment.

The cases against Shutterfly and Facebook coincide with growing
concern over the federal government's inaction over facial
recognition technology.  Nine consumer and privacy watchdog groups
walked out of Commerce Department talks aimed at establishing
guidelines on the use of faceprints, claiming that industry groups
would not accept even basic limits on how they are used.

Facebook rolled out a new app called "Moments," that makes it
easier for users to use its facial recognition tools to identify
people on their smartphone camera rolls, and share photos of them.


SIOUX CITY, IA: Paid Million to Settle Civil Lawsuits, Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby Kaufman, writing for Sioux City Journal, reports that city
officials say there's a clear objective when settling a civil
lawsuit or claim against the city -- prevent irreparable harm
without admitting fault.

Over the past five years, the city has paid out more than $8.7
million -- primarily in legal settlements -- to resolve conflicts
between the city and other entities, according to city records
provided to the Journal in response to a public records request.
Not all attorney fees from the cases were immediately available,
which means the city's total litigation costs were even higher
during that time period.

The single largest settlement in the past five years was the $6.5
million paid in 2012 to settle a class-action, franchise fee
lawsuit on behalf of city residents and businesses who were
overcharged on their city utility bills.  At the time, lawyers for
the plaintiffs said 61,948 people qualified for a payment.

Earlier this year, the city paid $300,000 to settle a retaliation
lawsuit a city employee filed against former city manager Paul
Eckert.

Like in some other cases, the city hired outside attorneys to
represent the city in the Eckert suit.  City Attorney Nicole
Jensen told the Journal that she could not represent the city
because she was a witness in the case.

Donna Forker, the city's budget and finance director, said
sometimes an ordeal can be so labor intensive that the city also
will outsource attorneys if the city legal department does not
have expertise in certain specialized areas of law.

City officials have said some of the outside attorney fees in the
Eckert case have not yet been billed.  In April, Councilman
Keith Radig said the total cost to the city was likely to exceed
$600,000.

PERSONNEL LAWSUITS

City employee Brittany Scott sued Eckert and the city, claiming
they had retaliated against her by not hiring her for a full-time
administrative assistant position in the public works department
in 2012 after she previously complained Eckert had sexually
harassed her.

Elizabeth Smith, an associate professor of political science at
the University of South Dakota in Vermillion, said sexual
harassment complaints and lawsuits often are settled prior to
administrative or judicial action for a number of reasons.

"Settlement saves a good deal of time and money, but it also
resolves the employee and the employer's problem in a more timely
way," Ms. Smith said.  "Lawsuits, particularly, can take years to
be resolved."

She added that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
has a long history of encouraging the resolution of sexual
harassment complaints.

"Sexual harassment litigation is often highly publicized during
the process, which affects the complainant, the respondent and the
organization in negative ways," Ms. Smith said.

Ms. Forker said one other lawsuit involving a city employee
happened in recent years.  Brian Thiele, then 48, and a Sioux City
fire rescue captain, sued the city in April 2012, saying that Fire
Chief Tom Everett discriminated against him when he named a
younger person as fire marshal.

The city agreed to settle the lawsuit and pay Thiele $45,000, of
which $15,750 went to his attorneys.

CLAIMS AGAINST DEPARTMENTS

The Journal's analysis of city settlements in the past five years
found that while there was no direct link between civil lawsuits,
Sioux City consistently paid out tort claims filed against the
city for sewer backups and water main breaks.  Sioux City paid a
total of $352,389 for water main breaks and $369,276 for sewer
backups, the two most costly types of claims.

Jade Dundas, public works director and assistant city manager,
said the tort fund acts somewhat as an insurance policy for the
city because the money isn't always there to fix damaged
properties.

"We try to be as proactive as we can," Mr. Dundas said.  "If we
have a history of breaking, we might go in and do a directed
project, (but) doing a whole change-out would be way too cost-
prohibitive."

The finance department bills department divisions based on claims
history and payroll percentages, which are pooled into an
insurance fund to pay out property, tort claims and worker's
compensation, Ms. Forker said.

She added city departments are billed for three separate premiums
-- general liability, worker's compensation and property, which
include homeowner and city properties.  To pay into the liability
tort fund, departments can use project funds from the capital
improvement program budget, tax increment financing or other
grants.

Sioux City offers a voluntary insurance service against some types
of property damage, but that isn't always enough to protect the
city and homeowners from repair costs.

Sometimes the result of a water main break can be disastrous, such
as the January incident that left 15 homes without water service
on Macomb Avenue in the city's Morningside neighborhood.

Mr. Dundas described the Macomb incident as an "extreme example"
that is not easily predicted.

"It's going to happen without advance notice," he said.

Other notable tort claims involved the Sioux City Police
Department.  Over five years, the city paid $191,020 for claims
against the city's police department.  Those claims involve
incidents where a Sioux City police dog reportedly bit a woman, an
officer who allegedly injured a woman while searching her purse
and several accounts of police striking private vehicles with
their cruisers.

Police Chief Doug Young said claims against the department are
always a possibility because policing is high risk for any
municipality.  He also said his department undergoes training and
keeps track of state and U.S. Supreme Court rulings and how those
could affect police activity.

"We're a high liability because of the type of work we do which
involves arrests, seizures of property and taking enforcement
action," Mr. Young said.  "These issues involve people's
constitutional rights.  It could involve taking away your freedom.
It could involve taking away your property."


SONY PICTURES: May Sue Twitter Over Leaked Documents
----------------------------------------------------
Venture Capital Post reports that WikiLeaks has discarded a second
massive cache of 276, 394 internal documents from Sony into its
searchable database. The update was publicized on WikiLeaks'
Twitter account, "Sony Files 2 reveals Sony Pictures legal
entanglements including an investigation for bribery."

Last April, WikiLeaks had supplemented Sony emails that outclassed
the internal works of the studio with regards of the decision
making procedure involving projects, personal information of its
employees, pay incongruities to male and female actors as well as
racist and offensive comments from Sony officials.  The updated
276,394 searchable documents contain overhead accounts, calendars
and event preparation, spilled on Sky News.

According to a Daily Mail report, Sony's leaked documents have
been available on the internet from the time of the Guardians of
Peace rift way back November 2014 in which 30,000 other documents
were filched from Sony Pictures by a team from Korea.  Searching
through files was made easier by WikiLeaks.

While disbursement reports are not that raving than email spills,
Sony is certainly doomed on the circumstance as it was studying
legal preferences when WikiLeaks updated the initial bunch of
documents to the database.

The company is also inclined to sue Twitter if it didn't prohibit
other accounts tweeting the leaked emails.  "Sony will have no
choice but to hold Twitter responsible for any damage or loss
arising from such use or dissemination by Twitter," Sony Pictures
general counsel David Boies stated in an article from CNET.

Then again, Sony is dealing with a class action lawsuit when
previous employees took a legal action for not effectively keeping
information about their employees, mentioned on Mashable.

Billboard recently cleared that a California federal judge
permitted previous employees to charge Sony Pictures about the
global hack that has been attributed to North Korea.

WikiLeaks is a liberated, non-profit media website that issues
submissions of inaccessible documents from unidentified sources.
The website started in 2006 by the Sunshine Press.  It is just
miserable that there are non-profit group in the internet who are
exploiting the new media for personal advantage together with the
hackers depleting technology to disrupt private information and
lives.


STATE AUTO: Plaintiffs Settled with State Auto Defendants
---------------------------------------------------------
State Auto Financial Corporation, a majority-owned subsidiary of
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that
Plaintiffs in a putative class action lawsuit settled with the
State Auto Defendants for a nominal amount and dismissed their
remaining individual claims with prejudice, thereby terminating
the litigation.

In April 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (Schumacher vs.
State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company, et al.) was filed
against State Auto Mutual, State Auto Financial and State Auto P&C
("State Auto Defendants") in Federal District Court in Ohio.
Plaintiffs claimed that, in connection with the homeowners
policies of various State Auto companies, the coverage limits and
premiums were improperly increased as a result of an insurance to
value ("ITV") program and alleged that they purchased coverage in
excess of that which was necessary to insure them in the event of
loss. Plaintiffs' claims included breach of good faith and fair
dealing, negligent misrepresentation and fraud, violation of the
Ohio Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and fraudulent inducement.
Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages to be
determined by the court, as well as class certification.

On February 2, 2015, the Court struck the class allegations, and
on March 13, 2015, Plaintiffs settled with the State Auto
Defendants for a nominal amount and dismissed their remaining
individual claims with prejudice, thereby terminating the
litigation.


STORED VALUE CARDS: Arbitration Bid Denial in Reagan Case Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Reagan was jailed overnight in the Rockdale, Georgia,
County Jail on a charge that later was dropped. When booked, he
turned over $764.00 in cash to his jailers. When released the next
day, he was given in lieu of his cash a pre-paid debit card worth
$764.00 issued by Central National Bank through Stored Value
Cards. He had no option to get cash or a check instead.
Simultaneously, he received from the jailers a packet of documents
that included the Agreement, which was printed in illegible five-
point type. The jailers did not tell Reagan that the Agreement was
in the packet. And, Reagan did not know that the Agreement was in
the packet. The Agreement, which Reagan had no opportunity to read
and did not sign, included an arbitration clause. After Reagan
brought in state court his putative class action challenging fees
attendant to using the card, Stored Value Cards and Central
National Bank removed the case to federal district court and filed
a motion to compel arbitration. The district court denied the
motion because there were factual disputes as to whether Reagan
agreed to arbitrate.

Stored Value Cards and Central National Bank appealed the district
court's order denying their motion to compel arbitration.

According to the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh
Circuit's June 18, 2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1M5jQjXfrom leagle.com, it affirms the order of the
district court denying the motion to compel arbitration as the
district court correctly held that issues of fact exist to be
resolved by the court or a jury as to whether Reagan agreed to
arbitrate with Stored Value Cards and Central National Bank.

"We need not add anything to the district court's opinion," ruled
the Eleventh Circuit.

The case is ROBERT REAGAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STORED VALUE CARDS,
INC., CENTRAL NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ENID, OKLAHOMA,
Defendants-Appellants, NO. 15-10364, NON-ARGUMENT CALENDAR.


TECHNOSPORT INC: Recalls Scuba Diving Mask Due to Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Technosport Inc., of Virginia Beach, Va., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,600O mersub Zero Cube scuba diving mask.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Non-conforming glass was used for the lens, which can shatter
during normal use, posing an injury hazard.

The diving mask is designed to cover the eyes and nose. The mask
and strap are made with soft black rubber, with hard rubber around
the two glass lenses. "O.M.E.R." appears on the forehead area of
the mask in raised letters. The UPS Code 801 773 612 2298 and
Omersub MFG Part #603NCF appear on the original packaging.

Twelve incidents have been reported to the firm in which the lens
has shattered. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9nmiMx

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sols at
Technosport Inc. and local diving equipment retailers, and online
at amazon.com and www.omerdiving.com from April 2012 through June
2015 for about $80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the mask and contact
Technosport for a replacement mask.


