---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, July 15, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 140


                            Headlines


160 DEGREES: Faces Claims Under Fair Labor Standards Act
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit
ALLIED PILOTS: Sued Over Duty of Fair Representation Breach
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Blumenthal" Suit Over Airline Ticket
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Winton" Suit Over Airline Ticket

BARBER FOODS: Recalls Stuffed Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
BARNETT OUTDOORS: Recalls Sports and Hunting Slingshots
BARRICK GOLD: Court Upholds Carriage Ruling Favoring Law Firms
BASSETT & WALKER: Recalls Beef Lip Product Due to Noncompliance
BAYVIEW LOAN: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers

BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Avalanche Airbag Packs Due to Injury Risk
BLOOMBERG LP: OT Pay Violation Suit Gets Class Status
BLUE CROSS: Faces Wolverine Metal Suit in Mich. Over Hidden Fees
BLUE CROSS: Class Suit May Impact Health Insurance Competition
BOWLING GREEN: Summary Judgment Bid in Concussion Suit Fails

BROADCOM CORP: Andrews & Springer Probing Merger-Related Breach
BUILD-A-BEAR INC: Sued Over Discrimination Against Blind People
CADIZ INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
CAFEPRESS INC: Aug. 11 Hearing on $8MM Securities Suit Settlement
CANADA: Federal Lawyers Want Medical Pot Case Tossed

CATAMARAN CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
CHC GROUP: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
CITY GROUP: Chairman, Wife Named as Swiss Bank Acct Holders
CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: Faces Lawsuit Under Fair Labor Standards Act

CONCEPTUS INC: Merchant Law Group Sues Over Essure Birth Control
CONTINENTAL CAFE: Faces Claims Under FLSA, Mich. Min. Wage Act
CONTINENTAL INSURANCE: Dodges $2-Bil. Wartime Benefits Suit
DAIRY FARMERS: Some Class Members Seek to Fire Lawyers
DYNAMIC PET: 'Real Ham Bone' Harms Dogs, Suit Says

EDISON INTERNATIONAL: "Tibble" Creates Uncertainty for Plan Execs
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Sued over Misleading Financial Reports
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Suit
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit
ENERGY FUEL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Perez" Suit Claims

ENERGY RECOVERY: Case Management Conference Moved to Dec. 3
EPOCA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Glass Kettles Due to Burn Hazard
ET FRESH: Faces "Sanchez" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
FOAM KING: "Grimsley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: $6.4MM Interns' Suit Deal Gets Final Approval

FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Faces "Eagle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GAHANA, OH: Class Certification of Income-Tax Credits Suit Upheld
GAMESTOP INC: Minnesota Court Dismisses Data Breach Suit
GE SECURITY: UTCFSA Wins Summary Judgment in "Makaron" Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rephen" Suit Claims

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Bid to Stay Hagens Berman Client Interview Nixed
GOURMET CULINARY: Recalls Turkey Sausage Products
HEARTH & HOME: Recalls Indoor Gas Fireplaces Due to Fire Hazard
HEARTH & HOME: Recalls Quadra-Fire Pellet Stoves and Inserts
HERTZ CORP: Sued Over Unauthorized Background Checks

HOPKINS, MN: 'Pirate' Sues Over Water-Meter Dispute
IDAHO: 9th Circ. Expands Injunction of Benefit Cuts to Disabled
ICARE FINANCIAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Ads, Fulton Suit Claims
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Appealing $15B+ Damages Awards by Quebec Court
INDIANA: Drug Test for Welfare Recipients Illegal, Suit Says

INDUSTRIA DE DISENO: Zara Faces $40MM Discrimination Suit
JAKE'S FIREWORKS: Recalls Sparklers Due to Burn Hazard
JBRE LLC: "Hammond" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
KESTREL ENGINEERING: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Faces Suit Over Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay

LAGO INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Bautista" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LIONSGATE: Moves To Settle 'Wendy Williams Show' Intern Suit
LU SIMON BUILDERS: Faces Class Suit by Bldg. Residents
LUXE VALET: Sued Over Misclassification of Employees
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit

MCKENZIE CHECK: Well-Drafted Contract Protects from FDUTPA Suits
MECCA CAMPUS: "Liggins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL: Deal in Homeless Class Suit Amended
MIKE HUCKABEE: 8th Cir. Reinstates TCPA Class Suit
MOMMA ROSA: Faces "Rife" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Ex-Player Opposes Deal in Concussion Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Aug. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Suit By Gainey McKenna
NESTLE PURINA: Class Complaint Over Beneful Dog Food Amended
NEW ALLIANCE BANK: 2nd Circ. Ruling Further Splits Circuits

NOVO NORDISK: Illegally Records Phone Calls, "Williams" Suit Says
OHLINS USA: Recalls Forks for Motocross Bikes Due to Crash Hazard
OLD NATIONAL: 7th Circ. Poised to Rule in Data Breach Suit
ONTARIO: Abuse Settlement Includes $42,000 Individual Payout
PEPSI CO: Chemical Disclosure Suit Can Proceed, Judge Rules

PUMA BIOTECH: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Pomerantz Law Firm
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Antitrust Class Action Dismissed
RHODE ISLAND: Judge Approves Settlement in Pension Overhaul Case
ROGUE VALLEY: Five Charged in Maternity Ward Privacy Breach
ROSS DRESS: Suit Over Unpaid Bag Check Time Sent to Arbitration

ROYAL CANADIAN: Atty Asks Court to Throw Out Discrimination Suit
SAMSUNG: Class Suit Over Fires Caused by Washing Machines Looms
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Aug. 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
SILVER DOLLAR: "Hays" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SIRIUS XM: Copyright Royalties Suit Stayed Pending Appeal

SOUTH CAROLINA: Educ. Commission Sued Over Student Discrimination
SOUTO FOODS: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SPOKEO INC: "Robins" Can Redefine Standing in Federal Court
SUNRUN INC: Sued Over Violation of Calif. Licensing Laws
TENNESSEE: Class Status Sought Basic Education Program Suit

SYNGENTA CORP: GMO Corn Suits in Discovery Stages
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Trial Underway on Chinese Drywall Class Suit
TRUECAR INC: July 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TYSON FOODS: Justices Review Appeal in Workers' Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Attys Want Disability Benefits Suspension Enjoined

UNITED STATES: Customs Sued Over Detained Immigrants' Treatment
UNUM LIFE: Faces Claims for Accidental Death, Dismemberment
UPONOR INC: September 10 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
VIRGINIA: NRV Inmates Sue Warden Over Living Conditions
VIROPHARMA INC: Oct. 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing

WASHINGTON: Teachers Sue State Pension System
WATERSHED LLC: Woodberry Kitchen Pastry Cooks Sue Over Unpaid OT
WESTMOUNT, QC: Ex-Hockey Coach Faces New Sexual Abuse Allegation
WILLMARK COMMUNITIES: Says Renters Class Suit 'Without Merit'
XUNLEI LIMITED: Aug. 7 Deadline on Lead Plaintiff Bid

YINGLI GREEN: Says Class Suits Are Groundless

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


                            *********


160 DEGREES: Faces Claims Under Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Smith, on his own behalf and others similarly situated, v.
160 Degrees of Coconut Creek, LLC, and the Muffluletta of Coconut
Creek, LLC, and Jamie Malteses, Case 0:15-cv-61365-BB(S.D. Fla.,
July 1, 2015), seeks overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

160 Degrees operates in Broward County, Florida as a business
engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce
under the Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Camar R. Jones, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Hwy, Suite 404
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Tel: (561) 447-8888
     Fax: (561) 447-8831
     E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announced that a class action
has been filed on behalf of investors of Aerie Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Aerie Pharmaceuticals" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AERI),
who purchased the Company's securities between August 6, 2014 and
April 23, 2015, inclusive (the, "Class Period"). Investors who
purchased shares of Aerie Pharmaceuticals during the Class Period,
had until June 29, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

The Complaint alleges that the Company misled investors regarding
the potential of the Company's drug candidate, Rhopressa, and its
effectiveness in treating glaucoma or ocular hypertension. The
Complaint further alleges that the Company made false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding the Company's prospects for Rhopressa,
including that Rhopressa was not performing as well as an approved
drug, timolol, in clinical studies and would therefore not be
approved, and improve future income and revenues for Aerie
Pharmaceuticals.

On April 23, 2015, the Company issued a press release announcing
the results of its first Phase 3 trial for Rhopressa. According to
the release, "[t]he trial did not meet its primary efficacy
endpoint of demonstrating non-inferiority of IOP lowering for
once-daily RhopressaTM compared to twice-daily timolol, the most
widely used comparator in registration trials for glaucoma." On
this news, the price of Aerie stock fell $22.52 per share to close
at $12.87 per share on April 24, 2015, a one-day decline of nearly
64%, on exceptionally high volume.

If you purchased shares of Aerie Pharmaceuticals during the Class
Period, contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard
G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania
19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847,
or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our
website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


ALLIED PILOTS: Sued Over Duty of Fair Representation Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines FlowThru Pilots Coalition and Gregory R. Cordes,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Allied Pilots Association and American Airlines, Inc., Case No.
3:15-cv-03125-MEJ (N.D. Cal., July 6, 2015), arises from the
alleged breach of the duty of fair representation in connection
with the representation of employees in the airline industry under
the Railway Labor Act.

Allied Pilots Association is an unincorporated labor organization
representing American Airlines pilots.

American Airlines, Inc. operates an airline company with
headquarters locate in Fort Worth, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Katzenbach, Esq.
      KATZENBACH LAW OFFICES
      912 Lootens Place, 2nd Floor
      San Rafael, CA 94901
      Telephone: (415) 834-1778
      Facsimile: (415) 834-1842
      E-mail: ckatzenbach@kkcounsel.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Blumenthal" Suit Over Airline Ticket
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot J. Blumenthal, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines,
Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01056-CKK (D.D.C., July 6, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

The Defendants are the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
      Stephen R. Neuwirth, Esq.
      Jon David Corey, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 849-7000
      Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
      E-mail: adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
              stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com
              joncorey@quinnemanuel.com

         - and -

      Dana Statsky Smith, Esq.
      Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
      Tania T. Taveras, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP
      10 East 40th Street
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 779-1414
      Facsimile: (212) 779-3218
      E-mail: dsmith@bernlieb.com
              aranoff@bernlieb.com
              taveras@bernlieb.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Winton" Suit Over Airline Ticket
----------------------------------------------------------
Jay Winton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Southwest Airlines Co., Delta Air Lines, Inc., American
Airlines, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05231-
LTS (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the
price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining
the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting
the number of flights offered within the United States, and
limiting the transparency of pricing information available to
domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the
United States.

The Defendants are the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christian Levis, Esq.
      Sung-Min Lee, Esq.
      Barbara J. Hart, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
      White Plains Plaza
      One North Broadway, Suite 509
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 733-7220
      Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
      E-mail: clevis@lowey.com
              slee@lowey.com
              bhart@lowey.com


BARBER FOODS: Recalls Stuffed Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barber Foods, a Portland, Maine establishment, is recalling
approximately 1,707,494 pounds of frozen, raw stuffed chicken
products that may be contaminated with Salmonella Enteritidis, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The chicken products were produced between February 17, 2015 and
May 20, 2015.

Since the original recall on July 2, 2015, two more case-patients
have been identified. The scope of this recall expansion now
includes all products associated with contaminated source
material.

On July 2, 2015, Barber Foods recalled approximately 58,320 pounds
of frozen, raw, stuffed chicken items produced on January 29,
2015; February 20, 2015; and April 23, 2015. The following product
is subject to recall:

  --- 2-lb. 4-oz. cardboard box containing 6 individually pouched
      pieces of "BARBER FOODS PREMIUM ENTREES BREADED-BONELESS
      RAW STUFFED CHICKEN BREASTS WITH RIB MEAT KIEV" with use
      by/sell by date of April 28, 2016, May 20, 2016 and July
      21, 2016 and Lot Code number 0950292102, 0950512101, or
      0951132202.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-
276" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were
shipped to retail locations nationwide.

FSIS was notified of a cluster of Salmonella Enteritidis illnesses
on June 24, 2015. Working in conjunction with Minnesota State
Departments of Health and Agriculture, Wisconsin Department of
Health Services, and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, FSIS determined that there is a link between the
frozen, raw, stuffed chicken products from Barber Foods and this
illness cluster. Based on epidemiological evidence and traceback
investigations, six case-patients have been identified in
Minnesota and Wisconsin with illness onset dates ranging from
April 5, 2015 to June 23, 2015 that link to the specific Barber
Foods products. FSIS continues to work with public health partners
on this investigation.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after exposure
to the organism. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most
people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the
diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be
hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health
care provider.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some products may be in
consumers' freezers. Although the products subject to recall may
appear to be cooked, these products are in fact uncooked (raw) and
should be handled carefully to avoid cross-contamination in the
kitchen. Particular attention needs to be paid to safely prepare
and cook these raw poultry products to a temperature of 165ø F
checking at the center, the thickest part and the surface of the
product.

These frozen, raw, stuffed chicken products were labeled with
instructions identifying that the product was raw and included
cooking instructions for preparation. Some case-patients reported
following the cooking instructions on the label and using a food
thermometer to confirm that the recommended temperature was
achieved. Therefore, FSIS advises all consumers to treat these
products like a raw chicken product. Hands and any surfaces,
including surfaces that may have breading dislodged from the
products, should be cleaned after contact with these raw products.
Also, keep raw poultry away from other food that will not be
cooked. Use one cutting board for raw poultry and a separate one
for fresh produce and cooked foods.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions can contact the company directly at (844)
564-5555. Media with questions can contact Nick Vehr, Media
Relations Spokesperson, at (513) 381-8347.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


BARNETT OUTDOORS: Recalls Sports and Hunting Slingshots
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Barnett Outdoors LLC, of Tarpon Springs, Fla., announced a
voluntary recall of about 88,000 Sports and hunting slingshots (in
addition, 16,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The slingshot's wrist strap can slip off the wrist brace when the
slingshot's pouch is pulled back which can result in the body of
the slingshot snapping back and striking the user.

This recall involves Barnett Outdoors Black Widow slingshots. The
recalled slingshot is about 6 inches tall. It has a black plastic
handgrip with red linear rubber studs on the palm side, a silver
metal fork and silver metal folding wrist brace. The folding wrist
brace has a black, soft plastic wrist strap. The wrist strap on
recalled slingshots does not have an X where the ends of the wrist
strap slide onto the wrist brace. The slingshot was sold with
translucent beige tubular rubber bands with a gray suede pouch
attached.