THAINUM SOUP: Faces "Ventura" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fidel Ventura, Gabriel Ventura Diaz, and Izael Barrios,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Thainum
Soup Inc., d/b/a Tum & Yum, Mung Mee Thai Inc., d/b/a PRIK THAI
KITCHEN, Pop Perrer, Patti Bam Bam and Wachara Nittayarot, Case
No. 1:15-cv-05057 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess
of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate two Thai restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


TPC II LLC: Faces "Onorato" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Onorato, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TPC II LLC, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05079
(S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

TPC II LLC owns and operates a construction company with its
principal place of business located at 140 35th Street, Brooklyn,
New York 11232.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent Edward Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      111 Broadway , Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10000
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Investor Class Action in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lindenberger, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports
that last September, shares of Dallas-based Trinity industries
were on a roll, closing at over $50, a five-year high, on
Sept. 19.  But when word came down a month later that a federal
jury in Marshall, Texas had sided with a whistleblower's claims
that the company had defrauded the U.S. government, that price
began a step dive.

The June 19 price was just under $30, and now investors are suing
to recoup some of the money they say they've lost during the
ensuing sell-off.  One such case was filed in a Dallas federal
court June 19 on behalf of investor Richard J. Isolde and, if the
lawyers can succeed in having the case certified as a class-action
suit, all other similarly-situated investors.  The suit alleges
that during 2012 and 2013, as Trinity's shares' price was rising,
the company made false statements that shielded the risk
associated with its sale of the EZ-Plus guard rails.

On June 9, a federal judge upheld October's jury verdict [in the
whistleblower case], and ordered Trinity to pay $663 million.
That amount included approximately $200 million to the
whistleblower who had brought the case alleging fraud, a former
competitor of Trinity's named Joshua Harman.

The underlying complaint in the case was that when Trinity made
cost-cutting changes to a guardrail design already Okayed by the
Federal Highway Administration, it failed to tell the agency of
the changes.  States have begun looking into the question of
whether the new designs have failed to perform as promised. Car
crash survivors and victims' families have filed a number of suits
alleging the new designs are defective.

Trinity has denied it ever defrauded the government and vowed to
appeal the judgment to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  It
recently added to its executive and public relations staff.

Trinity won't be the only entity answering questions in the wake
of the massive judgment.  Harman's $200 million take is roughly
three times as high as it would have been, had the FHWA joined his
suit against Trinity when he first brought it.  Instead, the
agency defended the company until just before the trial, and
refused to participate in the suit.

As a result, more than $100 million of money that would have
otherwise gone to the government is slated to go to Harman and his
attorneys.

Early on, FHWA officials issued a statement, trumpeted at the time
by Trinity and now part of the investors' suit, saying that even
though Trinity had failed to tell the government of cost-cutting
changes it made to the guardrail system, as required by law, the
agency was convinced it would have approved the changes had it
known about them.

As the trial neared, however, and state departments of
transportation began asking questions about the safety of the
modified guard rails, the FHWA changed its tone.  It demanded that
Trinity submit the new design to intense testing and began
soliciting opinions form state highway leaders nationwide about
what they have learned about any connection between the modified
guard rails and highway fatalities.

The tests were concluded in the winter, and FHWA continues to
review the guardrails.

Texas Department of Transportation officials had also stuck by
Trinity throughout the suit.  The guardrails had been designed by
the state-funded Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M
University.


TRUECAR INC: Faces Lawsuits Over Share Price Decline
----------------------------------------------------
Doron Levin, writing for The Street, reports that TrueCar Inc.,
the online vehicle-buying website whose shares have been traded
publicly for a little more than a year, is facing a spate of
lawsuits from dealers, shareholders and trade organizations.

The legal assault is symptomatic of the turmoil in automotive
retailing as more and more consumers rely on the Internet -- as
opposed to browsing at dealerships -- for shopping information,
price discovery and, in some cases, vehicle purchasing.  As such,
profit margins on vehicle sales have shrunk, and dealers have been
forced to adjust.

TrueCar shares were priced at $9 a share in mid-May 2014, well
below the expected range of $12-$14.  Since peaking at near $24 in
late 2014, the share price has declined steadily to the current
level of about $13.

In March, car dealers representing 117 franchises in New York
filed a lawsuit accusing True Car of falsely advertising that
consumers can buy vehicles without haggling or price negotiations.
Some of the dealers formerly cooperated with TrueCar as
affiliates.  A TrueCar spokesman said the lawsuit, which seeks
$250 million in damages, is "without merit."

Another lawsuit, filed in California in May by the California New
Car Dealers Association, accused TrueCar of acting as a dealer and
a broker without the requisite license.  The action asked the
court to enjoin the company from operating without a license.  The
company plans to "vigorously" defend itself and expects to be
vindicated, a spokesman said.

In late May, a class action lawsuit by TrueCar shareholders was
filed in federal court in Los Angeles, claiming that the company
had misled investors about the way it conducted business by way of
false statements about its compliance with the law.

As in the other lawsuits, the company vowed to defend itself in
the class-action suit by shareholders.  "Disruptive technology and
business models like Uber, Airbnb, and now TrueCar, have been
challenged on many fronts, including legal," said Johnny
Stephenson, TrueCar's chief risk officer.

TrueCar calls itself a "negotiation free" site for buying
vehicles, which lets consumers find out what prices others have
paid for vehicles similar to the ones that interest them, based on
recent transactions.  TrueCar has business relationships with
about 11,000 auto dealers nationwide, about a third of the total.
After submitting the specifications of a desired vehicle, a
shopper may buy a vehicle from a TrueCar dealer at an agreed
price; if a sale is completed, the dealer pays TrueCar a
commission.

Edmunds.com, Kelley Blue Book and other online vehicle-buying
sites dispense information about cars, including the market value
of specific new and used models.  They sell advertising and
generate revenue by providing sales leads to dealers derived from
visitors to their sites.

Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation, the biggest
publicly owned chain of dealerships, has said that the traditional
means of buying vehicles, by shopping at dealerships is ripe for
disruption.  In Mr. Jackson's view, shoppers should be able
to begin researching potential purchases online, visit dealerships
to test drive and inspect vehicles -- then complete the
transaction online.  AutoNation has been rolling out a site for
its dealerships called SmartChoice Express.


TWIN AMERICA: Faces "Mirabel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mariano Mirabel, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Twin America LLC, Twin America, LLC, d/b/a City Sights
NY, Jad Transportation Inc., Janet West and Mark Marmurstein, Case
No. 1:15-cv-05086 (S.D.N.Y., June 29, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a double-decker bus, motor-coach
sightseeing, transportation and airport transfer company doing
business in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Chukwuka Ofodile, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY OFODILE
      498 Atlantic Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11217
      Telephone: (718) 852-8300
      Facsimile: (718) 852-7361
      E-mail: acofodile@aol.com


TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court to Address Statistical Sampling Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Raffetto of Goodwin Procter LLP, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that the United States Supreme Court granted cert in
Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., a Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") case with potentially wide reaching implications in
federal class actions.  In Bouaphakeo, plaintiffs alleged that
they were entitled to overtime for time spent putting on
("donning") and taking off ("doffing") protective gear required
for their jobs.  Bouaphakeo, 765 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2014).
Tyson added a set amount of time (four minutes) to each employee's
daily time to account for donning and doffing.  Plaintiffs alleged
that Tyson Foods failed to properly account for donning and
doffing time, and that plaintiffs and a class of similarly
situated employees were undercompensated as a result.  Id

Buaphakeo presented a number of individualized issues.  Employees
in different departments -- and even different employees within
the same departments -- wore different types of protective gear
and spent different amounts of time donning and doffing it.
Bouaphakeo, 765 F.3d at 797.  Additionally, some employees who
were members of the class did not actually work overtime even
after accounting for donning and doffing.  Id.  Seeking to
overcome these arguments, the plaintiffs presented statistical
evidence regarding the amount of donning and doffing time.  They
asserted that employees in the "kill department" spent an average
of 21 minutes donning and doffing protective equipment, while
employees in the "fabrication department" spent 18 minutes.  Id.
at 797.  Further, they alleged that individual damages could be
determined by applying the average time spent donning and doffing
to individual timecards.  The United States District Court for the
Southern District of Iowa certified a class under Rule 23(b)(3)
and a collective action under the FLSA, and Tyson was ultimately
found liable.  The Eight Circuit affirmed over a strong dissent by
Judge Beam.

The Supreme Court granted cert on two questions in Bouaphakeo --
whether putative class plaintiffs may meet their burden under Rule
23(b)(3) by using "statistical techniques that presume all class
members are identical to the average observed in a sample," and
whether certification is appropriate where members of the putative
class have not been injured.  Tyson Foods, Inc. Petition for a
Writ of Certiorari, Case no. 14-1146 at (i).  The Court's answers
to those questions could have a significant impact on class-action
litigants.  For instance, those answers may address how many or
what types of individualized issues render a case inappropriate
for class treatment, the extent to which statistical sampling can
be used to demonstrate that a case is appropriate for class
treatment, and the impact of including putative class members who
have no independent claim to relief.  The Supreme Court will hear
oral argument during the October 2015 term.


UBER TECH: Illegally Obtains Consumer Report, "Nokchan" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Nokchan, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies Inc., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-
03009-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide the class members with stand-
alone written disclosures before obtaining a credit or background
report in connection with their hiring process.

Uber Technologies Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates a
transportation network company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Setareh, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      SET AREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-01 09
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
              tuvia@setarehlaw.com


UBER TECH: To Appeal Employee Classification Ruling
---------------------------------------------------
Carmel DeAmicis, writing for Recode, reports that the California
Labor Commission said an Uber driver should be considered an
employee and not an independent contractor, as Uber claims.  While
that seems like a big deal, the decision doesn't apply to all Uber
drivers in the state.  The Labor Commission isn't part of the
court system, so it can't set a binding precedent.  Uber has
appealed its judgment, so the case is going to the Superior Court
-- California's lowest court.

Contrary to some of the breathless coverage, this is a minor
ruling that applies to only one person, but it could become more
broadly applied if Uber continues to appeal.

That's important because a large part of Uber's value (maybe it's
only true value) hinges on the fact that it doesn't employ its
drivers -- that means no payroll taxes, benefits costs or
insurance.  If it had to treat drivers as employees, that would
severely cut into its profits or result in massive losses.  It
would also have an impact on the broader on-demand startup world,
e.g., Lyft, Handy, Homejoy, Postmates, DoorDash, etc.

Here's an FAQ breaking down how Uber could ultimately lose this
battle.  The information comes from speaking with Don Polden, an
employment law professor at Santa Clara University, and Shannon
Liss-Riordan, the Boston-based lawyer representing Lyft and Uber
drivers in two class-action lawsuits.

The legal system is complicated and fragmented, so it will be
tough to get to a concrete ruling, either national or state wide,
on Uber's driver classification.

What happens if the Superior Court rules against Uber? Does that
set a precedent for all its California drivers?

"No. But the decision could be used as a non-binding precedent in
future cases, meaning judges in other courts could rely on it or
ignore it when similar cases cross their desk.  If Uber appeals
the Superior Court ruling, the case will go up to the Court of
Appeal.

And if the Court of Appeal says this driver is an employee, then
every court in California would be required to rely on that
decision?

"No. But other courts in that Court of Appeal's jurisdiction would
be required to use it when judging future cases involving Uber
driver classification.  The jurisdiction covers twelve Northern
California counties like Alameda, San Mateo and Humboldt.

Why would Uber appeal at all then? Why not pay the $4,000 and let
the case die in the lower courts with less of an impact?

"Other courts and hearing officers might choose to consult the
Labor Commission's opinion if it's not knocked down, and use it to
inform their decisions.  Uber wants to stop that in its tracks.
Furthermore, employers tend to want to get ahead of an issue like
this so they can structure the business in a stable way.

Okay, so is there any decision about Uber's driver classification
that would be binding precedent for the entire state?

"If the state Supreme Court ruled that a driver is an employee.

So if Uber just keeps appealing this up through the court system,
then eventually we could get an entire state precedent?

"Not exactly. The state Supreme Court can pick and choose what
cases it wants to hear.  If the case makes it to the appeals court
and the Supreme Court thinks that the appeals court did a good
enough job making a decision, then it would probably leave the
case alone.

Does that mean there will continue to be these one-off court cases
here and there across California that don't add up to anything
definitive?

"Well, a pile of cases might eventually make the Supreme Court
decide it's an important enough issue to tackle.  And if the
Supreme Court took on the issue and ruled that Uber drivers were
employees, that would be a binding precedent for all courts in
California.

How would that ruling be enforced? Couldn't Uber just ignore it,
since Uber has a habit of ignoring government bodies?

"It would be fined by the government for ignoring the ruling.  It
would also open itself up to more lawsuits that it would likely
lose.  If it refused to pay these penalties, at some point Uber's
assets could be seized, although it's highly unlikely it would get
to that point.  Not many companies ignore court judgments.

But if Uber wins any of these rulings, is that it? End of story?

"No. There are separate class-action suits in the federal court
system now that could more directly affect Uber and how it
classifies its employees.


UBER TECH: Labor Commissioner Ruling to Impact "Sharing Economy"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Waters and Tim Bradshaw, writing for Financial Review,
report that a tremor passed through the foundations of the
"sharing economy" after it emerged that ride-hailing app Uber had
lost a case before California's Labor Commissioner.

For the venture capitalists who have rushed to back them, a big
attraction of such companies has been their ability to act as
simple middlemen in a market that matches people looking to buy a
service with others who are providing it.

But the Labor Commissioner in Uber's home state had other ideas.
In a case involving a single driver seeking reimbursement of
expenses, it ruled that the company should have taken on the full
responsibilities of an employer.

The ruling highlighted a potential Achilles heel in the approach
of the internet companies which have sought to become marketplaces
for independent contractors.  From delivery start-ups such as
Instacart to odd-job service TaskRabbit, they have pitched
themselves as simple internet platforms, taking a slice of the
transactions they help arrange.

If Uber were forced to grant full employee status to the
burgeoning army of freelance workers who look to its mobile app
for work, the higher costs would put a dent in one of the consumer
internet's most profitable new business models.  It could also
alter the pay and job security prospects of millions of workers.
Their ranks could be significant: 10 years from now, 200 million
unemployed or part-time workers are likely to be making extra cash
by taking piecemeal work through online services like this,
according to McKinsey, the professional services firm.

Uber sought to brush off the decision as an isolated case that
would not have any standing as a precedent in the California legal
system.  It also pointed out that decisions in five similar cases
elsewhere had gone in its favor -- though it lost a sixth, in
Florida.

Labour law experts said it would not be so easy to distance itself
from the consequences of the decision.  Jonathan Handel, a
lecturer at USC Gould law school, said the company's reaction was
"a little bit like whistling past the graveyard".  The decision
"doesn't set a precedent that binds the courts, but it does
indicate the way the Labor Commissioner would go if it received
further cases from Uber drivers".

Steve King of Emergent Research, a consulting firm focused on
businesses that employ independent workers and freelancers, said
the case would also embolden regulators.  The decision set a
potentially ominous mark ahead of two class action cases against
Uber and Lyft, a rival ride-sharing company, also in California.
The views of people joining the juries in those forthcoming trials
would be shaped by this case, he said.

The case highlighted a fundamental dilemma for internet companies
built on the booming freelance sector.  Establishing some level of
control over the workers who use their platforms is often
essential to ensuring a consistent level of service.  But the
further they go the more they lay themselves open to being forced
to accept the full responsibilities of employers.  For the
California Labor Commissioner, Uber's control of pricing, tipping,
driver ratings and the type of car made it look like an employer.

Some have already decided that the legal risks are too high.
Hello Alfred, a start-up whose workers provide personal services,
turned its contractors into full employees last year.

The stakes have been becoming steadily higher.  Shortly before
news of the California case, it emerged that Uber was looking to
raise another round of funding that could value it at more than
$US50 billion ($64 billion).  "I'd be nervous if I was one of the
last investors in," Mr. King said, referring to an investment
round earlier this year.


UNION PACIFIC: Sued Over Dispute on Pipelines Along Rail Lines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Railroad sold rights to 1,871 miles of oil pipelines
along rail lines in six states -- but the rights aren't the
railroad's to sell, landowners say in a federal class action,
reports Victoria Prieskop at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiffs Ernest and Hazel Terry sued Union Pacific and
Kinder Morgan and its affiliated pipeline companies on June 12.

They claim that though right-of-way laws allow a railroad to run a
line across government land or by private landowner grant, the
easements do not allow railroads to use land under the tracks
except for purposes directly related to the railroad.

But the Terrys say Union Pacific has charged SFPP (fka Santa Fe
Pacific Pipelines) and Kinder Morgan millions of dollars in rent
for 1,871 miles of pipeline through California, Arizona, Nevada,
New Mexico, Texas and Oregon under the railroad's right-of-way.

The lawsuit traces the fight back to the 1850s, when Congress gave
enormous tracts of land to rail companies to encourage them to
build transcontinental railroads.  The plaintiffs claim these
grants were "mere easements" that "created no right of possession
in the subsurface."

President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Act into law in July
1862.  More congressional rail acts followed, in 1871, 1875 and
thereafter.

Even more lawsuits followed, between landowners, states, the
federal government and the railroads.  By the 1950s, the railroad
and the pipeline companies at issue were sister subsidiaries of
Southern Pacific Corp.

Citing decades of court rulings and federal legislation, the
present lawsuit claims that the companies were granting and
accepting subsurface easements they did not own.

Corporate mergers and sales broke up the sister subsidiaries, and
in 1991 the railroad sued the pipeline for higher rent.  The
pipeline settled by paying $5.5 million and both parties agreed
the rent would be recalculated every 10 years based on fair market
value, beginning in 1994.

Another lawsuit followed that year, and the fair market value was
set at $5 million a year, according to the present lawsuit.

The next lawsuit came right on schedule, in 2004, by which time
the fair market value had risen to $14 million a year, plus $100
million in back rent and interest, the new plaintiffs say.

The pipeline appealed that judgment and won -- but actually both
it and the railroad lost, the Terry plaintiffs say.

"The 2nd District Court of Appeal of California agreed with the
Pipeline and issued an opinion finding that, under the
Congressional Acts, the Railroad did not have a sufficient
interest in the land to collect rent from the Pipeline," according
to the complaint.  "The court explained that under the Pre-1871
Acts the Railroad could only use the subsurface for railroad
purposes -- the pipeline was not for a railroad purpose -- and
that under the 1875 Act the Railroad was granted a mere easement
of the surface and had no rights to the subsurface.

"The opinion specifically noted that the Railroad, in some
instances, may have sought and collected rent for the use of
property owned by others -- including private landowners."

The landowners seek quiet title, back rent, a share of profits,
and punitive damages for trespass, unjust enrichment, slander of
title and fraudulent concealment of the years of trespass.

Their lead attorney is Sara Berger, Esq., in Albuquerque.


UNITED POTATO: Settles Price-Fixing Cartel Class Action for $25MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
federal judge has signed off on a $25 million settlement in a
lawsuit between wholesale grocers and potato farming associations
accused of forming a price-fixing cartel.

Associated Wholesale Grocers filed the class-action lawsuit in
2010, contending that potato growers in Idaho and elsewhere
conspired to raise prices by restricting the number of acres
planted and taking other steps to limit production.  They said
such moves raised the cost of a 10-pound bag of potatoes from
about $9 in 2007 to roughly $15 in 2008.

The defendants -- including United Potato Growers of America,
whose members produce about 75 percent of the potatoes grown in
the U.S. -- denied the claims.  They said they were simply running
an effective cooperative, focused on helping their members
navigate the fluctuating potato market, and that their actions
were allowed under the 1922 federal Capper-Volstead Act.  The law
gives a limited exemption from antitrust rules for agricultural
cooperatives.

The Kansas-based Associated Wholesale Growers, a cooperative of
more than 2,600 retail stores in 30 states, contended the potato
growing groups strictly enforced their limitations using GPS,
satellite imaging and even farmland fly-overs.

The massive lawsuit pitted potato farmer against potato buyer,
with high stakes on each side.  The National Potato Council
estimates that roughly 35 pounds of fresh potatoes per person were
consumed in the U.S. in 2012. The estimated value of potato sales
that year was $3.7 billion.  The paperwork in the case was also
massive.  The documents produced by the defendants alone totaled
more than 3.6 million pages, according to court records.

Settlement negotiations have frequently stalled over the past five
years, but on June 18, U.S. District Judge B. Lynn Winmill in
Idaho gave his preliminary approval to the settlement.  Under the
settlement, anyone who purchased fresh potatoes from stores in
Arizona, California, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee,
Vermont and Wisconsin for end use and not resale in roughly a 10-
year timespan will be eligible for part of a $5.5 million pot.

Anyone in the U.S. who purchased potatoes directly from the
growing groups or their members and subsidiaries will be eligible
for a portion of a $19.5 million settlement.  The growers groups
are also barred from restricting acreage or taking other actions
to reduce the number of potatoes grown by members for seven years.

An expert for the grocers association estimates the ban will
result in potential savings for potato consumers of about $250
million a year, for a total of about $1.75 billion, according to
court documents.

Associated Wholesale Grocers is still pursuing a separate
antitrust lawsuit against United Potato Growers of Idaho.


UNITED STATES: Fed Overstep Authority in AIG Bailout, Court Ruled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Reserve had no authority to demand 80 percent of AIG's
equity as a condition of its $85 billion bailout in 2008, reports
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.