Barnett has received two reports of the wrist strap slipping off
and the body of the sling striking the users in the face, with one
consumer receiving bruises and the other suffering facial
fractures.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/lM9jbN

The recalled products were manufactured in Hong Kong and sold at
A.C. Kerman, Archery Range, Archery Shoppe, Big Rock Sporting
Goods, Bow Hunters Supply Store, Campco, Dicks Sporting Goods,
Dunham's, Florida Hardware Co., Great Lakes Marine Products, Gun
World & Sporting Goods, Paducah Shooters Supply, Slingshots USA,
Walmart and other archery, shooting and sports stores nationwide
and online at Amazon.com and BarnettCrossBows.com from July 2014
to May 2015 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled slingshots
and contact Barnett to receive a free replacement wrist strap.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BASSETT & WALKER: Recalls Beef Lip Product Due to Noncompliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bassett & Walker International, Inc., a Toronto, Canada,
establishment, is recalling approximately 1,540 pounds of beef lip
products produced in Australia that were not presented at the U.S.
point of entry for inspection, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
Without the benefit of full inspection, a possibility of adverse
health consequences exists.

The product was produced and shipped on various dates between
March 2, 2015, and April 7, 2015, and was distributed to retail
outlets and restaurants in the San Diego, Calif., area. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 55 pound boxes containing "Beef Lips" Manufactured by
      Australian Est. 4, JBS PTY Limited
  --- 55 pound boxes containing "Beef Lips" Manufactured by
      Australian Est. 170, JBS PTY Limited
  --- 55 pound boxes containing "Beef Lips" Manufactured by
      Australian Est. 235, JBS PTY Limited
  --- 55 pound boxes containing "Beef Lips" Manufactured by
      Australian Est. 517, JBS PTY Limited

The problem was discovered during routine FSIS surveillance
activities of imported products.

FSIS and the company have received no confirmed reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about a reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website
atwww.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Maria Fortuna, Logistics Director, at (416) 363-7070 ext. 265 or
mfortuna@bassettwalkerinc.com.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov.The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/qd59eff


BAYVIEW LOAN: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Lustig, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 8:15-cv-01065 (C.D. Cal.,
July 6, 2015), is an action for damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies and a result from
the Defendant's illegal action of debiting the Plaintiff's and
also the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring
basis without obtaining a written authorization signed or
similarly authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund
transfers from the Plaintiffs' and also the putative Class
members' accounts.

Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC is a home loan servicer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Avalanche Airbag Packs Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Black Diamond Inc., of Salt Lake City, Utah and POC Sports, of
Salt Lake City, Utah, announced a voluntary recall of about 1,000
units os Black Diamond, Pieps and POC Brand JetForce Avalanche
Airbag Packs (in addition, 200 were sold in Canada). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The motor can malfunction and prevent the airbag from deploying,
increasing the risk of injury or death in the event of a snow
avalanche.

This recall involves all first generation JetForce Black Diamond,
Pieps and POC model airbag packs manufactured by Black Diamond
between October 2, 2014 and March 3, 2015. The manufacture date
code ranging from 14275 to 15077 can be found inside the front
pocket label. The date codes are listed in a YYDDD format. Date
codes on some products are truncated in a YDDD format (ex.4275).
The JetForce Technology logo is on the left shoulder strap, and an
instruction label is on the inside flap of the back panel. The
following models and colors are included in this recall:

  Brand           Model and Capacity     Colors
  -----           -----------------      ------
  Black Diamond   Pilot 11 Liters        Black, Fire Red
                  Halo 28 Liters
                  Saga 40 Liters
  Pieps           Tour Rider 24 Liters   Black with yellow, Black
                  Tour Pro 24 Liters     with chili red
  POC             Thorax 11 Liters       Orange

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at
Specialty outdoor retail stores nationwide and online at
www.blackdiamondequipment.com from December 2014 to June 2015 for
between $1,250 and $1,300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled airbag packs
and contact Black Diamond for instructions on returning the
product for a free repair.


BLOOMBERG LP: OT Pay Violation Suit Gets Class Status
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicole Goodkind, writing for Yahoo Finance, reported that the
original complaint filed by the law firm Getman Sweeney in 2014
alleged that Bloomberg LP, the financial software and media
company, violated federal law by failing to compensate hundreds of
former and current employees for overtime pay beginning in 2012.

Bloomberg LP is run by Michael Bloomberg who is worth $36.9
billion, according to Forbes.

The case was certified for class action status on May 26. It
claims that Bloomberg analytics employees were required to start
work before their scheduled shift, work during lunch hours and
after their shift ended. The suit also claims that Bloomberg
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by giving employees a
compensatory day off for weekend and holiday work instead of
receiving overtime pay.

Current and former analytics employees were contacted about the
lawsuit on May 27, and will have 60 days to opt in. Analytics
employees work with clients to troubleshoot issues with Bloomberg
terminals. One former employee who was an analytics worker
described the job as being yelled at by "as many as four clients
simultaneously through the Bloomberg chat function and/or on the
phone. As soon as you fixed one problem, he says, "another from
the dreaded 'queue' would get routed to you."

This former employee, who worked at Bloomberg from 2011 to 2012,
claims that analytics team members were expected to remain at work
15 to 20 minutes after their shift ended. But in order to move up
in the company, he says, employees would often work many hours
past their shift-end without overtime compensation. No one
explicitly forced these employees to work that late, but if they
didn't they would be passed over for promotions. He says he was
asked to miss lunch a handful of times each year and work every
third or fourth holiday but, "compared to the real finance world
the overall hours were a cakewalk."

He claims that management was far removed from employees and that
policies and practices were "questionable." "No lower-level
managers dared challenge upper management's views, primarily out
of a fear of petty retribution," he says. "Stories of egotistical
upper-level managers feeling slighted and squashing burgeoning
young careers abounded, bureaucracy and hubris ran unchecked,
celebrated even."

Bloomberg is well-known for its generous benefits and pay but also
for its controlling work culture. The company has a history of
tracking employees whereabouts.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, salaried workers are eligible
for time-and-a-half compensation beyond 40 hours of work a week
and for work on weekends and holidays. New York State law requires
the same compensation. There are, however, exceptions to these
standards and that's where the nuances of this lawsuit lie.
Computer employees (computer systems analysts, computer
programmers, software engineers or other similarly skilled worker
in the computer field) who make more than $27.63 an hour, for
example, can sometimes be exempt.

Eric M. Roseman, the former Bloomberg employee who first filed
suit, refused to comment on the case.

Getman Sweeney currently lists three open overtime lawsuits
against Bloomberg on its website. Bloomberg settled an overtime
suit with The Ottinger Firm on behalf of tech support workers for
$5.4 million. The 428 employees involved in the suit each received
around $12,600.

Lawyer Dan Getman of Getman Sweeney says that Bloomberg has a
history of not paying employees fairly. A 2011 Department of Labor
audit obtained by Getman's firm under the Freedom of Information
Act found that 346 Bloomberg employees across 30 job positions
were wrongly labeled exempt from overtime. In April 2013 the DOL
and Bloomberg agreed that 29 positions should be reclassified and
the issue was marked as resolved.

According to Getman, large companies will sometimes make the
decision to violate labor laws and potentially suffer the
consequences instead of hiring more employees or paying extra.

Bloomberg denies that it violated the law. A spokesperson declined
to comment on the case.

The complaint also seeks compensation under New York State law for
employees who worked between 2008 and 2015 but its class-action
status has yet to be determined in court.

The case is pending in the United States District Court in the
Southern District of New York.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Wolverine Metal Suit in Mich. Over Hidden Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolverine Metal Stamping Inc., individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Michigan, Case No. 2:15-cv-12410-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 6,
2015), asserts that the Defendant improperly assessed Hidden Fees,
specifically by overstating the amount of actual claims paid by
BCBSM and understating the amounts of administrative compensation
received by BCBSM.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Michigan is a Michigan non-profit
health care corporation organized under the Nonprofit Health Care,
with administrative offices in Southfield, Michigan and its
principal corporate office in Detroit, Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 West University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
      E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com
              epm@millerlawpc.com


BLUE CROSS: Class Suit May Impact Health Insurance Competition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cullen Browder and Jodi Leese Glusco, writing for WRAL.com,
reported that a national class action lawsuit targeting Blue Cross
Blue Shield could have a big impact on health insurance
competition. The case is playing out in federal court in Alabama,
but the implications reach to the Tar Heel State.

In the lawsuit, both consumers and health care providers allege
that the Blue Cross brand used by affiliates all across the
country violates anti-trust laws, artificially hikes rates for
consumers and squeezes providers. The key question is whether the
Blue Cross brand works like a franchise, with affiliates that
compete in the marketplace but not against each other, or like a
cartel, with carved out territories and limited competition.

In North Caroline, Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina is a
dominant insurance player, and it gets no competition from other
Blues in nearby states.

Duke law professor Barak Richman called the threat to Blue Cross
very, very serious.

"I'm skeptical this arrangement is pro-competitive and therefore
would pass anti-trust muster. The law isn't necessarily on their
side," he said.

A loss for Blue Cross would be a win for consumers. Richman said
the case could lead to better rates through increased competition
and possibly more innovative health insurance products.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association argues it's not doing
anything wrong. In a statement, the association said it plans a
vigorous defense.

"The Blue model of service has been validated and enforced by
numerous courts and regulatory agencies over the past 80 years.
The plaintiffs' claims simply have no merit," it said.

Given the dollars at stake, the political football that health
care has become and the looming Supreme Court ruling on Affordable
Care Act subsidies, this case could take years to resolve.


BOWLING GREEN: Summary Judgment Bid in Concussion Suit Fails
------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Solomon, writing for CBS Sports, reported that the Ohio Court
of Claims has reversed course and denied a motion for summary
judgment by Bowling Green in a concussion lawsuit brought by a
former football player.

The pending case is worth watching given that the judge now is
allowing lawyers to call into question a release form designed to
protect the university. Also, some people within college sports
believe one result of the NCAA's proposed concussion settlement in
different class-action litigation will be more individual lawsuits
brought against universities.

Former Bowling Green offensive lineman Cody Silk sued in 2013,
alleging that the university failed to protect him from multiple
concussions and their known effects. He claimed Bowling Green's
inability to follow its own concussion policy as well as widely
accepted concussion management practices left him with permanent
neurological, brain, mental and emotional damage.

Last December, the court granted Bowling Green's motion for
partial summary judgment, concluding that Silk's injuries fell
within the language of a release he signed with the university in
2010. Bowling Green's "Release, Consent to Treatment, and
Indemnification Agreement" was designed to release the university
from all injuries associated with Silk's participation in
football.

The court granted partial summary judgment to Bowling Green
regarding Silk's claims of negligence, negligent performance of
undertaking to render services, negligent infliction of emotional
distress, and vicarious liability. Breach of contract remained as
the only claim left for Silk, who alleged his scholarship was
revoked after he got hurt.

But after Silk's attorneys filed a motion for reconsideration,
Judge Patrick McGrath reversed course. McGrath said Silk has shown
evidence "demonstrating issues of material fact regarding the
scope and effectiveness of the 'release.' Specifically, whether
the facts alleged in the complaint and testified to by plaintiff
in his deposition fall within the scope of the release or amount
to wanton or reckless conduct."

McGrath said Silk's attorneys had also shown "genuine issues of
material fact" regarding the effectiveness of Bowling Green's
release given public policy considerations. Silk's attorneys had
argued the release was invalid and contrary to public policy given
the disparate relationship between the player and school and the
gravity of the risks.

The case is not currently set for trial. Silk's attorneys, led by
Steve Berman, will have an opportunity to file an amended
complaint. Berman also represents the Adrian Arrington class-
action plaintiffs against the NCAA, a case that is attempting to
get a settlement approved by a federal judge.

"We believe the court has made the right decision both for Cody
and for all of the voiceless student-athletes facing the life-
altering effects of concussions," Berman said in a statement. "By
returning Cody to play, BGSU and its football staff failed to take
basic actions to treat Cody's injuries despite their duty to do
so."

Bowling Green declined to comment.


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

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

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

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

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

The firm may be reached at:

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


BUILD-A-BEAR INC: Sued Over Discrimination Against Blind People
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Unglesbee, writing for St. Louis Business Journal, reported
that customers have hit Build-A-Bear Inc. with a lawsuit over the
company's point-of-sale (POS) devices that they say discriminate
against the blind.

Los Angeles County resident Kenneth Smith, who is legally blind,
filed the suit, which seeks class-action status, in U.S. District
Court in California on behalf of other Build-A-Bear customers. It
alleges that card-swipe machines at many of Build-A-Bear's stores
violate the Americans With Disabilities Act and California state
law by not being fully accessible and independently usable by
people with blindness or visual impairment who must read
tactilely.

Build-A-Bear General Counsel Eric Fencl said through a spokeswoman
that the company does not comment on pending litigation.

At issue are the touch screen surfaces on Build-A-Bear's POS
machines, which have key features the suit says are not
discernible to people with blindness. For those customers,
according to the suit, the POS configuration means they cannot
make debit card purchases independently, because they have no way
to independently enter their personal identification number, or
PIN.

"Instead, the blind or visually impaired consumer must divulge
their PIN number in order to complete a debit transaction," the
suit said, adding that Build-A-Bear's noncompliance "threatens
blind people with the loss of their private banking information."

According to the complaint, POS machines that are readable to the
blind are available and "used by a substantial percentage of
retail merchants."

The suit seeks an injunction forcing Build-A-Bear to update or
replace its POS machines to make them fully accessible.
According to the legal news website Law360, Pennsylvania resident
Robert Jahoda proposed a similar class action against Build-A-Bear
in 2014, but settled with the company in July before he moved for
class-action certification.


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

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

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


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

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

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

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

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CANADA: Federal Lawyers Want Medical Pot Case Tossed
----------------------------------------------------
Clare Mellor, writing for Herald News, reported that  Health
Canada made "an administrative error" but did not misuse or
disclose personal information when it sent a mailout to about
40,000 medical marijuana users and growers across the country,
federal government lawyers told a court in Halifax.  They are
asking the Federal Court to throw out an application to certify a
class action against Health Canada, which claims the department
violated the privacy and security of people enrolled in a federal
medical marijuana program.

"There was no release of personal information," Paul Vickery, a
government lawyer, told the court.

After hearing from government lawyers Justice Michael Phelan
reserved decision on whether to allow the case to go to trial.
Lawyers representing the plaintiffs made their arguments.

The plaintiffs' claim alleges that in November 2013, Health Canada
sent out letters outlining changes to the federal medical
marijuana access program, allowing the name of the program,
contained in the return address, to show on the envelope.

The plaintiffs allege Health Canada was negligent, careless and
reckless in sending out the envelopes because anyone who saw them
would know the recipient was either licensed to possess or grow
marijuana for medical purposes. It claims this breached privacy
and jeopardized the safety of people in the program.

But Vickery argued that putting the return address of the
marijuana program on the envelopes does not show Health Canada
acted in bad faith.

The department has admitted it made an administrative error with
the mailout and email records show that once somebody complained,
officials acted appropriately to find out how the incident
occurred.

"We say there is no pleading in fact which supports anything,
other than that Health Canada was acting in good faith," he said.

Vickery said Canada Post employees are required to abide by
confidentiality rules and that it is speculation that people
seeing the program's name on the envelope would conclude the
recipient was part of the federal medical marijuana access
program.