"There is no law permitting the Federal Reserve to take over a
company and run its business in the commercial world as
consideration for a loan," U.S. District Judge Thomas Wheeler said
in a 75-page opinion.

When the Federal Reserve bailed out American International Group,
it took 79.9 percent of the company's equity in exchange for a
loan of $85 billion to prevent the company's collapse.

AIG had entered into credit default swaps to insure $441 billion
worth of securities originally rated AAA.  But $57.8 billion of
these swaps were back by subprime loans that were unmasked as
worthless in the 2008 financial crisis.

As a result, AIG's credit rating was downgraded, and it faced a
liquidity crisis that would have doomed the company if the Federal
Reserve had not acted to save the insurance giant.

Over the next three years, AIG required more funds from the
government to stay afloat as its losses widened.  The government
loaned a total of $182.3 billion to the company, which paid back a
total of $205 billion by the end of 2012.

But former AIG chief executive Maurice Greenberg, who remains
major shareholder of the company through his Starr International,
filed a shareholder class action claiming that the Federal Reserve
overstepped its authority when it demanded equity as a condition
for the bailout, and effectively became its majority owner.

Wheeler found for Greenberg on June 15, ruling that the Fed's
actions constituted an "illegal exaction under the Fifth
Amendment."

"It is one thing for FRBNY [Federal Reserve Bank of New York] to
have made an $85 billion loan to AIG at exorbitant interest rates
under Section 13(3), but it is quite another to direct the
replacement of AIG's Chief Executive Officer, and to take control
of AIG's business operations," the judge wrote.

Even so, the judge declined to award Greenberg any damages,
because the Fed's actions did not injure shareholders -- rather,
the bailout preserved some of their equity, when AIG's alternative
was bankruptcy.

The former CEO sought at least $40 billion from the government.

"The inescapable conclusion is that AIG would have filed for
bankruptcy, most likely during the week of September 15-19, 2008.
In that event, the value of the shareholders common stock would
have been zero," Wheeler said.  "By loaning AIG $85 billion under
the September 22, 2008 Credit Agreement, the government
significantly enhanced the value of the AIG shareholders' stock."

So even if the Fed's actions were illegal, the government did not
cause shareholders any economic loss, the court concluded.

After all, "[twenty] percent of something [is] better than [100]
percent of nothing," the court said quoting government witness
John Studzinski.

In a statement, the Federal Reserve said it "strongly believes
that its actions in the A.I.G. rescue during the height of the
financial crisis in 2008 were legal, proper and effective."

"The court's decision today in Starr International Company, Inc.
v. the United States recognizes that A.I.G.'s shareholders are not
entitled to compensation for that decision, and that the Federal
Reserve's extension of credit to A.I.G. prevented losses to
millions of policyholders, small businesses and American workers
who would have been harmed by A.I.G.'s collapse during the
financial crisis," the statement continued.

Wheeler's ruling holds no immediate policy repercussions, as the
Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010, now prohibits the federal
government from bailing out a swaps entity such as AIG in the
future.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Boies, Esq.
          Robert B. Silver, Esq.
          Robert J. Dwyer, Esq.
          Alanna C. Rutherford, Esq.
          Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
          Abby Dennis, Esq.
          Julia C. Hamilton, Esq.
          Laura Harris, Esq.
          Ilana Miller, Esq.
          John Nicolaou, Esq.
          Matthew R. Shahabian, Esq.
          David L. Simons, Esq.
          Craig Wenner, Esq.
          William Bloom, Esq.
          James A. Kraehenbuehl, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
                  rdwyer@bsfllp.com
                  arutherford@bsfllp.com
                  amauser@bsfllp.com
                  adennis@bsfllp.com
                  jchamilton@bsfllp.com
                  lharris@bsfllp.com
                  imiller@bsfllp.com
                  jnicolaou@bsfllp.com
                  mshahabian@bsfllp.com
                  dsimons@bsfllp.com
                  cwenner@bsfllp.com
                  wbloom@bsfllp.com
                  jkraehenbuehl@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          John L. Gardiner, Esq.
          R. Ryan Stoll, Esq.
          Gregory Bailey, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: john.gardiner@skadden.com
                  ryan.stoll@skadden.com
                  gregory.bailey@skadden.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian A. Mizoguchi, Esq., Assistant Director
          Benjamin C. Mizer, Esq., Acting Asst. Attorney General
          Robert E. Kirschman, Esq., Jr., Director
          Kenneth M. Dintzer, Esq., Deputy Director
          Scott D. Austin, Esq., Assistant Director
          Claudia Burke, Esq., Assistant Director
          Joshua E. Gardner, Esq., Assistant Director
          John Roberson, Esq., Senior Trial Counsel
          John J. Todor, Esq., Senior Trial Counsel
          Renee Gerber, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Matthew F. Scarlato, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Mariana T. Acevedo, Esq., Trial Attorney
          David D'Alessandris, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Vincent D. Phillips, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Zachary J. Sullivan, Esq., Trial Attorney
          U.S. Department of Justice
          Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

The case is Starr International Company, Inc., in its own right
and on behalf of two classes of others similarly situated v. The
United States, Case No. 11-779C, in the United States Court of
Federal Claims.


UNITED STATES: OPM Sued Over Alleged Cyber-Breach
-------------------------------------------------
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Robert
Crawford, and Adam Dale, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. United States Office of Personnel
Management, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01015 (D.D.C., June 29,
2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the
cyber-breach of OPM's systems that compromised the security of up
to 18 million federal applicants' personnel and security files.

United States Office of Personnel Management is a U.S. agency with
headquarters at 1900 E. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20415. OPM
handles many aspects of the federal employee recruitment process,
including managing federal job announcements, conducting
background investigations and security clearances, overseeing
federal merit systems, managing personal retirement and health
benefits, providing training and development programs, and
developing government personnel policies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary E. Mason, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Ave., NW, Ste. 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Adam E. Polk, Esq.
      Christopher K. Hikida, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: dcg@GirardGibbs.com
              aep@girardgibbs.com
              ckh@girardgibbs.com


UNITED STATES: Doesn't Accept Liability for OPM Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cory Bennett, writing for The Hill, reports that the government is
distancing itself from legal culpability in a letter being sent to
the millions of people affected by a massive government data
breach.  When initially revealing the hack, the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) said it would offer 18 months of free
identity theft monitoring services.  But in its letter to federal
workers whose data is considered at risk, the OPM included some
clarifying sentences.

"These services are offered as a convenience to you," said the
letter, signed by OPM Chief Information Officer Donna Seymour.
"However, nothing in this letter should be construed as OPM or the
U.S. Government accepting liability for any of the matters covered
by this letter or for any other purpose."

This type of language echoes recent breach-notification letters
sent out by most major private sector companies that have been
hacked over the last year, said Adam Levin, chairman of identity
security firm IDT911.

"More and more," he said, "it's becoming standard."

However, the government's wording does stand out, Levin added.
"I've never heard that one before."

On its face, the statements appear to be protection from employee
lawsuits, experts said.

In the wake of major data breaches on companies like Target and
Sony, firms have had to weather numerous class-action lawsuits
that cost the companies tens of millions of dollars in legal fees
and payouts.  But legal specialists point out that it's not as
easy to bring a case against the government.

In many instances, the government enjoys "sovereign immunity,"
meaning it cannot face civil suits or prosecution over most
subjects, several people said.  Essentially, you cannot sue the
government unless it says you can.

However, there are consumer protections written into law that
enable individuals to file suit against the government for
neglect.  The Federal Tort Claims Act allows people to sue federal
employees for negligence within the scope of their jobs.
According to the Justice Department, people can sue for "property
damage, personal injury, or death allegedly caused by a federal
employee's negligence or wrongful act."

That could apply to the OPM breach, Mr. Levin said.

"They have your information.  They have a fiduciary responsibility
to protect that information," he explained.

But as has been the case in past data-breach civil suits, it can
be difficult to prove victims have suffered damage, Mr. Levin
added. And in the case of the OPM breach, the pilfered data hasn't
yet shown up on dark Web forums, significantly reducing the risk
of quantifiable fraud.

Chinese hackers are believed to have taken the data for
intelligence purposes.

Others have pointed to The Privacy Act of 1974, which requires the
federal government to protect information it collects, providing
some path for litigation if an agency fails to do so.  The law
doesn't specifically address cyberattacks, though.

Still, the OPM has been lambasted for failing to heed the warnings
of its inspector general that its systems were not secure and
needed to be shut down, which some might consider a violation of
the Privacy Act.

The agency has defended itself, saying it was worried that
shutting down those systems would mean a lapse in retirement
benefits, employee benefits and worker paychecks.

"The intrusions into OPM's systems were criminal acts committed by
unknown adversaries for criminal purposes," OPM spokesman
Samuel Schumach said in a statement.  "As a result, we have done
and continue to do everything possible to protect the security of
OPM systems and the records contained in those systems.  We will
also continue to contact those who may have been affected, and to
offer credit monitoring."


UNITED STATES: GLAD Files Preliminary Injunction Against SSA
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rainbow Times reports that Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders
(GLAD), Justice in Aging, and Foley Hoag LLP filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction against the Social Security Administration
(SSA) on June 17.  As the country awaits an historic Supreme Court
decision in Obergefell v. Hodgesthat could bring marriage equality
to all states, same-sex couples who are already married and living
in poverty have faced extreme financial hardship because of
discriminatory actions by the Social Security Administration.  The
parties seek to permanently stop SSA from withholding or otherwise
pursuing funds from Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients
whose same-sex marriages the agency failed to recognize after the
demise of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

The filing is the next step in Held v. Colvin, a class action
lawsuit filed on March 10, 2015. Well after June 2013, SSA did not
recognize the marriages of same-sex couples, even in cases where
SSI recipients informed SSA that they were married.  SSA continued
to issue benefits as if the married individuals were single. This
resulted in higher payments than they would have received if their
marriage were taken into account. SSA has been demanding that
recipients refund the benefits they were paid as a result of the
discrimination.

After the filing of Held, SSA issued an emergency directive
instructing field SSI employees to put a stop to the practice
going forward, but the solution is temporary.

"The agency's directive was welcome, but inadequate," said
Gerald McIntyre, Directing Attorney for Justice in Aging.  "Though
SSA appears to recognize that its actions have been harmful, it
continues to hold the threat of future overpayment notices over an
entire class."

GLAD, Justice in Aging and Foley Hoag LLP are representing Kelley
Richardson-Wright of Athol, Massachusetts, who is married to Kena
Richardson-Wright; and Hugh Held of Los Angeles, who is married to
Orion Masters.  Both Ms. Richardson-Wright and Mr. Held have been
subject to extreme financial harm as a result of SSA's
discrimination.