"We say there is no such supporting evidence. It is merely
speculation," Vickery said.

"The mere presence of the return address is insufficient to
support the (class-action) application," he said.

Vickery said there is no evidence that anyone who received the
mailout was injured by it. He said the case is also not suitable
as a class action because recipients likely had different
experiences of the mailout and would have received it in different
ways, depending on their type of residence and mailbox.

About 1,800 people across the country have registered with the
proposed class action. McInnes Cooper in Halifax, as well as law
firms in Ontario and British Columbia, are jointly representing
claimants.

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

The Office of the Privacy Commissioner launched an investigation
after more than 300 people who received the mailout in 2013 filed
complaints with the office citing concerns about job loss and
damage to their reputations and safety due to the alleged
confidentiality breach.

The commissioner's officer released a report in March, finding
that Health Canada violated the federal Privacy Act with the
mailout.


CATAMARAN CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that it
filed a class action lawsuit on June 3, 2015, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on
behalf of the shareholders of Catamaran Corporation against
Catamaran and its Board of Directors for, among other things,
violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint arises out of a March 30, 2015 press release
announcing that Catamaran had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with UnitedHealth Group Incorporated ("UnitedHealth")
pursuant to which Catamaran's Board agreed to sell Catamaran to
UnitedHealth for $61.50 in cash per Catamaran share (the "Proposed
Transaction").  The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of
the named plaintiff and all other similarly situated shareholders
of Catamaran (the "Class").  The named plaintiff is represented by
Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a
materially false and misleading Proxy Statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of the Exchange
Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to
be material to Catamaran's shareholders' ability to make an
informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Catamaran stock prior to
the announcement of the Proposed Transaction on March 30, 2015,
and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than sixty days from June 3, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue of
Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the shareholder
information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com.  Any member of the Class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Arroyo LLP, a nationally recognized leader in the area of
shareholder rights litigation, represents individual and
institutional investors in securities class action lawsuits and
shareholder derivative actions.  Robbins Arroyo LLP has helped its
clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and
the companies in which they have invested.  Past results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.  For more information about the firm,
please go to http://www.robbinsarroyo.com.

          Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
          Robbins Arroyo LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101
          ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
          (619) 525-3990
          Toll Free (800) 350-6003
          www.robbinsarroyo.com


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray announces that a class action has been
filed on behalf of investors of Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc.
who purchased shares between June 18, 2014 and April 7, 2015 (the
"Class Period"). Purchasers of Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc.
("Cellular Biomedicine") securities have until June 22, 2015 to
file a lead plaintiff motion in this class action. Investors are
encouraged to contact Glancy Prongay & Murray to discuss your
legal rights in the pending class action.

The complaint alleges that the Company misled investors by using
paid stock promoters to achieve its $500 million valuation, but
failed to disclose the use of promoters in its regulatory filings;
and, that the Company's "Car-T" technology had experienced patient
deaths and lacked any meaningful value. On April 7, 2015, Seeking
Alpha published a report on Cellular Biomedicine, which asserts
that: (i) it has achieved an unsustainable valuation with paid
stock promotion; (ii) its "CAR-T" technology has experienced
patient deaths and is worthless; (iii) its founders face multiple
allegations of dishonesty and are responsible for an alleged
illegal offshore stem cell clinic; and (iv) it has multiple
accounting and financial integrity issues. On this news, shares of
Cellular Biomedicine declined significantly, falling $7.00 per
share, or 22%, to close on April 7, 2015 at $25.22. Investors have
been damaged significantly by the Company's alleged fraud, and the
subsequent decline in the Company's stock price, and Glancy
Prongay & Murray is prosecuting claims to recover damages on
behalf of investors.

If you purchased shares of Cellular Biomedicine during the Class
Period, please contact Lesley Portnoy, of Glancy Prongay & Murray,
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067
at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.


CHC GROUP: Kahn Swick Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
MarketWatch reported that Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF
partner, the former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C.
Foti, Jr., reminded investors that they have until July 17, 2015
to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action
lawsuit against CHC Group Ltd. if they purchased the Company's
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering ("IPO") between January 16, 2014 and July 10,
2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of CHC and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by July 17, 2015.

About the Lawsuit

CHC and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

The case alleges that CHC failed to disclose in connection with
its IPO that one of its largest clients, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A.,
had stopped making payments on its contracts with CHC since April
2013.

During a July 10, 2014 earnings call, CHC stated that it did not
expect to recover revenues relating to the Petroleo Brasileiro
S.A. contract, that guidance for future quarters would not reflect
any recovery, and that CHC's revenues for fiscal 2014 would come
in at the bottom of the company's guidance ranges.

On this news, the price of CHC's shares plummeted.

                 Glancy Prongay Files Class Action

Glancy Prongay & Murray announced that a class action has been
filed on behalf of investors of CHC Group Ltd. (NYSE:HELI) ("CHC"
or the "Company"), who purchased securities offered pursuant to
the Company's January 16, 2014 Initial Public Offering ("IPO")
and/or in the public market between January 16, 2014 and July 10,
2014, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased shares of CHC during the Class Period you have
until July 14, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion, and you are
encouraged to contact Glancy Prongay & Murray to discuss your
legal rights in connection with this pending class action.

The Complaint alleges that CHC, a provider of commercial
helicopter services to the offshore oil and gas industry
worldwide, failed to disclose in connection with its IPO that one
of its largest clients, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. ("Petrobras"),
had stopped making payments on its contracts with CHC since April
2013. The truth was finally disclosed on or around July 10, 2014,
when CHC reported that the Company did not expect to recover
revenues relating to the Petrobras contract, that guidance for
future quarters would not reflect any recovery, and that CHC's
revenues for fiscal 2014 would come in at the bottom of the
company's guidance ranges. On July 10, 2014, CHC Group Ltd.'s
shares declined $0.99 per share, or nearly 12%, to close on July
10, 2014 at $7.63 per share, a total decline of over 23% below the
Company's IPO price.

If you acquired CHC securities during the Class Period, if you
have information or would like to learn more about these claims,
or have any questions concerning this announcement, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, of Glancy Prongay & Murray, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire
by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and
number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


CITY GROUP: Chairman, Wife Named as Swiss Bank Acct Holders
-----------------------------------------------------------
Umaima Shafiq, writing for Gulf-Times, reported that scam-hit
investors see ray of hope.

Investors in the fraudulent City Group company that had branches
all over India expect to get some relief after its chairman Syed
Mohamed Masood and his wife were named as Swiss bank account
holders by the Swiss Federal Gazette.

The gazette has released names of a dozen Indians.

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

However the company folded in August 2009 and its directors
absconded.

The investors had filed complaints with the Tamil Nadu Economic
Offences Wing, while also fighting individual class action suits
in court.


CLEVELAND INTEGRITY: Faces Lawsuit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Albee, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Cleveland Integrity Services, Inc., Case 2:15-cv-09149
(D. Kan., July 1, 2015), seeks all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Eric L. Dirks, Esq.
     WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON, LLC
     1100 Main Street, Suite 2600
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Tel: (816) 876-2600
     Fax: (816) 221-8763
     E-mail: dirks@williamsdirks.com

        - and -

     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 875-3000
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             akoropey@bm.net


CONCEPTUS INC: Merchant Law Group Sues Over Essure Birth Control
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Smith, writing for Global News, reported that the Merchant Law
Group is launching a class-action lawsuit against the makers of
Essure permanent birth control.

The Regina law firm is looking for compensation for women who have
been implanted with Essure and have experienced serious side-
effects, such as pelvic pain, infection, and urinary or bladder
problems.

"The results for many women have been awful," alleged Tony
Merchant to Global News in an interview. "In fairness to the drug
industry and product industries, it's very difficult for them.
They think they have something that works. They do it in a
controlled circumstance, but in real life, sometimes it can go
terribly badly."

Merchant said his law firm is now in the process of encouraging
women to come forward who have had a problem with the implant.

"This is an action that we intend to take through to certification
in Saskatchewan."

The firm may be reached at:

          MERCHANT LAW GROUP LLP
          303 - 304 15127 100th Avenue Vancouver-Surrey
          British Columbia V3R 0N9
          Phone: 604-609-7777
          Fax: 604-951-7721


CONTINENTAL CAFE: Faces Claims Under FLSA, Mich. Min. Wage Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wayne Whitcomb individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Continental Cafe, Inc., d/b/a Continental Canteen and
Continental Services, Case No. 2:15-cv-12363-MAG-MJH (E.D. Mich.,
July 1, 2015), alleges against the Defendant, willful violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Michigan Minimum Wage
Act, for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime wages for all
hours of work performed by their employees.

Continental Cafe provides vending services throughout metro
Detroit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
     Kevin M. Carlson, Esq.
     PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, P.C.
     117 West Fourth Street, Suite 200
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Phone: 248-398-9800
     Fax: 248-398-9804
     E-mail: mbonanni@pittlawpc.com
             kcarlson@pittlawpc.com


CONTINENTAL INSURANCE: Dodges $2-Bil. Wartime Benefits Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reported that
workers injured while supporting the U.S. war effort in Iraq and
Afghanistan suffered a courtroom defeat, when the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit stamped out a proposed $2 billion
class action against their employers and insurers.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision dated June 2,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/z62TDF


DAIRY FARMERS: Some Class Members Seek to Fire Lawyers
------------------------------------------------------
Erin Mansfield, writing for Brattleboro Reformer, reported that
after nearly six years in a national class action lawsuit against
major powers in the milk-pricing market, some dairy farmers want
to fire their lawyers.

Jonathan Haar, a dairy farmer, just finished two days of
essentially prosecuting his own attorneys in U.S. District Court
for alleged misconduct in reaching a $50 million settlement with
the Dairy Farmers of America, a marketing co-op based in New
Hampshire.

Haar and his wife, Claudia, own Harvest Farms in upstate New York
and represent one of four subclasses in the class-action suit,
Allen v. Dairy Farmers of America. Their farm is one of about
8,900 farms across the northeastern United States that are
affected as part of the case filed in U.S. District Court in
Burlington in 2009. The case against the lawyers was heard.

"We believe that they failed to represent the class
fundamentally," Haar says of his lawyers, who include two large
antitrust firms and one individual lawyer. "All along they made
decisions we feel are detrimental to our class."

The case in question alleges that Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.
conspired to become the sole seller of Grade A milk in the
Northeast. The non-profit cooperative, according to the case, is
not member-focused, and it forced small farmers to join in order
to avoid market pressures that would put them out of business.

Farmers also allege that DFA used a closely affiliated for-profit
company, Dairy Marketing Services, to become the sole buyer of
Grade A milk and drive down milk prices. They allege that the
defendants violated federal antitrust laws, and, when directed to
take action to remedy the situation, thwarted instructions by the
U.S. Department of Justice and several state's attorneys.

If approved, the proposed $50 million settlement would end the
six-year case. The money is in addition to a previous $30 million
settlement from Dean Foods Co. But a handful of farmers who are
opposing it say lawyers are focusing on reaching a cash settlement
and are not representing their interests.

"If it was $50 billion, it couldn't be enough if it doesn't
address the behavioral problem," said Haar, the New York dairy
farmer.

"It's never been about the money for me," said Garret Sitts,
another farmer in New York. "I want a market that's not controlled
by the defendants."

According to the settlement document, lawyers for the farmers
reached the agreement just before going to trial last summer. They
drafted the settlement agreement July 1 and soon submitted it to
U.S. District Judge Christina Reiss.

Six thousand farmers have signed onto the settlement, according to
Kit Pearson, the lead attorney on the case. He said it is similar
yet stronger than a settlement reached by dairy farmers in the
Southeast region of the U.S., and that it would avoid a lengthy
appeals process. He said the payout for the average farmer is in
the $5,000 range.

Before Reiss gave the settlement final approval, about a half-
dozen farmers submitted a document alleging misconduct by two
firms and one lawyer: Cohen Milstein, BakerHostetler and David
Balto. Pearson, from Cohen Milstein, said he respects the farmers
he represents, but he maintains their allegations are not true.

"As attorneys, our responsibility is to make a decision that's
beneficial to the farmers as a whole," Pearson said. "The subclass
representatives are important, and we respect it, but our
obligation in the case is to the 8,900 farmers."

The farmers alleging misconduct include the Sitts and the Haars.
They allege a "lack of integrity" and "collusion" with the DFA in
reaching the settlement, and say lawyers undermined the farmers by
allegedly keeping them out of the courtroom. The court document
describes Haar's attempt to attend fairness hearings, and having
lawyers tell him he could wait until trial to have his day in
court.

If the settlement is ratified, the case would effectively end
without a trial.

Under the agreement, DFA would deny the antitrust claims; it would
not enter into any full supply agreements for Grade A milk within
the Northeast region; and any new supply agreements would need to
be ratified by the DFA board. There would also be a provision
against retaliating against farmers.

DFA would also let small farmers freely leave the cooperative; it
would change practices that farmers alleged were only benefiting
executives; and it would agree to be more transparent in
accounting methods and the handling of conflicts of interest.
Additionally, the DFA would maintain an antitrust program.

Haar says there aren't any teeth in that language to restore
market power back to the small dairy farmers. If DFA is able to
maintain such substantial market power over his milk, Harr says,
it can figure out a way to get the money back from farmers like
him.

The lawyers for Cohen Milstein alone say they have spent more than
60,000 hours on the case. Ben Brown, one of the lawyers on the
case, testified that he was offended by the allegations. Brown
said he spoke to Claudia Haar on the phone more in the past six
years than many of his closest friends.

Reiss is the only one with the power to decide if the farmers
should have new counsel, court documents say. Reiss is not
expected to issue a ruling for several weeks.


DYNAMIC PET: 'Real Ham Bone' Harms Dogs, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------
Farrah Fazal, writing for KSDK.com, reported that dog owners
across the country say a Washington, Mo. company that makes real
bone dog treats is making their dogs sick or even killing them.

The Better Business Bureau is asking lawmakers to stop the company
from selling the bones. The BBB sent the Real Ham Bone to 100
senators in congress along with a flyer detailing the complaints
against it and why it wasn't safe.

Dave Marklein is one of the hundreds of people who complained to
the BBB. The treat the thought he was buying for his dog Gunner,
turned out to be a near tragedy.

"In the middle of the night he had diarrhea and bloody diarrhea,
he was almost dead," said Marklein.

He said veterinarians told him the Real Ham Bone splintered in
Gunner's stomach and blocked his colon.

"I trusted that product it was in the store," said Marklein.

The VP of the BBB said the bone is smoked and that makes it
brittle. That's why it splinters in dogs gastrointestinal tracts.
The Dynamic Pet Products company in Washington Missouri sells the
bones in Walmart and other retailers across the country. The BBB
issued alerts about the bone for the last 5 years since the bureau
got the first complaint.

"Some of these dogs have suffered horribly, some have died and
they are family members," said Tracy Hardgrove, the Vice President
of the BBB in St. Louis.

She said at least six dogs died and hundreds got very sick, but
since only 5% of people ever report their complaints, she believes
there could be more dead dogs. The BBB sent every complaint to the
maker of the bone David Frick.

"And his response has been that the bone is safe," said Hardgrove.

The BBB also gave the complaints to the Food and Drug
Administration and asked Walmart to pull the bones from the
shelves. They also asked Frick to stop making them. Hardgrove said
Frick is not willing to change anything.

Frick is now facing a class action lawsuit from dog owners who
said the bone killed their dogs or made them sick.

"We want congress to take action to make this product not
distributable," said Hardgrove.

Senator Clair McCaskill said she is on the side of the class
action suit.

"I don't need to be convinced a product killing families pets'
needs to be looked into," she said.

McCaskill is sending a letter to the FDA asking what the agency
has done to look in the safety of the Real Ham Bone.

"Their mandate is to look at whether a pet product is safe and
we'll hold their feet to the fire," said McCaskill.

Frick denied repeated request to talk to Frick.

Back in April, Frick told a BBB investigator "We don't think we
have a problem."

After $5000 in veterinarian bills, Gunner survived the bone. His
owner doesn't want any other dog to go through what Gunner had to.

The BBB said retailers have pulled the bone from their shelves.
Locally, Schnucks no longer sells it. The BBB said Walmart refused
to pull the bone.

McCaskill wants Missourians to call her if they have issues with
the Real Ham Bone.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Sued over Misleading Financial Reports
------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Eng, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Edison International, Theodore F. Craver, Jr. and
William James Scilacci, Case No. 3:15-cv-01478-BEN-JMA (S.D. Cal.,
July 6, 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.

Edison International is a California corporation that generates
and distributes electrical power and invests in energy services
and technologies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      468 North Camden Drive
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 285-5330
      E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      C. Dov Berger, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com
              cdberger@pomlaw.com


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Rosen Law Firm Files Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminded
purchasers of Endurance International Group Holdings, Inc.
securities from November 4, 2014 through April 27, 2015 (the
"Class Period") of the July 6, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the
class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Endurance
International Group investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Endurance International Group class action, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-596.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.

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.

The lawsuit alleges that during the Class Period defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) Endurance International Group overstated its 2014 Average
Revenue per Subscriber and organic growth rate; (2) Endurance
International Group engaged in irregular accounting practices
associated with its international business; and (3) as a result,
Endurance International Group's statements concerning its
business, operations, and prospects were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times. 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
July 6, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-596.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.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announced that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of investors who purchased Endurance
International Group Holdings, Inc. ("Endurance International" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:EIGI) securities between November 4, 2014
and April 27, 2015.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the
Company overstated its ARPS and organic growth rate and (b)
engaged in irregular account practices related to its
international business.

If you suffered a loss in Endurance International you have until
July 3, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional
information, contact Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email
vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at 212.425.1140, or visit
http://docs.wongesq.com/EIGI-Info-Request-Form-752.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


ENERGY FUEL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Perez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regino Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Energy Fuel Cafe Inc. d/b/a Energy Fuel and Vali Sonny
Bari, Case No. 1:15-cv-03921 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Health food restaurant located at
606A Fifth Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11215.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ENERGY RECOVERY: Case Management Conference Moved to Dec. 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen signed on a stipulation and order
continuing a case management conference in In Re Energy Recovery
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:15-cv-00265-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

The Case Management Conference, currently set for July 16, 2015 at
9:30 a.m., is taken off the calendar; and reset for Dec. 3, 2015
at 9:30 a.m.  The parties to the case are directed to file a joint
cmc statement by Nov. 25, 2015.

PUNZALAN LAW, P.C. Mark Punzalan -- markp@punzalanlaw.com --
Redwood City, California, LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP Nicholas I. Porritt
-- nporritt@zlk.com -- Washington, D.C., Attorneys for Lead
Plaintiff Henry Low and Lead Counsel for Class.

PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP David M. Furbush --
david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com -- Palo Alto, CA, Attorneys for
Defendant Energy Recovery, Inc.

A copy of the signed Stipulation, dated July 8, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/YlDaysfrom Leagle.com.


EPOCA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Glass Kettles Due to Burn Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Epoca International, Inc. of Boca Raton, Fla., announced a
voluntary recall of about 113,000 Glass Whistle Kettle. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The bottom portion of glass vessel can break when heated and the
contents can spill, posing laceration and burn hazards.

The Primula(R) Borosilicate two-quart clear glass round kettle has
no markings or etchings on the glass. Model PTKG-4420 has a green
plastic handle with a green silicone insert in the handle and a
green whistling-stopper lid. Model PTKB-4420 has a black plastic
handle with a black silicone insert in the handle and a black
whistling-stopper lid. Both models have a 1/2" metal band around
the glass kettle's neck. "Not for dishwasher" is printed in raised
letters underneath the lid.

The firm received nine reports of incidents, including three Epoca
injuries and one report of property damage valued at $200.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/s2icJA

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Retail stores including, Kitchen Collection, Meijer, Peyton
Phoenix, Ross Stores, Target and online at amazon.com,
primulaproducts.com and target.com from January 2012 through May
2015 for about $15.

Consumers should stop using the product immediately. Customers
should either return the product to the retailer or contact Epoca
International for instructions on how to return the product for a
full refund.


ET FRESH: Faces "Sanchez" Suit over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Tufino Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. E.T. Fresh Food USA Inc. d/b/a Associated,
and Mohammed E. Khan, Case No. 1:15-cv-03916 (E.D.N.Y., July 6,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for all hours work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket located at 63-01
Roosevelt Ave Woodside, NY 11377.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


FOAM KING: "Grimsley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zebidiah Grimsley, on his own behalf and others similarly situated
v. Foam King Roofing and Insulation Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-61390-
BB (S.D. Fla., July 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Foam King Roofing and Insulation Inc. operates a roofing systems
services company with a principal place of business in Margate,
Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Karl Auerbach, Esq.
      ANIDJAR AUERBACH LAW
      5521 N. University Drive, Suite 204
      Coral Springs, FL 33067
      Telephone: (954) 906-8228
      Facsimile: (844) 270-6948
      E-mail: info@aalawllc.com


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: $6.4MM Interns' Suit Deal Gets Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reported that there is no
resolution yet in The Wendy Williams Show case and the game
changing Black Swan case against Fox Searchlight that started it
all still hasn't heard from the Second Circuit but at least one
interns lawsuit is now over.

Despite a flurry of last minute objections from some potential
class members, the $6.4 million settlement between NBC Universal
and former interns has gotten the final approval of the court.

"The Court has concluded that the Settlement, as set forth in the
Stipulation and Settlement Agreement executed by the parties, is
fair, reasonable, and adequate under state and federal laws,
including the Saturday Night Live logo. Fair Labor Standards Act,"
said U.S. Magistrate Judge Richard Ellis dismissing the case
formally.  Originally filed by former Saturday Night Live intern
Monet Eliastam and former MSNBC intern Jesse Moore in July 2013, a
deal between the parties in the class action seeking case was
reached last fall. "The Court finds that the uncertainty and delay
of further litigation strongly supports the reasonableness and
adequacy of the Settlement Amount."


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Faces "Eagle" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Eagle, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00577 (D.N.M., July 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc. owns and operates two mines in
Grant County, New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James P. Lyle, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. LYLE P.C.
      1116 2nd St. NW
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 843-8000
      Facsimile: (505) 843-8043
      E-mail: pennname@prodigy.net


GAHANA, OH: Class Certification of Income-Tax Credits Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marla K. Kuhlman, writing for This Week Community News, reported
that in a pending case against the city of Gahanna regarding
income-tax credits, the Franklin County Court of Appeals on May 28
upheld the class certification of the suit, denied the city's
claims of statutory immunity and modified the class to reflect a
three-year statute of limitations.

The ruling is the result of Gahanna appealing a Sept. 11, 2014,
Franklin County Common Pleas Court decision that would leave the
city owing millions in refunds to taxpayers.

Plaintiffs Douglas and Karla LaBorde initiated the case July 3,
2012, seeking a determination that the way Gahanna and the
Regional Income Tax Agency have interpreted Section 161.18 of the
Gahanna City Code has resulted in an overcollection of taxes from
Gahanna residents who work in other municipalities that assess
municipal tax rates higher than the 1.5 percent charged by
Gahanna.

The LaBordes' position was that the tax itself is legal, but
because of the way the city interprets the statute, it is not
being enforced properly.

"While the city hoped for a complete reversal, it is satisfied
with the interlocutory decision by the court (of appeals)," said
Shane Ewald, city attorney. "We believe there is language in the
decision that will benefit the city and residents of Gahanna
moving forward with the entire case."

Two issues allowed the city to appeal the lower court's decision
at this stage of litigation. One is that the lower court's order
granted class-action certification to the plaintiffs. The other is
that the lower court rejected Gahanna's request for immunity.

"The lower court's decision was affirmed," said Todd Neuman, an
attorney representing the LaBordes. "The only change from the
lower court's decision is the court of appeals has provided for a
three-year lookback instead of a four-year lookback."

He said that means a refund may be sought three years back
(instead of four) from the date the couple filed the suit in 2012.

It would be a number of years of refunds from 2009 to 2014,
according to Neuman.

"That's excellent news for us and the taxpayers of Gahanna who
were short-changed," he said. "The good thing is that interest
should accumulate on amounts owed."

The LaBordes claimed the city and RITA improperly applied Gahanna
City Tax Code Section 161.18 and in doing so failed to refund
money rightfully owed to them based upon the full tax credit to
which they were entitled for income taxes paid to another
municipality.

Under city code, Gahanna has a tax rate of 1.5 percent, and
residents who work outside the city receive an 83.3-percent credit
on the taxes they pay to other municipalities. The LaBordes work
in Columbus, where income is taxed at 2.5 percent.

Common Pleas Judge Kimberly Cocroft granted judgment in favor of
the LaBordes against Gahanna and RITA, an organization that works
with municipalities in central Ohio to collect their income taxes
and supplies the forms taxpayers use.

In the September 2014 decision, Cocroft issued a summary judgment
without a trial, siding with the LaBordes, who claimed they were
overcharged on income taxes owed to the city. Cocroft also allowed
the case to be a class action encompassing 12,000 to 13,000
Gahanna taxpayers and denied the city's claim of governmental
immunity.

Neuman said he hopes for a trial date in 90 to 150 days.

If the city would lose the case, he said, it could amount to $7
million 12 million in refunds.

The mayor's office previously released a statement concerning the
lawsuit: "The tax credit under Gahanna City Code Section 161.18
has been in effect since 1989 and has been applied correctly for
the last 25 years."

As a result of the lower court's opinion, however, council amended
legislation in December regarding credit for taxes paid to another
municipality to make it more clear.

"The purpose of and intention behind the revisions being made are
to provide clarification and to carry out the intent behind the
credit," the legislation stated.

As part of the 2015 budget, the city also held $4.1 million as a
litigation reserve related to the tax case.

Ewald said the city is considering its options, including an
appeal of certain issues to the Ohio Supreme Court.


GAMESTOP INC: Minnesota Court Dismisses Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
William M. Regan and Zachary D. Denver, writing for The National
Law Review, reported that the US District Court for the District
of Minnesota recently dismissed a data breach class action against
GameStop, Inc. and Sunrise Publications, Inc for lack of
constitutional standing because the named plaintiff did not allege
injury in fact.

Plaintiff Matthew Carlsen purchased a one-year digital
subscription to Game Informer Magazine, a video game magazine
published and owned by GameStop. The plaintiff alleged that the
defendants shared personally identifiable information (his unique
Facebook ID and Game Informer browsing history) with Facebook in
violation of Game Informer's privacy policy. That policy states
that "Game Informer does not share personal information with
anyone."

To establish standing, the plaintiff argued two theories of injury
that had been used with varying degrees of success in other
privacy policy cases. First, the plaintiff alleged an "overpayment
theory" --that he paid for a service with substantial privacy
protections but actually received a less valuable service without
such protections. Second, the plaintiff alleged a "would not have
shopped" theory -- that he would not have purchased the
subscription had he known his information would be shared with
Facebook. The plaintiff did not allege that he suffered any
monetary or out-of-pocket loss arising from the alleged breach of
the privacy policy, or that Facebook did anything with the
information obtained from the defendants.

The District Court dismissed the claim for lack of standing
because neither theory of damages alleged an injury in fact
capable of surviving a motion to dismiss. The District Court
recognized that an "overpayment" theory is potentially viable in
certain limited circumstances. The plaintiff's claim, however,
failed because (1) he did not allege misuse of highly sensitive
financial information such as credit card or social security data,
and (2) he did not allege that he paid additional compensation for
any privacy features (the same privacy policy applied to both
paying and non-paying users).

The court rejected the plaintiff's "would not have shopped" theory
of injury because the plaintiff could not plausibly allege that
reasonable consumers would expect Game Informer to protect their
Facebook ID and Game Informer browsing history while logged into
Game Informer's website and Facebook at the same time.


GE SECURITY: UTCFSA Wins Summary Judgment in "Makaron" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger of Benesch, in an article for JD Supra, said the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section  227
("TCPA"), prohibits initiating a telephone call using a
prerecorded voice to wireless or residential telephone numbers
unless the called party consents to receiving the call.

Edward Makaron and Bianca Carter filed suit against UTC Fire &
Security Americas Corporation, Inc. ("UTCFSA") and Security One
Alarm Systems ("SOAS"), and alleged that SOAS, acting as an
authorized agent of UTCFSA, called them with a prerecorded message
without their consent, and sought to represent a class of
similarly situated persons.  On May 18, 2015, the district court
granted UTCFSA's motion for summary judgment.  Makaron v. GE
Security Mfg., Inc., et al., No. CV-14-1274 (C.D. Cal. May 18,
2015).

UTCFSA hires thousands of independent, third-party businesses,
called "authorized dealers," to sell its security equipment to
consumers, one of which was SOAS.  While SOAS initiated the call
to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs sought to hold UTCFSA liable for
the calls, as the FCC has held that sellers, such as UTCFSA, may
be held vicariously liable for the calls of its telemarketers,
such as SOAS, under principles of agency, apparent authority,
and/or ratification.  UTCFSA moved for summary judgment on the
grounds that the plaintiffs could not establish vicarious
liability as a matter of law.

The contract between UTCFSA and SOAS provided that SOAS was an
independent contractor and that it would market UTCFSA's products
in compliance with all applicable telemarketing laws.  The
contract also provided that, while SOAS could not represent itself
as UTCFSA, it was allowed to represent itself as an "authorized
dealer" of UTCFSA and was granted a limited license to use the
trademark of the brands it sold for UTCFSA.  The plaintiffs argued
that this fact was sufficient to establish agency because the FCC
previously opined that permitting a telemarketer to use a seller's
trademark could give rise to agency or apparent authority.  The
district court rejected this argument, holding that the mere use
of a trademark cannot support of finding of agency or apparent
authority.