"The emergency action doesn't do anything to help people who have
already received a notice of overpayment, or for those from whom
SSA is withholding money from already small checks," said
Vickie Henry, Senior Staff Attorney for GLAD.  "Until the Social
Security Administration waives overpayments or the courts order
that they waive overpayments, the action only delays the date of
reckoning and if anything allows harm and uncertainty to mount."

Also, on June 16 plaintiffs also filed a motion for class
certification.  According to SSA's most recent statistical
snapshot, 8.3 million people were receiving SSI benefits as of
April 2015.  Given that an estimated 3.5% of the population is
lesbian, gay, or bisexual, and that the poverty rate in that
community is higher than average, there are likely to be as many
as a thousand putative class members.

"Given the nature of this class -- elderly or disabled people
living below the poverty level and scattered across the country-
the likelihood of them having the means to file individual
lawsuits is low," said Mr. McIntyre.

The motions, which were filed in U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in Los Angeles, along with the
complaint, can be read at www.glad.org/SSI

In addition to attorneys Henry and McIntyre, the plaintiffs are
being represented by Mary L. Bonauto of GLAD, Denny Chan and Anna
Rich of Justice in Aging, and Claire Laporte, Marco Quina,
Catherine Deneke, and Stephen T. Bychowski of the law firm Foley
Hoag, LLP.  Foley Hoag previously partnered with GLAD on its
challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act.


UNITED STATES: Eastern Kentucky Lacks Lawyers to Handle SSA Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryland Barton, writing for WKMS, reports that Eastern Kentucky
doesn't have enough lawyers to represent Social Security
recipients who have been notified that their payments will be
discontinued, according to attorneys in the region.

Last month, the Social Security Administration sent suspension
notices to 900 disability benefits recipients and 600 Supplemental
Security Income recipients who had been clients of Eric Conn, an
Eastern Kentucky attorney who has been under investigation for
filing fraudulent disability claims.

Benefits were restored on June 4 after a class-action lawsuit was
filed against the SSA.  Disability recipients were given 30 days
to come up with medical records to prove their disability at the
time they filed for benefits.

Prestonsburg attorney Ned Pillersdorf said the agency's threat to
take away benefits from all recipients at once led to a glut of
people seeking legal services.

"The problem is if they go with their plans to take away benefits
from the 1,500 people, we have basically a representational crisis
-- how do we get lawyers for all these folks?" said
Mr. Pillersdorf, who filed the class action lawsuit against the
SSA and another class action lawsuit against Conn.

The Social Security Administration will hold individual hearings
for all 1,500 recipients to determine if they are eligible for
benefits.

The Appalachian Research and Development Fund, or AppalReD,
provides free legal aid to eastern Kentuckians.  Lately, the fund
has been trying to recruit pro bono lawyers to represent
recipients.  Most social security recipients can't afford a lawyer
and there aren't many other organizations providing free legal
services to recipients, AppalRed director Robert Johns said.

"To have hundreds of additional people seeking services on one
particularly issue is overwhelming for an organization like ours,"
Mr. Johns said.

"We simply don't have the supply internally to meet, so we're
looking outside our program so this is a very unusual set of
circumstances that does not happen that often," Mr. Johns said.

Mr. Johns said his non-profit has already screened about 400
clients, but will only be able to handle between 100 and 200.  He
says the organization will have to train pro bono lawyers in
Social Security law, which relatively few Kentucky lawyers
practice.

A 2013 U.S. Senate investigation alleged that Conn used fraudulent
information from four Eastern Kentucky doctors and shuttled claims
to an SSA administrative law judge who gave rubber stamp approval
to nearly all of Conn's claims.

Conn has denied any wrongdoing.


URANIUM ENERGY: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather M. Stephens, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Uranium Energy Corp., Amir Adnani, and Mark
A. Katsumata, Case No. 4:15-cv-01862 (S.D. Tex., June 29, 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.

Uranium Energy Corp. engages in the exploration, extraction, and
processing of uranium concentrates on projects located in the
United States and the Republic of Paraguay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
      ABRAHAM WATKINS NICHOLS SORRELS AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce St
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-7211
      Facsimile: (713) 225-0827
      E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com

         - and -

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


US BANK: RMBS Investors File Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, Jessica Corso and Stephanie Russell-Kraft, writing
for Law360, report that BlackRock Inc. and dozens of other
investors filed a proposed class action in New York state court on
June 19 alleging U.S Bank NA failed to properly oversee $743
billion in residential mortgage-backed security trusts under its
purview, after the claims were tossed from federal court.

In May, U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest nixed a suit
brought by BlackRock, Pacific Investment Management Co. LLC, TIAA-
CREF Life Insurance Co. and dozens of other investors that bought
into 843 trusts controlled by U.S. Bank.  Judge Forrest ruled that
the bulk of those trusts fell under state law, following a Second
Circuit ruling in December.

On June 19, BlackRock, PIMCO and the dozens of other investors
brought to state court their claims that U.S. Bank failed in its
duties as trustee of 794 private-label RMBS trusts securitized
between 2004 and 2007 and worth roughly $743.8 billion at the time
of securitization.

"With this suit, plaintiffs re-file the claims relating to the
trusts previously asserted against U.S. Bank in the initial state
court action and the federal action," the complaint says.  "U.S.
Bank failed to discharge its duties and obligations to the trusts.
Instead, to protect its own business interests, U.S. Bank ignored
pervasive and systemic deficiencies in the underlying loan pools
and the servicing of those loans and unreasonably refused to take
any action."

The suit seeks to recover "billions of dollars in damages" caused
by an "abdication of responsibility."

The Second Circuit's ruling in December determined that trusts
governed by pooling and servicing agreements weren't covered by
the federal Trust Indenture Act of 1939.  Of the 843 trusts
pinpointed by the BlackRock suit, 810 were governed pursuant to
PSAs, and Judge Forrest said she saw no reason for dragging them
into the suit simply because the remaining 33 trusts were governed
by federal law.

BlackRock, PIMCO and the other investors filed suit in New York
state court in June 2014, then dismissed that suit voluntarily
when they filed suit in New York federal court in November.  Both
suits saw the investors seeking to recover from U.S. Bank for what
they said was shoddy oversight over the RMBSs included in trusts
under its control.

In a similar suit brought by BlackRock and other investors in New
York federal court against HSBC Holdings PLC, however, U.S.
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in March ruled that the federal
court can extend supplemental jurisdiction to the investors' state
law claims arising out of the PSA trusts.

Brought in June 2014, BlackRock's suit alleges HSBC knew the bonds
it oversaw contained faulty loans because it saw evidence of
widespread abuse by the loans' originators and substandard bond
deals created by issuers.

The suit was filed alongside five others against units of Deutsche
Bank, U.S. Bancorp, Wells Fargo & Co., Citigroup Inc. and Bank of
New York Mellon Corp. In total, BlackRock sought damages for
losses in more than 2,200 bonds issued between 2004 and 2008.

Earlier this month, Judge Scheindlin rejected HSBC's motion to
dismiss that case, ruling that the plaintiffs had so far met their
burden of proof.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jeroen Van Kwawegen --
jeroen@blbglaw.com -- Jai Chandrasekhar -- jai@blbglaw.com --
Blair A. Nicholas, Timothy A. Delange, Benjamin Galdston, David R.
Kaplan and Lucas E. Gilmore -- Lucas.Gilmore@blbglaw.com -- of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

The case is BlackRock Balanced Capital Portfolio et al. v. U.S.
Bank NA, case number not yet available on June 19, in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York.


VITEL COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Anglin, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Vitel Communications LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02318-LMM (N.D. Ga.,
June 29, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Vitel Communications LLC is a foreign corporation that provides
cable installation business in DeKalb County, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      P.O. Box 4979
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


VIVUS INC: 9th Cir. Rejected Petition in Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that the Ninth Circuit has rejected a
petition in a securities related class action.

The Company, a current officer and a former officer were
defendants in a putative class action captioned Kovtun v. VIVUS,
Inc., et al., Case No. 4:10-CV-04957-PJH, in the U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California. The action, filed in
November 2010, alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, based on
allegedly false or misleading statements made by the defendants in
connection with the Company's clinical trials and New Drug
Application, or NDA, for Qsymia as a treatment for obesity. The
Court granted defendants' motions to dismiss both plaintiff's
Amended Class Action Complaint and Second Amended Class Action
Complaint; by order dated September 27, 2012, the latter dismissal
was with prejudice and final judgment was entered for defendants
the same day. On October 26, 2012, plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Following briefing of the appeal, the Court of Appeals held oral
argument on January 16, 2015. On January 29, 2015, the Court of
Appeals issued a Memorandum decision affirming the District
Court's ruling. On February 12, 2015, plaintiff asked the Court of
Appeals' panel to rehear the case or for the Court to rehear the
case en banc. The Ninth Circuit rejected that petition on March
16, 2015.


W.W. GRANGER: Obtains Final Approval of Stovall-Gusman Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., granted final approval of
a settlement resolving the case captioned MARITZA STOVALL-GUSMAN,
Plaintiff, v. W.W. GRANGER, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-02540-
HSG, (N.D. Cal.).

The Court approved the Gross Settlement Amount of $715,000.00
including payments of: attorneys' fees in the amount of
$178,750.00; costs in the amount of $2,509.00; mediation costs in
the amount of $9,250.00 (not to be deducted from gross settlement
amount of $715,000.00); claims administration fees in the amount
of $14,605.00; and a sum of $5,000 to be given to the Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA).

A copy of the June 17, 2015 ruling is available at
http://bit.ly/1dChpJFfrom leagle.com.

Maritza Stovall-Gusman, an individual on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated and the general public, Plaintiff,
represented by Hunter Pyle -- hpyle@ssrplaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas
& Pyle, J.D. Henderson -- JD@falveylaw.com -- Law Offices of J.D.
Henderson, Mana Barari -- mbarari@ssrplaw.com -- Sundeen Salinas
and Pyle, Michael Hagop Boyamian -- mike.falveylaw@gmail.com --
Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey & Thomas Walker Falvey --
thomaswfalvey@gmail.com -- Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey.

W.W. Granger, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas J. Farmer --
doug.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Christopher M. Ahearn --
christopher.ahearn@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart, P.C. & Henry Francis Galatz, W.W. Grainger Inc.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Partial Judgment in Sex Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that after
14 years, an employee discrimination case against Wal-Mart "lives
on to fight another day," a federal judge ruled, granting Wal-Mart
only partial summary judgment.

Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Edith Arana, Deborah Gunter and
Christine Kwapnoski sued Wal-Mart in 2001 under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, claiming the world's largest retailer has a
"pattern and practice of gender discrimination in compensation and
promotion," and that its policies "had a disparate impact not
justified by business necessity on its female employees."  Those
quotes are from the Oct. 27, 2011, fourth amended complaint.

The San Francisco Federal Court and California Supreme Court
denied class certification, leaving individual Title VII claims
brought by Surgeson, Arana and Gunter, according to Wal-Mart's
April 2015 motion for summary judgment.