The district court also noted that, in order to establish apparent
authority, UTCFSA must have made a manifestation of authority to
the plaintiffs.  While the plaintiffs argued that UTCFSA did not
need to make a direct manifestation of authority to class members,
the district court likewise rejected this argument, noting that
the circumstances in which indirect manifestations of authority
gave rise to apparent authority were not remotely analogous to the
situation in the case.  Finally, even if appointing SOAS an
"authorized dealer" could give rise to apparent authority (or even
if an indirect representation were sufficient for that matter),
the court noted that it was not alleged that SOAS informed the
plaintiffs that it was an authorized dealer or took any other
action that would cause the listener to believe that SOAS was
acting as an agent of UTCFSA during the calls.

Finally, because SOAS was not an agent of UTCFSA, the court held
that UTCFSA could not have ratified the calls as a matter of law,
and there was also no evidence that UTCFSA had information or
knowledge of the particular calls to the plaintiffs.

As such, the district court granted summary judgment to UTCFSA.


GENERAL MOTORS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Rephen" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Rephen v. General Motors Corporation d/b/a Onstar(R), Case
No. 7:15-cv-05206 (S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2015), seeks to put an end on
the Defendant's practice of using unfair and unconscionable
threatening language and warnings in its debt collection notices
and letters or communications.

General Motors Corporation is a Michigan company with an address
at 100 Renaissance Center, Detroit, MI 48265-2000. General Motors
designs, manufactures, markets and distributes vehicles and
vehicle parts and sells financial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ., P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Bid to Stay Hagens Berman Client Interview Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has denied Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's request
to stay interviews of 31 of the firm's clients to determine
whether they are knowingly dismissing their thalidomide-injury
cases, but not before the law firm filed a petition seeking a writ
of mandamus with the Third Circuit seeking the higher court's
intervention.

In an opinion on May 19, U.S. District Judge Paul S. Diamond of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania said the earlier sanctions
imposed against Hagens Berman for "its bad faith and dishonesty"
and the firm's agreement with defendant GlaxoSmithKline to dismiss
27 cases in exchange for GSK dropping its sanctions bid against
the firm make it all the more compelling for the court to ensure
the plaintiffs agreed to their cases being dismissed.

Judge Diamond said it was only after special discovery master
William Hangley and the defendants began asking for information
about when the plaintiffs knew their birth defects were caused by
their mothers' use of thalidomide during pregnancy that Hagens
Berman started investigating their clients' claims and seeking to
dismiss cases.

"In the span of a few weeks . . .  Hagens Berman went from
actively litigating claims to dismissing them en masse," Judge
Diamond said.  "Plainly, there is a more than sufficient factual
basis for Mr. Hangley to conduct limited interviews of each
plaintiff to ensure that he or she actually consented to these
dismissals."

According to Judge Diamond's opinion, Hagens Berman objected to
Mr. Hangley's request to interview 31 plaintiffs by June 30.
Mr. Hangley had issued an order earlier in May seeking a
scheduling proposal from Hagens Berman by May 19.  Hagens Berman
responded with objections, "threatening to seek mandamus relief
unless, by May 18, I either prohibit the interviews altogether or
limit the questions Mr. Hangley may ask to those Hagens Berman has
authorized," Judge Diamond said.

It appears the firm's threat was a serious one, with Hagens Berman
filing on May 18, the day before Diamond issued his opinion, a
mandamus action with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.  Hagens Berman wants the Third Circuit to order Diamond
to approve the case dismissals without interviews that Hagens
Berman said would intrude on attorney-client privilege.

"These sua sponte interrogations are without precedent or any
basis in law or fact, will impinge on opinion work product and
attorney-client communications, and have been constructed without
adequate protections for that information," Hagens Berman said in
its petition.  "The district court has exceeded its jurisdiction,
and petitioners have been forced to seek relief from this court
now because all of the damage will be done before the district
court issues any final order that petitioners could appeal as of
right."

In his opinion, Judge Diamond said Hagens Berman's arguments were
either meritless or premature.

"If a plaintiff had freely and intelligently decided that she no
longer wishes to proceed with her case against GSK or the other
defendants, I will likely allow her to withdraw her claims," Judge
Diamond said.  "Because the record suggests that Hagens Berman may
have made this decision for plaintiffs, Mr. Hangley's inquiry is
critically important."

There were initially 52 thalidomide cases filed between 2011 and
2014, with several having been withdrawn or ended via summary
judgment.  Hagens Berman's deal with GSK, one of three defendants
in the cases, would dismiss 27 cases against GSK only, leaving
claims against other defendants -- Sanofi-Aventis, Gruenenthal
GmbH, or both -- in exchange for GSK withdrawing its motion for
sanctions against Hagens Berman for pursuing three other meritless
thalidomide cases.

In an additional four cases, Hagens Berman moved to dismiss the
claims against all defendants, Judge Diamond said.  It is those
combined 31 cases in which Mr. Hangley wants to ensure the
plaintiffs knowingly and willingly agreed to the dismissal.  Mr.
Hangley and Diamond have previously questioned what the plaintiffs
got out of the deal between Hagens Berman and GSK.

Judge Diamond addressed in turn the four main objections Hagens
Berman has to the interviews.  He found without merit the firm's
argument that Mr. Hangley has no legal basis to conduct the
interviews.  Cases can be dismissed without court approval when
all parties agree to the dismissal.

Judge Diamond said Sanofi and Grnenthal did not expressly agree
to the 27 cases to be dismissed against GSK. And regardless, he
said, in light of the "highly unusual circumstances" involving the
agreement with GSK and the previous sanctions against Hagens
Berman, Diamond said he was compelled to ensure the plaintiffs
actually consented to the dismissals.

Hagens Berman also argued there was no factual basis for the
interviews, saying it has zealously represented its clients and
there was no reason to think the firm sought dismissal before
obtaining client consent.  The firm said Mr. Hangley was "on a
fishing expedition," according to Judge Diamond.

But Judge Diamond disagreed, finding the GSK agreement "capped a
disturbing course of conduct" that provided a reason to ensure
knowing consent by the clients.

Judge Diamond rejected the objection that Mr. Hangley's inquiry
was too broad.  The judge said Mr. Hangley was doing exactly what
Diamond ordered him to do.

Judge Diamond spent the most time rejecting Hagens Berman's
argument that the interviews violated attorney-client and work-
product privileges.  Judge Diamond said the privilege is the
client's, not the attorney's, to invoke.

"It is difficult to see how plaintiffs benefit when Hagens Berman
invokes the privilege to obstruct an inquiry intended to protect
plaintiffs," Judge Diamond said.

Ultimately, however, he found that objection premature, noting
Mr. Hangley "has not asked a single question."  But even assuming
the objection wasn't premature, Judge Diamond said it overstates
the scope of the privileges.

"The attorney-client privilege protects against the disclosure of
communications," Judge Diamond said.  "It does not protect from
disclosure any fact that may be based, however loosely, on
something Hagens Berman lawyers told plaintiffs."

GSK took no position on the objections and its attorney, Michael
Scott of Reed Smith, declined to comment.

Craig R. Spiegel -- craigs@hbsslaw.com -- of Hagens Berman
declined to comment on the filings, but said the firm was seeking
leave to file a reply to the Third Circuit in response to
Diamond's decision.

The five-page supplement to the petition said Judge Diamond's
opinion, for the first time, raised a factual basis for the
court's inquiry.  And the firm said some of those facts were
wrong.  The firm further argued it never refused to provide a
schedule for the interviews and in fact filed one on May 19 as
required.


GOURMET CULINARY: Recalls Turkey Sausage Products
-------------------------------------------------
Gourmet Culinary Solutions, a Statham, Ga., establishment, is
recalling approximately 495 pounds of turkey sausage products that
are part of a frozen entree that also contains French toast sticks
and peaches. The entrees may be contaminated with foreign
materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The entrees were produced on May 14, 2015, and the following
products are subject to recall:

  --- 8.25 oz. compartment trays of "Golden Gourmet French Toast
      Sticks with Turkey Patty & Peaches" with "Use by Date:
      11/14/16."

The products subject to recall may contain pieces of a conveyor
belt inside the packaging. The packages bear establishment number
"P-21200" inside the USDA mark of inspection. Individual entrees
were distributed to older adults in Georgia as part of the Meals
on Wheels program.

The problem was discovered in 10-lb. bulk packages of the French
toast sticks by a customer of the ingredient manufacturer. The
customer contacted Gourmet Culinary Solutions. Gourmet Culinary
Solutions notified FSIS of the problem, and then began a market
withdrawal of the products.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers or media with questions about the recall can contact
Brian Zulaica, director of Gourmet Culinary Solutions, at (770)
725-4620.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/orxlnzg


HEARTH & HOME: Recalls Indoor Gas Fireplaces Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hearth & Home Technologies of Lakeville, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,500 Heat-N-Glo(R) and Heatilator(R)
Corner Unit Series indoor gas fireplaces. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The back of the firebox can bow out, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Heat-N-Glo(R) and Heatilator(R) Corner Unit
Series indoor gas fireplaces. The fireplaces are LP or NG-fueled
corner units with tempered glass fronts. The following model
numbers are printed on the unit rating plate, located near the
controls used to operate the units, and in the instruction manual.

  --- LCOR-36TRB-IPI
  --- RCOR-36TRB-IPI
  --- GDCL4136I
  --- GDCR4136I

There have been two reported incidents involving charring and
minor property damage. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Ttw2HW

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at
Fireplace stores from March 2008 through November 2014 for $3,500
to $5,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the gas fireplaces and
contact the fireplace store where the unit was purchased to
arrange for a free inspection and installation of a correction
kit. The firm's dealers are contacting known purchasers.


HEARTH & HOME: Recalls Quadra-Fire Pellet Stoves and Inserts
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Hearth & Home Technologies of Lakeville, Minn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,000 Quadra-Fire Mt. Vernon E2 Pellet
Stoves and inserts. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

Fuel can back up, creating unstable combustion and a pressure
build up inside the firebox and glass can break, posing a
laceration hazard.

This recall involves Quadra-Fire(R) Mt. Vernon E2 pellet stoves
and inserts. The cast iron pellet stove is about 32 inches high,
28 inches wide, 29 inches deep and has a matte black, sienna
bronze, porcelain mahogany or porcelain black finish. The inserts
are about 34 inches wide in front by 24 inches high by 15 inches
deep. The viewing area is 21 inches by 14 inches and has a matte
black, sienna bronze or porcelain mahogany finish. The following
recalled model numbers are printed on the unit rating plate, which
is located near the controls and in the instruction manual.

  Stoves           Inserts
  ------           -------
  MMTV-E2-PBK      MTV-E2-PFT
  MTV1-E2-CSB      MTV-E2-PMH
  MTV-E2-CSB
  MTV1-E2-MBK
  MTV-E2-MBK
  MTV1-E2-PMH
  MTV-E2-PDB

The firm has received eight reports of glass breaking. No injuries
have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Stove
stores from February 2014 through January 2015 for about $4,000.

Consumers should stop using the unit, turn the small blue dial on
the stove or insert to the -4 position and follow the daily
maintenance requirements in the owner's manual. They should
contact the retailer where the unit was purchased to arrange for
free installation of an enhanced control board. The firm's dealers
are contacting known purchasers.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HOPKINS, MN: 'Pirate' Sues Over Water-Meter Dispute
---------------------------------------------------
John Reinan, writing for Star Tribune, reported that Gypsy Rogers
breathes fire at Renaissance festivals, designs architecture for
artificial intelligence and entertains as a rogue pirate. But it's
a simple household water meter that's complicating his life these
days.

Rogers, 43, of Hopkins, is fighting a hefty fine the city imposed
on him for not letting workers upgrade the water meters on a
rental duplex he owns. He's suing the city in federal court,
contending that the fine is an unconstitutional violation of his
right to a fair trial.  And he's seeking to make it a class-action
suit that could involve dozens of people who have been fined under
similar circumstances.

"I'm not afraid of fire, and I'm not afraid of the city," said
Rogers. "I think the city saw an opportunity to bleed people. It
was just a way to make money."

Rogers' problems began a couple of years ago when the city set out
to upgrade all of its water meters. The city mailed a request for
access to his duplex to change out the meters. After getting no
response, the city began fining Rogers $100 a month for each of
the two water meters.

Rogers said he never received the written notice -- because the
city mailed it to his renters, not to him. He said he first
learned of the issue when his accountant asked why his property
taxes had gone up so much. When he checked, Rogers discovered that
the city had tacked a $2,800 fine onto his tax bill. He
immediately arranged to swap out the meters and paid the fine,
according to court records. But the more he thought about it, the
angrier he got.

"It's one thing to fine you one time for some kind of a screwup,"
he said. "But to fine you every month for a year? That just seems
excessive."

Under the Hopkins city code, failure to grant access to a water
meter is a misdemeanor. That means Rogers is entitled to all the
constitutional protections of a criminal defendant, said his
attorney, A.L. Brown of St. Paul.

"Hopkins got heavy-handed and made it a misdemeanor," Brown said.
"The moment you say misdemeanor, you've put my liberties at stake.
Once you call it a misdemeanor, then you've made it a crime. Once
you call it a crime, all bets are off."

Susan Tindal, a Bloomington attorney representing the city in the
case, said Hopkins doesn't believe there's a constitutional issue
at stake.

"Not surprisingly, we have a different point of view," she said.
"Mr. Rogers has not been prosecuted for a criminal violation in
regard to this ordinance. There was no criminal complaint filed.
The city's ordinance and their enforcement of such is
constitutional."

It doesn't matter that Rogers was fined rather than prosecuted,
Brown responded. The point is that by calling his offense a
misdemeanor, the city created the potential for a criminal
violation.

"That's the issue," Brown said. "They took his money without
giving him a trial. There was no due process. When government
comes for your property, you have an opportunity to say, 'Why do
you get it?'"

Rogers recently took a job in California and plans to move there
soon, but said he'd gladly fly back for a trial in his case.

"I'm not a real estate mogul," he said. "I just have one little
duplex. But they're mad about this because I'm threatening their
ability to just pass random ordinances."


IDAHO: 9th Circ. Expands Injunction of Benefit Cuts to Disabled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Court News Services, reported that
the Ninth Circuit affirmed that Idaho cannot cut benefits to
residents with disabilities by more than 50 percent.

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

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

In 2011, the state agency changed how it determines the benefits,
drastically reducing the benchmark budget of $54,965 to $24,476 -
nearly 55 percent.

The cuts left many adults with developmental disabilities unable
to get the care they needed, and blocked some from receiving any
care at all, according to a 2012 class action from more than a
dozen named plaintiffs.

The March 2014 consolidated complaint claims the defendant Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare sent notices of the budget cuts
without giving recipients adequate time to prepare appeals: time
which is required by state and federal laws.

The class also claimed the agency refused to disclose a "secret"
mathematical algorithm it used to determine each person's benefits
plan and budget, in violation of the Due Process Clause and the
fair hearing requirement of the Medicaid Act.

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

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

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

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

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

The IDHW then sought court approval of a budget notice that
included a general explanation of its budget calculation method
and individual budget calculations.

But the court found that notice "inadequate" because the state
failed to "explain why participants' individual budgets had
changed" in the first place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judge Andrew Hurwitz completed the panel.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Piotrowski said the new calculation method affects more than half
of Idaho's disabled people, and means most of them are likely to
be denied individualized care. But he said the state will pay in
one way or another, because decreased care can lead to legal
problems, and even to sentences in state prisons.

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

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

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

Lead counsel for the class is Richard Eppink with the American
Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation.


ICARE FINANCIAL: Has Sent Unsolicited Ads, Fulton Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fulton Dental, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. iCare Financial, Case No. 2:15-cv-01123-KOB
(N.D. Ala., July 6, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of sending unsolicited advertisements for goods and services via
facsimile.

Fulton Dental, LLC is a private dental practice in Birmingham,
Alabama.

iCare Financial offers patient financing programs for businesses
in dental, auto repair, cosmetic surgery, industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Matthew Stephens, Esq.
      MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC
      2201 Arlington Avenue South
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      Telephone: (205) 939-0199
      Facsimile: (205) 939-0399
      E-mail: mstephens@mmlaw.net


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Appealing $15B+ Damages Awards by Quebec Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Fidelman, writing for Montreal Gazette, reported that how
much cigarette smoking causes lung cancer? Turns out that a pack a
day for five years is the critical tipping point where smokers are
twice as likely as non-smokers to get lung, throat and larynx
cancers.

This precedent-setting calculation figured prominently in Canada's
biggest class-action suit. A ruling was handed down awarding more
than $15 billion in damages to smokers.

The calculation is based on the expertise of Universite de
Montreal epidemiologist Jack Siemiatycki, internationally known
for research on occupational causes of cancer, who invented a way
of measuring "critical dose" specifically for this case.

Judgment by Quebec Superior Court Justice Brian Riordan found
three Canadian cigarette-makers liable for selling a harmful
product they knew was dangerous while hiding those ill effects on
health from consumers. But that fault alone does not make a direct
link between cigarettes and each individual smoker's sickness.

The tobacco industry would have preferred that each member of the
class-action suit go to court to prove damages. But a million
potential victims cannot individually parade through Riordan's
court, and that's where Siemiatycki's epidemiological analysis of
probabilities came in.

A Centre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Universite de
Montreal (CRCHUM) researcher who holds the Guzzo-cancer research
society chair in environment and cancer, Siemiatycki established a
link between smoking and four diseases -- emphysema, and lung,
throat and larynx cancers -- in his report. It looked at several
questions, including:

What is the risk of the disease among smokers compared with non-
smokers?

What is the dose-response relationship between smoking and the
disease?

At what level of smoking does the balance of probabilities become
greater than 50 per cent that smoking played a key role in an
individual's disease?

Among all smokers who got the respiratory diseases in Quebec since
1995, for how many did the balance of probabilities of causation
exceed 50 per cent?

According to the scientific literature, if no one smoked, 98 per
cent of lung cancer would be eliminated and up to 90 per cent of
throat cancers, too. But how much cigarette smoke does it take to
reach a "probability threshold" for each disease?

"My job in this case was to estimate where on the scale you have
to be in order to get across the threshold of doubling the risk,
and how many people in Quebec who get those diseases actually
smoke that amount," Siemiatycki said.

Turns out that "five pack years" is a critical dose, although the
average smoker has more than 20 years of cigarette history. A
"pack year" is the equivalent of smoking one pack of 20 cigarettes
a day over one year: 365 days times 20 equals 7,300 cigarettes,
and spread over five years equates to 36,500 cigarettes smoked. Or
any combination of the five pack years, for example, 25 cigarettes
per day for four years or 10 cigarettes per day for 10 years.

Siemiatycki turned to Statistics Canada surveys on smokers in
Quebec for the combination of people who smoke and dipped into the
Registre des tumeurs du Quebec for a list of people with cancer;
he then used an algebra formula to calculate the critical
carcinogen dose of "pack years" and relative risk of disease to
estimate how many people more likely than not got sick from
smoking.

While Siemiatycki's critical dose is five-pack years of smoking,
the judge set the limit at 12 pack years as the cutoff point to be
considered in the litigation.

"However, we know from our own cancer studies, and others'
studies, that smoking patterns are predictable and most people
don't stray from the average," Siemiatycki said. The average
smoker starts the cigarette habit during the teenage years between
age 15 and 20, and typically smokes for 20 years, he added, before
starting to think about quitting.

The experts hired by the tobacco industry tried to discredit
Siemiatycki's research as flawed, but Justice Riordan found it
"reliable and convincing."

For his part, Siemiatycki says he's grateful to have been a
critical part of the puzzle of this landmark trial.

The three tobacco companies, JTI-Macdonald, Imperial Tobacco and
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges, said they will appeal the ruling.


INDIANA: Drug Test for Welfare Recipients Illegal, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
John Russell, writing for Indystar, reported that Mary Neale says
she's not worried about passing a drug test. She doesn't take any
illegal drugs, she said, and has passed drug tests several times.
In fact, she was willing to do so again, when she went to her
township trustee's office in Southern Indiana, seeking help to pay
utility bills.

Neale, whose only income is a monthly Social Security disability
check, walked into the Black Township trustee's office in Posey
County, just west of Evansville, to apply to help.  But a township
employee told Neale that if she wanted financial assistance, she
first had to complete a drug test. Neale was handed a cup and sent
into a bathroom.

Neale, 51, who suffers from arthritis, back problems and obesity,
found she could not bend in such a way as to position the cup to
catch the urine stream.

"I don't condone drug use," she said in a phone interview. "But if
you can't hold the cup, how can you take the test?"

According to a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Evansville,
Neale asked for a "urine hat" -- a receptacle that fits into the
toilet and collects the urine before it enters the toilet water. A
township employee denied her request, the suit said.

Neale claims the township's actions violated the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

"The failure to accommodate Ms. Neale's disabilities represents
intentional discrimination," said the lawsuit, which was filed by
the American Civil Liberties Union.

The suit seeks class-action status for anyone else in Black
Township who has been forced to take a drug test.  According to
the lawsuit, about 50 drug tests a month are run by the Black
Township trustee's office.

Neale and the ACLU also say mandatory drug tests for government
assistance violate the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which
prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.

Courts have ruled that people do not have to take drug tests
without a specific, compelling need, such after a traffic accident
or in applying for certain jobs, said Ken Falk, legal director of
the ACLU of Indiana.

"This is a classic case of government mandating that a citizen
waive their rights to get a government benefit," Falk said. "It is
wrong."

Falk said he didn't know of any other township in Indiana with a
similar requirement.

Townships in Indiana provide "poor relief" to low-income people in
form of rental assistance, utility assistance and medical
assistance.

Black Township requires anyone seeking government assistance to
complete a drug test at the township office, according to the
lawsuit. Any applicant whose test results show use of unlawful
drugs are denied assistance for 30 days.

The Black Township trustee's office was closed and could not be
reached for comment.

Neale has previously received financial assistance from Black
Township and successfully passed a drug test, the lawsuit said. At
the time, she was able to fill a urine cup. But she said her
health has declined since then, and she could no longer complete
the test.

For the past two years, the Indiana General Assembly have
discussed adding drug-testing requirements for welfare recipients
who are identified as high risk for drug abuse or who have been
charge with a drug-related crime in the past.

If recipients fail a drug test, they would have an opportunity to
receive counseling. But if they continue to fail drug screenings
after counseling, they would be ineligible for welfare benefits
for at least three months.

In 2013, such a bill died in the legislature. A similar bill
failed to advance after its author withdrew his support at the
last minute.

Neale said she is just trying to get Black Township to discontinue
what she calls an unconstitutional practice.  "It's not fair," she
said. "They shouldn't do it."


INDUSTRIA DE DISENO: Zara Faces $40MM Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Clare O'Connor, writing for Forbes, reported that last August,
Spanish clothing chain Zara went into damage control mode after
selling a children's shirt with a yellow star embellishment that
drew comparisons to a Holocaust concentration camp uniform.

Parent company Inditex , one of the world's largest fashion
retailers, pulled the top from its shelves and issued an apology -
- but not before a public outcry. After all, it wasn't Zara's
first time coming under scrutiny for insensitive imagery on its
clothing. In 2007, the company withdrew a handbag that contained
swastikas as a design element.

Now, a former in-house counsel for Zara claims the cheap-chic
giant's corporate culture is as anti-Semitic as these incidents
would suggest.

Lawyers for Ian Jack Miller, the first and only corporate attorney
for Zara's U.S. and Canada business, filed a $40 million
discrimination suit in New York's Supreme Court alleging he was
fired because he's Jewish, American and gay.

The allegations present an ugly picture of life at Zara U.S.,
where Miller says he was the only Jewish employee. The suit
suggests, however, that Amancio Ortega -- the billionaire founder
of Inditex, and the 4th richest person in the world -- set the
tone from the top.

The complaint alleges that trusted lieutenants of Ortega's emailed
graphic porn to Miller highlighting gay sex scenes, bragged about
sexual exploits with female subordinates, and discussed visiting
prostitutes during work trips.

The lawsuit, which can be seen in full here, also describes how
Zara's top executives allegedly exchanged racist emails, including
emails portraying Michelle Obama serving fried chicken and emails
depicting Barack Obama in a Ku Klux Klan hood, with a Confederate
flag, on a Cream of Wheat box, on an Aunt Jemima box, and shining
shoes.

Miller says he kept his Jewish background secret because of what
he saw as rife anti-Semitism. For example, the suit alleges the
CEO of Zara's American business, a close confidant of Ortega's,
repeatedly described the retail chain's Jewish landlords and
Jewish real estate developers as "los judios" or "the Jews."

As soon as top executives at Zara's New York office learned Miller
was Jewish, he was targeted, excluded, then ultimately fired after
seven years with the company, he says.

Attorneys for Miller at New York class-action firm Sanford Heisler
Kimpel, LLP note that he'd just managed the legal side of a $300
million real estate acquisition for a new Zara flagship store in
Manhattan's Soho when he was fired.

"Mr. Miller was not a member of Zara's favored demographic," said
David Sanford, lead counsel for Miller.

Miller seeks damages in excess of $40 million for a hostile work
environment, pay discrimination, and discriminatory and
retaliatory termination, including back-pay, front-pay,
compensatory damages, liquidated damages, and punitive damages.
He's requested a jury trial.

Inditex did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A spokesperson for Zara USA issued the following comment:

"Zara USA is a diverse and multicultural company that is part of a
worldwide organization that has more than 140,000 employees of
different nationalities, cultures, languages and beliefs across 88
countries. We have a strong social commitment based on fairness,
respect and equality for all. In keeping with our global success,
we work hard to create exciting and rewarding work environments
for each of our employees.

The allegations contained in a plaintiff's press release are
shocking, and -- although we have not yet seen a copy of the
lawsuit -- we will respond strongly and vigorously to these
allegations in the Court.

We do not tolerate any behavior that is discriminatory or
disrespectful, but value each individual's contributions to our
dynamic organization."


JAKE'S FIREWORKS: Recalls Sparklers Due to Burn Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Jake's Fireworks Inc., of Pittsburgh, Kan., announced a voluntary
recall of about 651,500 Sparklers. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The sparklers burn faster and with a larger flame than normal and
can burn down the stick towards users' hands, posing a burn
hazard.

This recall involves Yo Yo Sparklers. The sparklers are 13 1/2
inches long, metallic gray in color on a wire stick. They were
sold in multicolored packages containing four individual
sparklers. The front of the packages had a logo with the U.S. flag
and the words World Class Fireworks at the top, the words YOYO
Sparklers and two pictures of sparklers burning at the bottom.

Jake's has received 12 reports of incidents of the sparklers
burning rapidly down the stick towards users' hands resulting in
second degree and third degree burns to consumers hands.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/74muSf

The recalled products were manufactured in China.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled sparklers,
take them away from young children and contact Jake's Fireworks to
receive a full refund.


JBRE LLC: "Hammond" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Hammond, Jerry Albright and Paul Rice, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. JBRE LLC, JBRE FL
LLC and JBRE NV LLC, all d/b/a Just Brakes, Case No. 8:15-cv-
01568-EAK-EAJ (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants operate a full service automobile repair shop with
locations throughout the southern and western United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan L. Quiles, Esq.
      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      Suite 404, 1515 S Federal Hwy
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8888
      E-mail: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
              gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Juno Turner, Esq.
      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      29th Floor, 3 Park Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
      E-mail: jturner@outtengolden.com
              jms@outtengolden.com


KESTREL ENGINEERING: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
George Johnson, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Kestrel Engineering, Inc. and Kestrel Energy, LLC, Case No.
2:15-cv-02575-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, July 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide engineering, project and construction
management and inspection services in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose II, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St, 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com


KNISHKA RESTAURANT: Faces Suit Over Minimum Wage & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlen O. Funes a/k/a "Marvin", individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Knishka Restaurant Associates Inc.
d/b/a Akbar Restaurant, and Meena Chopra, an individual, CV 15
3843 (E.D. N.Y., July 1, 2015), seeks to recover damages for
alleged egregious violations by the Defendant of federal and state
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours laws.

Meena Chopra owns and/or operates Knishka Restaurant Associates
Inc. d/b/a Akbar Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by

    Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
    HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
    69-12 Austin Street
    Forest Hills, NY 11375
    Tel: 718-263-9591
    Fax: 718-263-9598


LAGO INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Bautista" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ismael Bautista, and all others similarly situated v. Douglas E.
Sanchez and Lago International, Inc., 1:15-cv-22531-MGC (S.D.
Fla., July 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are used auto parts dealers that regularly transact
business within Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More than 100 owners and residents of the Lacrosse high-rise have
contacted law firm Slater & Gordon regarding a potential class
action -- an issue which poses problems for builders across
Australia.

The fast-moving blaze ravaged their 23-storey building and forced
them to flee to Etihad Stadium.

The Victorian Building Authority's Director Technical and
Regulations Jarrod Edwards said the MFB's request that the Coroner
investigate an incident even though no fatality had occurred was
not unprecedented or unusual.

He said the VBA supported the referral to the Coroner to
investigate whether the national and state regulatory frameworks
ensured that risks were adequately addressed.

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

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

The coroner has been contacted for comment.


LUXE VALET: Sued Over Misclassification of Employees
----------------------------------------------------
Virtual-Strategy reported that on May 22, 2015, the San Francisco
labor law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a class
action lawsuit against Luxe Valet Inc. alleging that the new valet
service company illegally classifies their employees working as
Valet Attendants as independent contractors in order to avoid
paying Luxe Valet's share of payroll taxes, overtime wages, and
providing the proper meal and rest breaks in accordance with
California law. The Luxe Valet class action is currently pending
in the San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. CGC-15-
545961.