That document claims that "After more than 13 years of litigation,
each of these three plaintiffs now must support her claim against
Wal-Mart with specific evidence of unlawful activity.  But there
is no such evidence."

Wal-Mart argued that many of the allegations are time-barred,
barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies and because
they fail to show discrimination.

It claimed that Surgeson's claims fail because she offered no
evidence that Wal-Mart's actions "had anything to do with her
sex."

"Her promotion allegations fail because the only hourly positions
she identifies were awarded to female employees, and because she
did not apply to and was not qualified for the Manager-in-Training
program," Wal-Mart argued.

"Her pay allegations fail because she cannot identify a similarly
situated male who was paid more.  Her retaliation allegations fail
because they are procedurally defective and lack merit."

Wal-Mart made similar arguments regarding Arana and Gunter.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer on June 10 found that some of
the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because they are not
protected by the "piggyback rule" allowing them to ride on the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge filed by a former
plaintiff in the case, Stephanie Odle.

Breyer ruled that the plaintiffs' pre-Dec. 26, 1998 allegations
"fall outside the 300-day range of Odle's Oct. 2, 1999 EEOC
charge, and therefore are time barred."

Surgeson's retaliation claim is also time-barred, in part, because
she "did not allege retaliation in her EEOC complaint even under
the most liberal reading, and thus did not administratively
exhaust her claim" and she did not "respond to Wal-Mart's motion
for summary judgment on any retaliation claims and thus can be
deemed to have waived any objections."

Breyer granted summary judgment on Arana's race and pay claims.
and Gunter's pay and hostile work environment claims.

"As to every other argument by Wal-Mart in its motions for summary
judgment, the court carefully considered the factual and legal
bases advanced in support thereof and found them lacking," Breyer
concluded.  "This case, 14 years and counting, lives to fight
another day."

The case is Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
3:01-cv-02252-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


WAL-MART STORES: Settles Action Over All-Natural Cornstarch Label
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a class action lawsuit has been
settled with Walmart over the labeling of one of its cornstarch
products, the law firm DLA Piper LLP recently announced.

The proposed settlement means those who purchased the Walmart
brand Great Value All-Natural Cornstarch could be eligible for a
cash refund.  The lawsuit claimed Walmart mislabeled the
cornstarch as "All-Natural," and the label misled customers into
buying the product.

The suit claimed the cornstarch actually contained genetically
modified organisms.  The Karlin Foods Corp., which was named as a
defendant in the lawsuit, has denied any wrongdoing, and stated
there are no state or federal regulations that prohibit products
that contain genetically modified organisms from being labeled as
"all-natural."

Those who purchased the cornstarch product could be eligible for a
$1 refund per purchased product, up to $2 without proof of
purchase and up to $8 with a proof of purchase.  Refunds are only
eligible for those who purchased the cornstarch within the class
period, which begins on Aug. 22, 2010, up until the present.

There is $825,000 in the settlement fund.

While a federal court authorized notifying potential class
members, the court will still need to schedule a hearing to decide
whether or not to approve the settlement with Walmart.


WATTS WATER: Defending Against "Meyers, "Ponzo" & "Sharp" Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that in November and
December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator
Co. were named as defendants in three separate putative nationwide
class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc.,
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio;
Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts Regulator Co., United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts) seeking
to recover damages and other relief based on the alleged failure
of water heater connectors.  The complaints seek among other
items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement costs,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.


WATTS WATER: Defendant in "Klug" Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that in February 2015,
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and Watts Regulator Co. were named
as defendants in a putative nationwide class action complaint
(Klug v. Watts Water Technologies, Inc., et  al., United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska) seeking to recover
damages and other relief based on the alleged failure of the
Company's Floodsafe connectors.  The complaint seeks among other
items, damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible
loss for the above matters in which damages have not been
specified because: (i) the proceedings are in the early stages;
(ii) there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a class being
certified or the ultimate size of the class; (iii) there is
uncertainty as to the resolution of certain legal and procedural
motions; (iv) there are significant factual issues to be resolved;
and (v) there are novel legal issues presented.


WELLS FARGO: "Ponce de Leon Case" Dismissed in Its Entirety
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge S. James Otero dismissed in its entirety the case
captioned MICHAELINE PONCE DE LEON, and MICHELLE KATRENICH, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WELLS FARGO BANK, a National Association with its principal place
of business in the State of California, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-02593-SJO (VBKX), (C.D. Cal.).

The individual claims of Plaintiffs Michaeline Ponce de Leon and
Michelle Katrenich are dismissed with prejudice, and the class
action claims are dismissed without prejudice.

Each party will bear her/its own costs and attorneys' fees.

A copy of the Court's June 17, 2015 hearing is available at
http://bit.ly/1IRqveafrom leagle.com.

GLENN L. BRIGGS -- gbriggs@kadingbriggs.com -- THERESA A. KADING
-- tkading@kadingbriggs.com -- ELLEN C. COHEN --
cohen@kadingbriggs.com -- KADING BRIGGS LLP, Irvine, California,
Attorneys for Defendant, WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.


WELLS FARGO: 11th Cir. Vacated Order in "Order of Posting" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Eleventh Circuit
has vacated an order in the Order of Posting Litigation based on
the District Court's lack of jurisdiction until class
certification has been determined, and remanded to the District
Court for further proceedings.

A series of putative class actions have been filed against
Wachovia Bank, N.A. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as well as many
other banks, challenging the high to low order in which the banks
post debit card transactions to consumer deposit accounts. There
are currently several such cases pending against Wells Fargo Bank
(including the Wachovia Bank cases to which Wells Fargo
succeeded), most of which have been consolidated in multi-district
litigation proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida. The bank defendants moved to compel these
cases to arbitration under Supreme Court authority. On November
22, 2011, the Judge denied the motion. The bank defendants
appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit. On October 26, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit
affirmed the District Court's denial of the motion. Wells Fargo
renewed its motion to compel arbitration with respect to the
unnamed putative class members. On April 8, 2013, the District
Court denied the motion and Wells Fargo appealed the decision to
the Eleventh Circuit. On February 10, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit
vacated the order based on the District Court's lack of
jurisdiction until class certification has been determined, and
remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.


WELLS FARGO: Petition for Writ of Certiorari Filed
--------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company has filed a petition for writ of certiorari
to the United States Supreme Court related to a class action
lawsuit appeal, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On August 10, 2010, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California issued an order in Gutierrez v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A., a case that was not consolidated in the multi-district
proceedings, enjoining the bank's use of the high to low posting
method for debit card transactions with respect to the plaintiff
class of California depositors, directing the bank to establish a
different posting methodology and ordering remediation of
approximately $203 million. On October 26, 2010, a final judgment
was entered in Gutierrez. On October 28, 2010, Wells Fargo
appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On December 26, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed the order
requiring Wells Fargo to change its order of posting and vacated
the portion of the order granting remediation of approximately
$203 million on the grounds of federal preemption. The Ninth
Circuit affirmed the District Court's finding that Wells Fargo
violated a California state law prohibition on fraudulent
representations and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings.

On August 5, 2013, the District Court entered a judgment against
Wells Fargo in the approximate amount of $203 million, together
with post-judgment interest thereon from October 25, 2010, and,
effective as of July 15, 2013, enjoined Wells Fargo from making or
disseminating additional misrepresentations about its order of
posting of transactions. On August 7, 2013, Wells Fargo appealed
the judgment to the Ninth Circuit. On October 29, 2014, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the trial court's judgment against Wells Fargo
for approximately $203 million, but limited the injunction to
debit card transactions. Wells Fargo filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on April 10, 2015.


WELLS FARGO: Trial This Year for Pending Securities Lending Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wells Fargo & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that remaining securities
lending cases expected to go to trial in 2015.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. was involved in four separate actions
brought by securities lending customers of Wells Fargo and
Wachovia Bank in various courts. In general, each of the cases
alleges losses based on claims that Wells Fargo violated fiduciary
and contractual duties in its investment of collateral for loaned
securities. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota, et al., v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. resulted in verdicts dismissing the claims
against Wells Fargo. Plaintiffs have appealed the verdicts. Wells
Fargo has resolved one of the other cases and the remaining cases
are expected to go to trial in 2015.


WEST AFRICA EXAMINATION: Kofi Adams to Lead BECE Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
GhanaWeb reports that National Organizer of the National
Democratic Congress (NDC) has promised to lead the campaign to sue
the West Africa Examination Council [WAEC] for cancelling five
papers in the ongoing Basic Education Certificate Examination
(BECE).

Kofi Adams who described the situation as unfortunate called for a
thorough investigations into the issue, starting with officials of
WAEC.

"I also have my wards that have been seriously affected by this
cancellation.  I find it hard to understand how their systems
work. Officials of WAEC need to be questioned because I believe
they are the masterminds," he said on Accra-based Okay FM on June
18.

WAEC cancelled five papers in the ongoing examination due to
leakage of the papers.

In a statement signed by the deputy director of public affairs
Agnes Teye Cudjoe on June 17, WAEC is disappointed in the leakage
of the Mathematics, Integrated science, Social Studies and English
papers on social media platforms including Facebook and WhatsApp.

But Kofi Adams believes the cancellation will not only affect the
candidates but the parents as well therefore called on parents who
are planning to sue WAEC to do so to prevent a recur.

"I will lead a crusade to make sure they face the law.  Why should
they be so mean to students who have toiled so hard to learn? It
is so frustrating" he noted.


YAMAHA GOLF:  Recalls Golf Cars and PTVs Due to Crash Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Yamaha Golf Car Company, of Newnan, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,000 Yamaha Golf Cars and Personal Transportation
Vehicles (PTV). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The front wheel hubs on the golf cars and PTVs can crack causing
the front wheels to detach, posing a crash hazard that could
result in injury or death to the user or bystander.

This recall involves five 2015 and one 2016 model-year golf cars
and PTVs. Recalled models include 2015 "The DRIVE PTV", "The DRIVE
EFI", "Adventurer One", "The DRIVE", "The DRIVE Electric" and 2016
"The DRIVE A.C." The Yamaha logo is printed on the front of the
vehicle. The vehicles were sold in various colors including blue,
green, red, white, tan and silver.  The serial number can be found
on a label under the driver's seat on the left or right side.

  Model Names          Model Numbers    Serial Numbers
  -----------          -------------    --------------
  The DRIVE PTV        YDRAX5 PTV       JC0-606306 through 606698
  The DRIVE EFI        YDRAX5F          JC2-209964 through 210300
  Adventurer One       YTF1AX5F         JW6-700581 through 700600
  The DRIVE            YDRAX5           JW8-513800 through 514310
  The DRIVE Electric   YDREX6 AC        JW9-515401 through 516300

  2016 Model
  The DRIVE A.C.       YDREX6 AC        JC3-001701 through 001900

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/G8k4Ls

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Yamaha Golf Car dealers nationwide from April 2015 through June
2015 for between $5,900 and $7,500. Yamaha is contacting all
registered owners directly.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled Golf Cars
and PTVs and contact their local Yamaha Golf Car dealer to
schedule a free repair.


YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls SRViper Snowmobiles Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A., of Cypress, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 200 Yamaha SRViper snowmobiles.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The brake line and its components can come in contact with the
clutch causing the brakes to fail, posing a risk of injury or
death.

This recall involves the 2015 SRViper L-TX (Model name SR10LSFO)
and the 2015 SRViper M-TX 162 LE (Model name SR10M62LFO)
snowmobiles.  The recalled snowmobiles are blue and orange. The
model name is on the left and right side of the fuel tank cowling.
SRViper and Yamaha are printed on the side of the snowmobiles. The
vehicle identification number (VIN) is stamped on the frame
(tunnel) near the right foot well. The letter F in the 10th
position of the VIN indicates that the unit was made in the 2015
model year.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/QISdmF

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Yamaha snowmobile dealers nationwide from February 2015 through
April 2015 for between $13,000 and $14,100.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled snowmobiles
and contact their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free repair.
Yamaha is contacting all registered owners directly.


ZEEKREWARDS.COM: Ponzi Scheme Victims to Get Check in August
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
most victims of the ZeekRewards.com Ponzi scheme who are qualified
for reimbursement will get another check in early August.

Kenneth Bell, receiver of the defunct Lexington company, said on
June 19 the distribution amounts will vary by recipient.  He did
not say how much is being paid out beginning July 31.  However,
Mr. Bell said the average recipient should be at or near the 60
percent reimbursement mark of verified losses upon receiving the
next check.

In August 2012, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
accused Rex Venture Group LLC, Zeekler, ZeekRewards.com and
Paul Burks, their principal owner, of raising $850 million through
unregistered securities. The companies were shut down and their
assets frozen.

The companies raised the money from at least 2.2 million
customers, including more than 230,000 in the United States and
47,000 in North Carolina.

Mr. Burks had pleaded not guilty on federal charges of wire and
mail fraud conspiracy, wire and mail fraud, and tax fraud
conspiracy.  He was indicted in October 2014 by a federal grand
jury.  His trial date has been set for May 2016.

Mr. Bell has recovered $336.3 million in assets and had $324.1
million in available assets after paying administrative and other
costs.  He has paid a combined $157 million from distribution
rounds done in September and January.  He said up to another $134
million is available for dispersal if all potential recipients
complete their eligibility requirements.

Mr. Bell cautioned the upcoming distribution could be the last for
some time.

"We are in negotiations or litigation with financial services
firms to recover tens of millions of dollars for affiliates,"
Mr. Bell said in a statement on www.zeekrewardsreceivership.com.
"The litigation against U.S and foreign net winners -- those who
took more money out of the scheme than they put in -- is
progressing.  I remain confident that we will succeed in all of
these efforts."

Mr. Bell has defined net winners as those who had a net gain of at
least $1,000 from the Ponzi scheme.  He said the largest net
winners each received more than $1 million.

In February, Mr. Bell gained U.S. District Court permission to
certify about 9,400 net winners as defendants in a class-action
lawsuit. The list contained 15 individuals from Forsyth County,
105 from the Triad and Northwest N.C., and 390 statewide.

Mr. Bell has said the potential recovery from the net winners
could be as much as $283 million.

Judge Graham Mullen acknowledged much of the net winnings for some
defendants may have been dissipated, and the receiver will be
required to help the defendants pay for their defense costs.
Mr. Bell said about 50,000 claimants still have not completed all
necessary steps to receive a check.

Mr. Bell -- and the Journal -- have been inundated at times by
individuals claiming to have completed the qualification steps and
wondering why they haven't received their reimbursement check.
For those who accept the amount that Bell has assigned to their
claim, which has been approved by a federal judge, they need to
provide their release and certification to the receivership.
Mr. Bell said most of the 50,000 claimants have not completed
those steps.

To file a claim or check on the status of your claim, go to
https://cert.gardencitygroup.com/zrwdet/fs/home

He said he will add an instructional video to the website.

"We have received calls and emails asking that we cut off the
recovery rights of the 50,000 recognized claimants who have not
completed the process and distribute their share of distributions
to those who have," Mr. Bell said.  "Sometime before the end of
the receivership I will have no option but to ask the court for
permission to distribute all remaining receivership assets to only
those recognized claimants who have completed the process."


* CFPB Study Seen as Precursor to Arbitration Regulatory Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Will Routt, Esq. of Baker Donelson, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)
released a study in March 2015 criticizing the use of mandatory,
pre-dispute arbitration agreements in financial contracts with
consumers.  As expected, the CFPB found arbitration to be
detrimental to consumers' interests when compared to litigation,
particularly class action litigation.  The study is widely
perceived as a precursor to regulatory action that will
substantially curtail or even eliminate the use of arbitration
agreements in the consumer financial space.

The CFPB was established by Congress through the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010.  Through Dodd-
Frank, Congress empowered the CFPB to review the use of pre-
dispute arbitration agreements in consumer financial markets and
restrict their use if deemed necessary.  The CFPB conducted a
study of the use of mandatory arbitration provisions in contracts
for checking accounts, credit cards, prepaid cards, payday loans,
private student loans and mobile wireless contracts.

A primary emphasis in the March 2015 report concerns the
prohibition of class action lawsuits, a standard component in
consumer arbitration provisions.  The CFPB found that consumers
recover substantially less in arbitration proceedings than in
traditional litigation, particularly when compared to class action
lawsuits.  Moreover, consumers were found to be generally unaware
of whether their financial services contracts contain arbitration
provisions and often wrongly believe that they have the right to
sue in court.  The CFPB cites a host of additional concerns
including the contention that there is no evidence that
arbitration clauses lead to lower prices for consumers and that,
contrary to traditional wisdom, arbitration is not cheaper and
more efficient than litigation.

In the coming months, the CFPB will likely take action based on
the report and could, for instance, bar class action bans or bar
the use of pre-dispute arbitration agreements with consumers
entirely.  If the CFPB bans arbitration provisions, consumer
arbitration will likely all but disappear in the financal markets
space.  Moreover, the CFPB's actions could influence other
regulatory bodies, such as the Securities & Exchange Commission,
to implement similar bans on mandatory arbitration provisions,
thereby broadly impacting dispute resolution with consumers across
the entire financial industry.

If such regulatory bans are put into place, the industry will face
additional uncertainty as any ban will undoubtedly be challenged
in court.  The Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) provides that pre-
dispute arbitration agreements involving interstate commerce --
such as those used in the consumer financial industry -- are valid
and enforceable as written.  Whether the CFPB can be delegated the
power to unilaterally restrict the provisions of a U.S. law such
as the FAA will be a substantial hurdle for the CFPB to overcome.
While the outcome of any such litigation is uncertain, the limited
powers of administrative agencies and the pro-arbitration policies
adopted by the courts suggest that any CFPB action may be
unenforceable without Congressional action and a Presidential
signature.  The only thing we know for sure is that we'll be
watching this issue for quite some time.


* FCC Rules on Telemarketing, Robocalls and Other TCPA Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wilson Barmeyer, Esq., Irene Firippis, Esq., Lewis Wiener, Esq. of
Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report
that in its most significant action on the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA) since its revised TCPA rules took effect in
late 2013, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has issued
a package of declaratory rulings resolving almost two dozen
petitions seeking clarification on TCPA issues.  These rulings,
proposed by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler and adopted during an open
meeting on June 18, 2015, begin to address the long backlog of
TCPA petitions that had been awaiting FCC action as a wave of TCPA
class action litigation has flooded courts across the country.
Businesses seeking to comply with unclear rules and conflicting
court rulings sought clarification on many issues which had not
been previously addressed by the FCC.

In a press release, the FCC indicated that it views the TCPA as an
essential consumer protection tool against unwanted telemarketing
and robocalls and stated that the package "strengthens consumer
protections against unwanted calls and texts."  As a result of
this view, the business community was denied in its efforts to
seek change and/or clarification on a number of issues, and
several aspects of the TCPA will continue to be an issue for
legitimate businesses seeking to comply with the statute.  As
indicated in its press release, the FCC is taking the following
action, among others.

Definition of Autodialer. More than half a dozen petitions had
been filed seeking clarification on the definition of autodialer.
The FCC reiterated that under its rules an autodialer is
technology with the capacity to automatically dial random or
sequential numbers or call from a list.

Calls to Reassigned Numbers. Numerous petitions requested that the
FCC create a safe harbor for calls to reassigned numbers.
Businesses have no reliable way to identify reassigned numbers and
may continue to make calls to numbers where the former subscriber
consented to receive calls.  Several courts have held that such
calls constitute a violation of the TCPA even where the prior
subscriber consented to the calls, and the business did not know
the number had been reassigned.  The FCC declined to create a
complete safe harbor and instead adopted a rule that the first
call to a reassigned number will not trigger liability under the
TCPA.  This new rule, however, fails to address the core problem,
because a business could make multiple calls before learning that
the number has been reassigned.

Revocation. The FCC increased the compliance burden on revocation
of consent by adopting a rule that a consumer may revoke consent
to be contacted by any reasonable means and at any time.

The new rules have also brought changes regarding Do Not Disturb
technology, which is now expressly permitted.  Also, the FCC has
adopted a new limited exemption to consent standards for "urgent
calls," such as a fraud alert on a bank account.

Other core consumer protections in the TCPA and FCC rules remain
unchanged.  These consumer protections include:

The National Do-Not-Call Registry will be unchanged by this
proposal.

Prior express written consent will still be required for
telemarketing robocalls to both wireless and landline home phones.
Autodialed and prerecorded calls and texts to wireless phones
require prior consent, whether they are telemarketing or
informational calls.

Political calls to wireless phones are subject to the general
restrictions on prerecorded and artificial voice calls and
autodialed calls.  Political calls are not subject to the National
Do-Not-Call Registry because such calls do not include telephone
solicitations.

               Ruling May Spur Abusive Class Actions

Anne Flaherty, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Federal Communications Commission on June 18 agreed that Verizon,
AT&T, and other telecommunication carriers aren't duty-bound to
connect those annoying "robocalls" if a consumer doesn't want
them.

Consumer groups and several states had asked the agency to clarify
this point because phone companies have said they worried about
running afoul of rules that require them to connect every call.

FCC commissioners mostly agreed that call blocking technology or
"do not disturb" services should not only be allowed but
encouraged.

Several companies already offer consumers the chance to block
individual numbers.  But that approach doesn't help much because
callers can easily spoof their identification and make it appear
as though they are calling from a different phone number.

USTelecom, a trade group that represents many of the major phone
companies, said there is "no single technical solution" to the
problem because of spoofed numbers.

"USTelecom's members will continue to develop and deploy tools to
their customers in order to address these unwanted calls," said
Jonathan Banks, senior vice president at US-Telecom, in a
statement.