According to the Complaint, Luxe Valet Inc, is a recent startup
that lets users book Valet Attendants through a mobile application
(very similar to Uber's and Lyft's applications) to come and park
their vehicles. Luxe allegedly classifies the Valet Attendants as
independent contractors. But according to the lawsuit filed by a
former Valet Attendant, the startup allegedly takes a very broad
interpretation of an independent contractor relationship. The
Complaint alleges Luxe has the right to control every critical
aspect of Luxe's daily valet services operations in that the
company allegedly provides the customer and allegedly provides
step-by-step instructions to the Valet Attendants as to the
"entire process of parking the vehicle" and interacting with
Luxe's customers.

The lawsuit claims the Company requires their Valet Attendants to
follow a detailed script when greeting Luxe's customers, even
allegedly making sure to tell them they work for Luxe. The
Complaint further claims that the company tells their Valet
Attendants where to enter certain parking lots, where to park the
vehicles, how to inspect the vehicles for damage, how to secure
customers' keys, and how to pick up and return the car to Luxe's
customers.

The high level of control, the suit claims, means the workers have
been misclassified as independent contractors and are allegedly
owed employee benefits, including, but not limited to, overtime
pay and meal and rest breaks.

It's the latest in a string of misclassification lawsuits filed
across the State of California aimed at startups that allegedly
exploit the independent contractor model to save on labor costs.

If you are working as an independent contractor and feel like you
should be treated as an employee, call an experienced labor law
attorney at Blumenthal, Nordrehuag & Bhowmik at (415) 935-3957 for
free California labor law advice.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik is a California employment law
firm with offices in San Francisco, San Diego, Sacramento,
Riverside and Los Angeles. The firm only represents employees and
focuses on claims involving violations of the California Labor
Code, including, but not limited to, wrongful termination, missed
meal breaks, overtime pay issues, unpaid commissions and being
forced to work off the clock.


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation (NYSE:MX)
between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Northern District of
California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corporation ("MagnaChip") securities between
February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015, your rights may be
affected by this action.

The complaint alleges that MagnaChip failed to disclose that it
improperly recognized revenues, resulting in the overstatement of
revenues and earnings in financial statements from 2011, 2012, and
the first nine months of 2013. As a result of the aforementioned,
MagnaChip traded at artificially inflated prices, allowing
controlling shareholder Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. to sell
more than 16.1 million shares in secondary stock offerings for
$232.675 million in gross proceeds.

On February 12, 2015, the Company filed its Annual Report on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013, restating its
financial results for fiscal years 2011, 2012, and the first three
quarters of 2013. On April 1, 2015, the Company received notice
from NYSE that it is no longer compliant with listing
requirements.

If you suffered a loss in MagnaChip you have until June 22, 2015
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

         Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
         Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
         30 Broad Street - 24th Floor New York, NY 10004
         Tel: (212) 363-7500
         Toll Free: (877) 363-5972
         Fax: (212) 363-7171
         www.zlk.com


MCKENZIE CHECK: Well-Drafted Contract Protects from FDUTPA Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
D. Brad Hughes of Jimerson & Cobb P.A., in an article for
Lexology, said an agreement to arbitrate, which contains a class
action waiver, can be an effective tool to help prevent small or
moderate consumer claims from becoming class action lawsuits.
Class consumer litigation, particularly that utilizing the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter "FDUTPA"),
has become en vogue over the last several years.  As these types
of class claims become more popular, it is more important to
properly protect your business with well drafted agreements.  It
is also important to ensure that none of your agreements, if
multiple agreements are necessary to complete a transaction, have
conflicting terms.

FDUTPA is found in Chapter 501 of the Florida Statutes.  In
general, FDUTPA makes "[u]nfair methods of competition,
unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or
practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce. . ."
actionable.  Fla. Stat. 501.204(1).  FDUTPA claims are often used
by Plaintiff's attorneys as the basis for class action lawsuits.

Plaintiff's attorneys often utilize FDUTPA to target small charges
they deem to be deceptive or deceptively ambiguous.  When these
small charges makeup part of a regular consumer transaction a
small FDUTPA claim can morph itself into a large class action
lawsuit.  By way of example, Plaintiff's counsel often target add
on charges by automobile dealers, environmental fees by automobile
repair shops, shipping fees on internet orders and various fees in
the airline industry.  If any of these fees, or other fees, are
mislabeled or deceptively labeled your business is at risk for a
FDUTPA claim.  A FDUTPA claim from a customer can be distracting
and costly because even a small successful FDUTPA claim entitles
Plaintiff's counsel to her attorney's fees.  However, a class
action claim seeking a refund for every customer charged the
allegedly deceptive fee over a period of several years can be
devastating for any size business.

The good news is that a properly drafted sales contract, which
contains a valid arbitration clause and a valid class action
waiver can be a significant deterrent for both individual and
class FDUTPA claims.  McKenzie Check Advance of Florida, LLC v.
Betts, 112 So.3d 1176 (Fla. 2013).  In McKenzie, the allegations
included, but were not limited, to claims that the check cashing
services were really loans which resulted in usurious and
exorbitant rates. The Plaintiffs brought claims under FDUTPA, the
Florida Consumers Finance Act and Florida Civil Remedies for
Criminal Practices Act (FCRCPA).  Here, the Plaintiffs signed an
arbitration agreement with a class action waiver each time they
cashed a check.  Still, Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the class
action waiver within the arbitration clause was void because it
effectively prohibited these Plaintiffs from obtaining competent
counsel, which allegedly violated public policy. The trial judge
agreed with this argument and a series of appeals followed.
Ultimately, the case made its way to the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Supreme Court held the class action waiver was
enforceable because any argument that the class action waiver
violated state law was preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act.
Id. at 1183 ("We do not reach the merits of this argument [void
against public policy], because to the extent that Florida law
would invalidate the class action waiver on this basis, the FAA
preempts Florida law under the facts presented here.") citing AT&T
Mobility, LLC v. Conception, 131 S. Ct. 1740 (2011).

An agreement to arbitrate can be an effective tool in deterring
individual small consumer claims because the agreements to
arbitrate often require the consumer to fund expensive filing
fees.  As demonstrated above, including an express class action
waiver in the agreement to arbitrate can prevent class litigation
of small consumer claims.  However, a business should periodically
review their contracts to determine whether they effectively,
particularly when multiple agreements are involved in one
transaction, act to require arbitration and waive class action
claims.  Recently, the First District Court of Appeal affirmed a
lower Court's decision finding there was no agreement to arbitrate
a FDUTPA claim involving charges relating to tag and registration
from the purchase of a vehicle.  HHH Motors, LLP v. Holt, 152
So.3d 745 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).  The Court came to this decision
even though the purchaser signed a Retail Purchase Agreement (the
"RPA") that contained a valid arbitration clause with a class
action waiver.  Unfortunately for the dealership, the purchaser,
moments after signing the RPA, signed a Retail Installment Sales
Contract (hereinafter the "RISC") to finance the purchase of the
vehicle.  The RISC contained a merger clause which stated: "This
contract contains the entire agreement between you and us relating
to this contract.  Any change to this contract must be in writing
and we must sign it."  The RISC did not contain an arbitration
clause.  Ultimately, the First DCA held that whether a contract is
entirely superseded by a subsequent contract is a matter of state
law which is not preempted by the FAA.  It further held the merger
clause was sufficient enough to render the arbitration agreement
nugatory.

Protecting your business from these types of claims is a complex
matter that requires specific advice from an experienced attorney.
It also requires a detailed analysis of the business.  However,
often a provision in the agreement requiring arbitration that
waives class action or collective claims will act to prevent
costly class action litigation.  These types of agreements should
be drafted by an experienced attorney after review of your
business specific needs.  Having all customers sign an arbitration
agreement with a class action waiver is one of the most cost
effective tools to help prevent individual claims from becoming
class action claims.


MECCA CAMPUS: "Liggins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tasha Liggins, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Mecca Campus School, Inc., J. Stanley McNeese, and
Charles Pogue, Case No. 2:15-cv-02447 (W.D. Tenn., July 6, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a day care center in Shelby County,
Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      188 E. Capitol Street, Suite 777
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      Facsimile: (601) 862-398
      E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Miami, Book isn't interested.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


MOMMA ROSA: Faces "Rife" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Austin Rife, Darryn Himes and Brian Saber, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated v. Momma Rosa, LLC, d/b/a Baroni's
Pizza, Rose M. Baker and Jason Michael Baker, Case No. 2:15-cv-
02673-DCN (D.S.C., July 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Baroni's Pizza restaurant located
at 1975P Magwood Drive Charleston, SC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (800) 385-8160
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Aug. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 3, 2015 to file lead plaintiff applications
in a securities class action lawsuit against Nationstar Mortgage
Holdings Inc. if they purchased the Company's securities between
February 27, 2014 and May 4, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

This action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Nationstar and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by August 3, 2015.

About the Lawsuit

Nationstar and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that the value of Nationstar's stock began
to decline in late 2014 due to a series of partial disclosures,
including: (i) declining third quarter 2014 financial results;
(ii) Nationstar being named as a defendant in a class action
alleging racketeering in connection with the collection of
unlawful inspection fees in January 2015; and (iii) dismal fourth
quarter and fiscal 2014 financial results.

Then, on May 5, 2015, Nationstar reported disappointing first
quarter 2015 financial results, including a net loss of $48.3
million, a $110 million write-down on the value of Nationstar's
mortgage servicing rights, and a 15% decline in revenues year-
over-year.  On this news, the price of Nationstar's shares
plummeted.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Faces Securities Suit By Gainey McKenna
------------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc. ("Nationstar" or
the "Company") (NYSE:NSM) securities between February 27, 2014 and
May 4, 2015, inclusive ("Class Period").

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

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

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

The firm may be reached at:

          Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
          Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
          GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON LLP
          440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Tel: (212) 983-1300
          Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
                 gegleston@gme-law.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The law firm may be reached at:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


NOVO NORDISK: Illegally Records Phone Calls, "Williams" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khorey Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Novo Nordisk, Inc. and Does 1-10, Inclusive,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05067-JAK-RAO (C.D. Cal., July 6, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose its
intentional recording and monitoring of telephone communications.

Novo Nordisk, Inc. operates a health care company that does
business in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      David W. Reid, Esq.
      Victoria C. Knowles, Bar No. 277231
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP, APC
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com


OHLINS USA: Recalls Forks for Motocross Bikes Due to Crash Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ohlins USA Inc., of Hendersonville, N.C., announced a voluntary
recall of about 50 Ohlins RXF 48 front forks for motocross bikes.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The front fork can break or detach, posing a crash hazard.
This recall involves Ohlins RXF 48 mm front bike forks for
motocross bikes. The fork legs are yellow with a large white "O"
and a small "TTX" on the front. The fork legs measure about 37
inches long. The following product and batch numbers are included
in this recall and stamped on the silver-colored front fork bottom
piece.

  Product Number      Batch Number
  --------------      ------------
  FGKT 1586           309632
  FGHO 1596           309640
  FGKT 1596           309628
  FGKT 1596           138461

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/fYZO18

The recalled products were manufactured in Sweden and sold at Off-
road bike stores nationwide from November 2014 through May 2015
for about $3,500.

Consumers should stop using motocross bikes with these front forks
immediately and contact Ohlins for free replacement and
installation of a new cartridge kit in the fork.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PUMA BIOTECH: Faces Securities Suit Filed by Pomerantz Law Firm
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Puma Biotechnology, Inc. ("Puma" or the "Company") and
certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central
District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-00865, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Puma securities between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Puma securities during the
Class Period, you have until August 3, 2015 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those who inquire
by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Puma is a development stage biopharmaceutical company, focusing on
the acquisition, development, and commercialization of products to
enhance cancer care. The Company's lead product candidate is an
investigational drug known as PB272 ("neratinib"), which the
Company had touted as an extended adjuvant treatment of human
epidermal growth factor receptor 2 ("HER2")-positive metastatic
breast cancer.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that:  (1) the Company's NDA filing would be for a
positive early stage breast cancer indication, instead of the
previously announced metastatic breast cancer; (2) Puma would need
to submit additional safety data from preclinical carcinogenicity
studies with its NDA filing, which Puma did not have; (3) the
additional required studies would necessarily push the timeline
for filing the NDA into the first quarter of 2016; (4) the Company
overstated results from its Phase III ExteNET Trial; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
their positive statements about the Company and its outlook,
including in its financial statements and about the ongoing
ExteNET trial.

On December 2, 2014, the Company announced an update on the
timeline for filing its New Drug Application (NDA) for the
approval of PB272 (neratinib) in the extended adjuvant treatment
of HER2-positive early stage breast cancer. While Puma had
previously communicated that it anticipated filing the NDA for
PB272 in the first half of 2015, including as recently as November
13, 2014, the December 2, 2014 announcement indicated that Puma
intends to delay its proposed timeline for filing the NDA until
the first quarter of 2016.

Thus, despite indicating that Puma would originally seek to apply
neratinib for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer, the Company
secretly changed course and instead shocked the market by
announcing plans to apply for extended adjuvant HER2-positive
early stage breast cancer. However, this shift required additional
safety data, which was unavailable to the Company.

On this news, shares of Puma fell $27.33 per share, or over 12%,
to close at $197.67 per share on December 3, 2014 on extremely
high volume.

On May 13, 2015, after the close of trading, Puma released four
abstracts for its PB272 (neratinib) breast cancer drug that were
to be presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology
("ASCO") annual meeting.

From the presentation at the ASCO meeting, Abstract #508 provides
a summary of the ExteNET trial which is a Phase 3 trial comparing
Puma's lead product candidate, neratinib, to placebo in HER2+
breast cancer patients who were pre-treated with Roche's Herceptin
(trastuzumab). The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients
who were disease-free two years after adjuvant treatment as
measured by invasive disease-free survival (IDFS). IDFS in the
neratinib arm (n=1,409) was 93.9% compared to 91.6% for placebo
(n=1,412). The modest difference of only 2.3% (p=0.0046) was lower
than the market expected especially given that on July 22, 2014,
the Company stated that Neratinib performed 33% better than the
placebo.

On this news, shares of Puma fell $39.05 per share, or over 18.6%,
to close at $170.67 per share on May 14, 2015, on unusually high
volume.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fairness challenged

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

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

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

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

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

Plenty of notice

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

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

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

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

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

Not perfect solution

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

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

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

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


ROGUE VALLEY: Five Charged in Maternity Ward Privacy Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Gray, writing for The Globe and Mail, reported that the
Ontario Securities Commission has laid new criminal and quasi-
criminal charges against five more people in connection with
allegations that confidential maternity ward records from two
Toronto-area hospitals were stolen and used to market registered
educations savings plan investments to new mothers.

Last fall, the province's financial markets regulator laid quasi-
criminal charges against a Pickering, Ont., woman, a former clerk
at Rouge Valley Centenary hospital in east Toronto, after an
unknown number of new mothers were mysteriously contacted by RESP
salespeople after bringing their new babies home. The privacy
commissioner launched a probe and a class action lawsuit on behalf
of patients was filed against the hospital.

Michael Crystal, a lawyer behind a class-action lawsuit against
the hospitals on behalf of the up to 14,000 patients he says may
have been affected, said he has been in touch with at least 600
people who say their privacy was breached. He said the OSC is
clearly taking the allegations very seriously.