"We look forward to continuing collaboration with government, law
enforcement, and technology providers to eliminate illegal
robocalls," he said.

Echoing the sentiment of many Republicans, the US Chamber of
Commerce Institute for Legal Reform said it opposed the move by
the FCC, because the group said it would "accelerate the growth of
abusive and costly class-action lawsuits against businesses."

Unwanted phone calls, many of which are scams, remain a top
consumer complaint even 12 years after Congress passed a law
setting up the Do Not Call registry.

The problem has gotten so bad nationwide that the FTC has offered
cash prizes for technical solutions.

Consumers groups say that the emergence of new antirobocalling
technologies suggest that phone companies have the technical
ability to spot robocalls.  They say that the phone companies have
been dragging their feet, probably because it's easier to allow
the calls than to try to find a way to stop them.

One big impact of the new rules could be seen next year in the
run-up to the presidential election.  When creating the Do Not
Call Registry, politicians exempted themselves: Campaigns are
allowed to blast your landline with the automated calls, but not
your cellphone.

While that rule won't change, phone companies will be allowed at
the consumer's request to drop or send to voice mail any automated
phone calls to their landline, including political calls.  If
phone companies find a workable solution and enough consumers sign
on, campaign volunteers will have to place calls in person,
limiting their reach to voters.

Most often, robocalls are scams that originate overseas.  But
spoofing techniques allow the scammers to make the number on the
caller ID appear to be local.

One common example of a scam is "Rachel from cardholder services."
The automated voice recording encourages listeners to press a
number, which connects them with someone who might promise to
lower their interest rates in exchange for an upfront fee.

The FTC traced the original "Rachel" to multiple people in the
United States and demanded refund checks, but the copycat scams
have continued.


* Tech Companies Push for New Worker Classification Amid Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline O'Donovan, writing for BuzzFeed News, reports that faced
with lawsuits that could threaten their business models, tech
companies are pushing for a new classification of worker that
would combine the flexibility afforded to contractors with the
protections afforded to employees. How that new worker is defined
could impact American labor for years to come.

The tech industry prides itself on innovation: Startup founders
and Silicon Valley entrepreneurs are praised for their capacity to
create entirely new things we never knew we needed.  Tech's latest
creation, however, is more social policy than sci-fi: an entirely
new type of worker, the first of its kind in America in decades.

Over the last few years, the on-demand, Uber-for-x economy has
created an enormous need for cheap, flexible labor -- a demand
that heretofore has been satisfied by a growing number of contract
workers.  But increasingly, some of those contract workers have
become dissatisfied, putting legal pressure on the founders of
companies like Lyft, Handy, Homejoy, and Instacart to take better
care of them.  The California Labor Commission found that Uber
driver Barbara Ann Berwick should legally have been classified as
an employee all along, with all the protections (minimum wage,
overtime) and benefits (unemployment, workers' compensation) that
an employee is legally guaranteed.

Cases like Berwick's could portend very bad news for the on-demand
industry: Employees cost a business roughly 30% more than
contractors do.  The finding in her case could create precedent
for class-action lawsuits across the country and seriously
threaten the sustainability of these companies.  Faced with this
possibility, the tech industry has set about doing what it does
best: disrupting the status quo.

Throughout the on-demand industry, chatter about creating a new
legal designation -- one that blends the protections afforded
employees with the flexibility afforded contractors -- has grown
increasingly noisy.  At a recent on-demand economy event,
Simon Rothman, a venture capitalist and advisor to companies like
Lyft and Taskrabbit, said, "I think it's not 1099 versus W-2. I
think the right answer is a third class of worker."

The rise of companies like Uber have created thousands of new
on-demand jobs around the world that, so far, have failed to offer
a single person the protections that employment is supposed to
guarantee.  As questions about whether or not those workers are
being treated fairly grow louder, the possibility of creating a
new worker -- sometimes called a "dependent contractor," based on
an existing designation in some European countries -- is beginning
to garner national attention.  If the proliferation of on-demand
labor is actually revolutionizing work in America, defining this
new classification -- which could allow multiple employers to pool
funds to cover a worker's benefits, or extend basic wage
protections to contractors -- is an opportunity to ensure fair
treatment for future generations of laborers.  But as the debate
is unfolding now, it's more likely to benefit the businesses, who
are lobbying aggressively in Washington, than the workers, whose
voices, outside of the courtroom, are going unheard in regulatory
conversations.

The idea of introducing a dependent contractor in the U.S. has
been rapidly gaining momentum.  When the news of the finding in
the Berwick case broke, U.S. Senator Mark Warner immediately
released a statement calling for new legislation around
classification, rather than allowing the issue to be "litigated on
a case-by-case and state-by-state basis."  Just a few weeks prior,
Warner gave a speech at the New America Foundation in Washington,
D.C., calling for a new worker classification.  Meanwhile, the
Department of Labor recently announced that it will issue new
guidelines for determining who is and isn't an independent
contractor, and the Federal Trade Commission held a workshop on
the law and the so-called "sharing economy" that touched on
misclassification.

But as the drumbeat grows louder in Washington, there's a risk
that workers' voices will be drowned out.  It's easy to assume,
given the lawsuits, that Uber drivers and Instacart delivery
people don't want to be contractors.  But just because they're
suing for some of the benefits and protections of employment
doesn't necessarily mean they want to be employees.  In fact,
according to a recent survey, 63% of on-demand workers consider
themselves independent contractors.  By and large, they want what
all workers want -- money and a degree of stability without having
to sacrifice their independence and flexibility.

Sometimes, those contradicting desires and reality come to a head.
Before Jose Galvez became a driver for Uber and Lyft, he worked in
a restaurant in Santa Barbara, a job that afforded him benefits
and even vacation time.  But when he got into an accident as an
on-demand driver, he didn't get any kind of compensation.  "I had
no income for two months," he told BuzzFeed News.  "That's
something I really worry about."

Having to pay out of pocket for things like gas and car washes is
also a frustration for Mr. Galvez.  If he doesn't wash his car, he
worries that his rating on Uber could drop below 4.6, which could
get him booted off the platform.  He's also concerned about making
payments on his new car, which he bought before Uber cut rates in
L.A.; right now he's making around $500 to $600 a week, but
without any guarantee of stability, he's not sure he can afford
it.

"I do understand that it would be a little more expensive to have
everyone as employees," he said.  "At the same time, it's not fair
the way it's set up right now."  Mr. Galvez said that if a third
classification could offer him the benefits and protections of his
old job, he'd be all for it.  "I think that would be progress."
But while a third classification sounds progressive, nobody's
really sure what it would mean in practice.  The hope is to find
find a way to distribute the responsibility of employment over
multiple employers, making it possible for them to jointly
contribute to a single benefits package that is linked to the
individual, wherever that person happens to be working at any
given time.

Senator Mark Warner has yet to make any formal policy proposals,
but he has laid out a few possible models for a third
classification.  Mr. Warner told BuzzFeed News that he's
considered everything from a health care exchange-type system for
workers' comp and unemployment to somehow trying to incorporate
tips into contractor compensation.  He also raised the possibility
of an hour bank, based in part on the historical structure of some
labor unions, in which both employee and employer would pay into a
fund managed by a third party.

"I don't think this is one where we leap to judgment tomorrow,"
Warner told BuzzFeed News.  "But I don't think that we're just
going to punt on this and let the courts litigate it. That doesn't
make sense either."

Ken Davis, founder of an on-demand lawn-mowing company called
TaskEasy, thinks an hour bank could definitely help.  "If a 1099
contractor individual works for four different on-demand
companies, that person can't receive 25% health care coverage from
each of them, and no single on-demand company can afford to cover
100% of health care for a 25% work effort," he said.  Creating a
"nationally standardized" system for withholding funds for worker
benefits could make the lives of workers better, without crushing
the companies they work for.

Meanwhile, as federal policymakers weigh a third classification,
private companies are already taking action.

In 2013, after stepping down at Relayrides, Shelby Clark founded
Peers, a startup that builds tools and products for workers in the
on-demand industry.  Mr. Clark says the current laws make it
impossible for employers to treat contractors well.  "Even if they
wanted to provide insurance to these workers, they c an't, because
as soon as they do, they became employees," he said. "This is one
area a dependent contractor could make a lot of progress on."

In Mr. Clark's vision for this dependent contractor, government
remains responsible for protecting workers, while benefits remain
disaggregated from the employer.  For example, Peers offers a
service called Keep Driving that costs drivers $20 a month; in
exchange, when a driver's car is out of commission for repairs,
Peers will provide them with a loaner, allowing them to continue
working for Uber, Lyft, Sidecar, or whatever on-demand platform
they choose.  "In a world where you don't get unemployment and you
don't get workers' comp, can we create products that people can
buy individually?" Clark asked.  "What I don't want is for
someone's benefits to change based on the app they have open."

Another big headache for contract workers that a new
classification could make easier is income taxes: 1099 forms are
much more complicated than a W-2 employee's annual filing;
companies like Zen99 and Intuit have stepped in with software
meant to make this process easier.  Intuit's Quickbooks Self-
Employed product, for example, helps workers track deductions for
things like gas and maintenance.  But Alex Chriss, Intuit's
general manager, said a technological solution alone is not
enough, pointing out that France has a new classification of
"auto-entrepreneurs" who are not quite employees, but have fewer
tax requirements than small business owners.  As Intuit's policy
team steps up its advocacy efforts for self-employed workers, he
said they'll be keeping those policies in mind.

Exactly how new policies could come into being, however, is hard
to predict -- the path toward standardization is a long and
winding one.  Diane Ring, a tax law professor at Boston College
and author of Can Sharing be Taxed?, explained that there's no
one-stop shop in terms of creating new labor regulations; to begin
with, there's state labor law, federal labor law, state tax law,
and federal tax law, and "no obligation for them to be the same."

"It's not as if all we have to do is change 'blank' and, boom --
it will all flow through the system in an instant," she said.

On top of that, some experts, including National Employment Law
Project Deputy Director Rebecca Smith, believe any meaningful
regulation will be initiated on the state and local levels.
"That's where change is happening nowadays in terms of policy,"
she said.

The court system also has a role to play in this debate,
especially given the number of lawsuits that are currently
ongoing.  It's possible that, given the number and variety of
cases, the misclassification issue could ultimately end up in the
Supreme Court.  While the courts can't create a new classification
on their own, what a string of litigation can do is light a fire
under the owners of the businesses that are being sued.  On-demand
companies, led by Uber, have increasingly begun to lobby lawmakers
in hopes of finding a solution that won't cripple them.  Given the
recent attention given to the issue in Washington, it would seem
that the lawmakers are starting to listen.

If there's going to be action on the third classification issue at
the federal level, it's essential that the perspective of workers,
and not just industry, be incorporated into that process.  But
workers themselves tend to be underrepresented during higher-level
conversations, such as the FTC's gig economy workshop in June.


                            *********

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  * * *