"They feel very violated," he said of the patients. "This [the
charges] does resonate with them."

On, the OSC said it was now laying charges against a former
saleswoman for Global RESP Corp. named Nellie Acar, alleging that
Ms. Acar had purchased stolen maternity patient labels from a
registered nurse, Esther Cruz, over two and a half years. Ms.
Cruz, the OSC said, used to work in the maternity wards of both
Rouge Valley Health System and the Scarborough Hospital.

The OSC also alleges that Ms. Acar submitted at least two false
education savings plan enrolment applications. She is facing
criminal charges of secret commissions and forgery. Ms. Cruz is
charged with secret commissions, breach of trust and theft.

Also facing charges is Poly Edry, a former branch manager with
Knowledge First Financial Inc., who is alleged to have purchased
confidential maternity information over five years from former
Rouge Valley hospital clerk Shaida Bandali, the woman the OSC
first charged last fall with unregistered trading. The OSC also
alleges that Subramaniam Sulur, a former assistant branch manager
with CST Consultants Inc., purchased confidential maternity ward
information from Ms. Bandali over two years.

The OSC alleged Ms. Edry and Mr. Sulur provided the contact
information to sales representatives trying to sell RESP
investments. Both are facing charges under the Securities Act, as
is Ms. Edry's spouse, Gavriel Edry.

None of the allegations have been proved in court. All five of the
people facing new allegations are due to appear in court. The OSC
said the investigation was conducted by its Joint Serious Offences
Team, a partnership with the RCMP and the OPP. The OSC also said
both hospitals had co-operated and assisted with the
investigation.

Those facing charges could not be reached for comment.

The OSC can lay quasi-criminal charges under the Ontario
Securities Act before a court, as opposed to the OSC's own
tribunal. Doing so allows the regulator to seek jail terms of up
to five years and fines of up to $5-million.

Mississauga-based Knowledge First Financial said in a statement
that it terminated Ms. Edry for violating the company's policies
after the OSC alerted the company and the firm conducted an
internal investigation last November.

"We are sorry this incident has violated public trust. We are
extremely disappointed by the behaviour of this individual and it
is not indicative of our commitment to ethical business practices,
which is unwavering," George Hopkinson, the company's president
and CEO, said in a statement.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


ROYAL CANADIAN: Atty Asks Court to Throw Out Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tamsyn Burgmann, writing for The Canadian Press, reported that
members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police may be individually
answerable for complaints of mistreatment alleged by hundreds of
the force's female employees, but the government as a whole bears
no responsibility, a Crown lawyer says.

Mitchell Taylor asked a British Columbia judge to throw out claims
by the group of 375 women -- whose numbers keep growing --
attempting to sue over claims of harassment, bullying and gender
discrimination.

The federal attorney general and B.C. justice minister, named as
defendants for operating the RCMP, are trying to block a proposed
class-action lawsuit from certification.

About 30 of the women from across the country are attending the
hearing.

But the proposed legal action ties together disparate allegations
of workplace discrimination and harassment better resolved on a
case-by-case basis, say written submissions argued in court by
Taylor.

"The proposed class is overly broad, encompassing every woman who
has ever worked in one of three categories within the RCMP in the
history of this organization," the submissions say.

It describes the plaintiffs' litigation plan as overly simplistic
for attempting to pack together multiple wrongdoers, locations and
periods of time.

"The proceedings would inevitably devolve into a series of
individual actions."

Taylor's multi-pronged argument, which began in B.C. Supreme
Court, also contends time is up for the women to seek redress.

Until proceedings, the government had largely stayed silent about
waves of allegations that began when former Mountie Janet Merlo
went public about years of harassment. Merlo is the representative
plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Taylor has argued all the complaints refer to incidents that
allegedly occurred more than two years before the 19-year veteran
from Nanaimo, B.C., filed her initial claim in March 2012.

He told the court the government isn't arguing the merits of the
allegations. But he suggested the law firm representing the women
is trying to use a class-action procedure as a proxy for a
commission of inquiry.

Justice Miriam Gropper pointed out that a commission would not
lead to any damages, which the plaintiffs are seeking in the
millions of dollars.

David Klein, who is arguing for the class action, said there are
systemic problems within the RCMP ranks and the women's claims
should be combined.

"The courts should look at this as an organizational problem,"
Klein said outside court. "The responsibility to women in the RCMP
is owed by the government itself."

He said nearly 100 new women have contacted his firm since its
first submissions were filed two years ago.

"It climbs every time there's publicity about the case," he said.
"There are a lot of women who, when they read about this case, it
gives them the courage to come forward."

A decision isn't expected for several months.


SAMSUNG: Class Suit Over Fires Caused by Washing Machines Looms
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Rolfe, writing for The Daily Telegraph, reported that Craig
and Emma Jordan's Samsung washing machine wiped out 80 per cent of
their household possessions in January, shortly after they had
moved into their dream home.

Mrs. Jordan put some washing on and jumped in the pool. The
machine caught fire while she was swimming.

"We slept in the car that night," Mrs Jordan, from Terranora in
northern NSW, recalled.

The Jordans say the cost of replacing their goods, plus expenses,
is $49,000. Samsung, valued at $225 billion, is offering $30,000.

Samsung said it was regrettable the offer "had not been accepted".
"As with all affected customers, Samsung is eager to ensure that
Mr and Mrs Jordan are fully compensated for their loss," it said.

"Samsung has a dedicated team that is responsible for ensuring
affected customers are looked after."

NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal member Kim Holwell had
adjourned a hearing to a date to be fixed. The hearing occurred by
phone.

Samsung's Sydney representative will fly to Tweed Heads when the
matter returns to the tribunal.

A class action looms over 144,000 potentially lethal washing
machines sold by Samsung, which is already fighting individual
customers over bills for damage caused by the appliances.

More than two years after the Korean behemoth began a recall, less
than half of at-risk washers have been fixed or replaced. At least
one that was repaired later caught fire.  The fault with the
machines is that water can condense on an internal motor
connection. This, Samsung says, has led to 180 "confirmed"
incidents of smoking, overheating or fire.

Shine Lawyers, which is investigating a class action, says
thousands of customers could have been affected.

"We've seen family homes damaged beyond repair and people who've
sustained significant and ongoing injuries because of this
machine," Shine solicitor Peter Gibson said.

Manufacturers had a legal duty to protect consumers from harm, he
said.

"If our investigations show that this duty has been breached, we
will commence legal action."

Samsung's PR company said, of 144,451 machines affected, 60,995
had been serviced or replaced.

"Samsung is deeply concerned that two years on, un-reworked models
are still in use, which is why we continue to invest in campaigns
to increase the public's awareness of the recall," the PR company
said.

Samsung said reports that repair work was ineffective were
"inaccurate", saying it "stands by the rework fix". But it
conceded it knew of 16 cases where "rework was not carried out
correctly". Fire and Rescue NSW said at least one washing machine
fire had occurred after repair.


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Aug. 10 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, and KSF partner, the former Attorney
General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors that
they have until August 10, 2015 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of
investors in SandRidge Mississippian Trust I ("Trust I") SDT, -
2.23% and SandRidge Mississippian Trust II ("Trust II") SDR, -
0.63% (collectively, the "Trusts") if they purchased: (i) Trust I
pursuant or traceable to Trust I's initial public offering on or
about April 7, 2011, and/or between April 7, 2011 and November 8,
2012, inclusive (the "Class Period"); and/or (ii) Trust II
pursuant or traceable to Trust II's initial public offering on or
about April 17, 2012, and/or during the Class Period. This action
is pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of the Trusts and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by August 10, 2015.

About the Lawsuit

The Trusts and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false and misleading statements and omissions include
that: (i) the underlying properties from which the royalty
interests were conveyed consisted of far more low-margin natural
gas deposits and far fewer high-margin oil deposits; and (b) the
reserves of oil in the underlying properties were vastly
overstated.

          Kahn Swick, Esq.
          Kahn Swick & Foti LLC
          206 Covington Street
          Madisonville, LA 7044
          Tel (504) 455-1400
          www.ksfcounsel.com


SILVER DOLLAR: "Hays" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Hays, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-
05151-PKH (W.D. Ark., July 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Silver Dollar Cabaret, Inc. operates an adult entertainment club
at 2125 North College Avenue, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72703.

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.
      1800 S. Fillmore St.
      Little Rock, AR 72204
      Telephone: (501) 993-7857
      E-mail: steve@sanfordlawfirm.com


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SOUTO FOODS: Faces "Guzman" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin A. Guzman v. Souto Foods, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02410-TWT
(N.D. Ga., July 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Souto Foods, LLC operates and specializes in wholesale grocery
delivery and maintains a corporate headquarters at 3000 Old
Alabama Road, Alpharetta, Fulton County, Georgia, 30022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Andrew Lampros, Esq.
      HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
      1230 Peachtree Street, NE
      Promenade Two, Suite 950
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 876-8100
      Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
      E-mail: alampros@hallandlampros.com


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP represents the Class.

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


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

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

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

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

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

Attorneys for the state deny the entire claim.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SYNGENTA CORP: GMO Corn Suits in Discovery Stages
-------------------------------------------------
Vincent Marshall, writing for Dodge City Daily Globe, reported
that town hall meetings in Dodge City, Kansas, have been taking
place recently regarding corn litigation with the Syngenta
company.

The lawsuit is regarding claims that Syngenta sold genetically
modified corn with a strain called MIR-162 to China without their
approval of the modification.

"The first shipment that tested positive for MIR-162," Hecker Law
Group attorney Jacob Hecker said, "was destroyed by the Chinese in
2013. Afterwards all other shipments with trace amounts of the
strain were sent back to where they came from."

Due to the strain, China, who at the time was the third largest
importer of US corn, boycotted all corn from being imported from
the US.

"The lawsuits being filed in approximately 22 states," Hecker
said, "are to determine if Syngenta was negligent on using the
MIR-162 seed without the permission of the Chinese government.

"Due to the boycott that ran from November 2013 until China
approved the use of MIR-162 on Dec. 16, 2014, agriculture experts
say the cost of the damages involved is in the range of $5
billion.

"As we currently represent 11,000 clients and 10,300 of those
clients have filed suit against Syngenta."

According to Hecker, roughly 90 percent of the lawsuits are filed
in Minnesota where Syngenta is located. But among the state
lawsuits that have been filed, there are federal lawsuits as well.
"It has been up to the growers and producers of how they wish to
file," Hecker said. "There are similarities in what the federal
and state courts do but there are also different procedures each
have to follow. It can be tricky at times but the one thing we are
trying to avoid is the case turning into a class action lawsuit."

Syngenta attempted to have the cases put through the federal court
only by consolidation but Judge John Lungstrum of Kansas City,
Kansas, ruled that the cases filed through the states will remain
at the state level and those filed in federal court would remain
there.

"By keeping the cases on an individual level instead of class
action," Hecker said, "it helps those people who may not have been
growers or producers but their employment still dealt with the
storage of the corn for example, on getting the correct settlement
that best makes sense for them individually.

"If it goes into a class action, it would be a more complicated
version of putting all our eggs in one basket. "Therefore, if it
turns into a class action suit, we will be advising our clients to
opt out and continue on an individual level."

The process of the lawsuits is currently in the stage where both
sides of the lawsuit are exchanging discovery documents along with
depositions. Once that is complete hearings and the pre-trial will
occur followed by the trials themselves.

"We are looking at the first trials occurring somewhere around
mid- late 2016 or early 2017," Hecker said. "We strongly urge
those who may have been effected by the Chinese boycott to contact
us. Each state has a statute of limitations that varies from 2-3
years or 4.

"Kansas has a limitation of 2 years. We currently do not have the
time yet of when that clock started ticking, that hearing hasn't
been scheduled yet.

"I would say for Kansans that if they do not file before January
2016 it may be too late."


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


TRUECAR INC: July 27 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., a global investor rights firm, reminds
purchasers of TrueCar, Inc. common stock during the period of May
16, 2014 through May 20, 2015 of the important July 27, 2015 lead
plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover investors' losses under the federal securities laws.

To join the TrueCar class action, visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-625.html,or contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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 CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT AND REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER.

The complaint alleges that TrueCar made false and/or misleading
statements, and failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, prospects and performance. On
March 9, 2015, a complaint was filed in Federal Court against
TrueCar claiming that car dealers have been injured by the
Company's business practices which violated unfair competition and
deceptive trade practice laws. Then, on May 20, 2015, a lawsuit
was filed against TrueCar in Los Angeles County Superior Court,
claiming that TrueCar violates various laws that govern car sales
in the state including allegations that the company acts as a
dealer and broker in car sales transactions without proper
licensing. This adverse news caused TrueCar's share price to drop
markedly, damaging investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than July 27, 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-625.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.

View source version on businesswire.com:
http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150612005938/en/


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNITED STATES: Attys Want Disability Benefits Suspension Enjoined
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Johnson, writing for Herald-Dispatch, reported that the
Social Security Administration was directed to respond to
attorneys who seek an injunction to block the immediate suspension
of disability benefits to more than 900 people, according to a
court order entered.

It stems from an Inspector General's investigation that revealed
evidence of fraud involving four doctors used by The Conn Law Firm
in Stanville, Kentucky.

That triggered a review of benefit eligibility for approximately
1,500 recipients, including the immediate suspension of benefits
for more than 900 people.

The proposed injunction, sought by attorney Ned Pillersdorf, of
Prestonsburg, Kentucky, would reinstate benefits for everyone
until a hearing can be held.

U.S. District Judge Amul R. Thapar scheduled a telephonic hearing
on the injunction.

Pillersdorf's motion, filed late, linked as many as three suicides
to the suspension notices. He first learned of an Ivel, Ky., man's
death, whose widow he cited in saying the client shot himself.

Pillersdorf urged any overwhelmed clients to contact a medical
professional or suicide hotline.

"I've been worried about this from day one," he said. "Just the
client contact, the panicked voicemails, text messages, emails,
the parade of people in my office -- we've been worried about
this."

Such concern follows the Social Security Administration's move to
suspend disability benefits for more than 900 people during a
review of approximately 1,500 cases, all linked to Kentucky
attorney Eric C. Conn and former Social Security administrative
judge David B. Daugherty of Huntington.

Congressional investigators allege Conn relied upon those medical
experts for false or fraudulent testimony, while Daugherty
assigned those cases to himself and awarded benefits to hundreds
without justification.

Social Security's initial review found none of the estimated 1,500
people qualified for disability benefits based upon evidence not
associated with the four doctors.

That triggered a redetermination of benefits for the 1,500
recipients, more than 900 of whom received immediate suspensions
pending the final outcome of their review.

Pillersdorf didn't dispute the government's need to re-evaluate
the cases, but said he fears that process will take up to a year
and half. That prompted his federal, class-action lawsuit in hopes
of reinstating benefits until a hearing can be held.

U.S. Rep. Evan Jenkins, R-W.Va., and U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky.,
called upon Social Security to give each person more time to
provide medical records to support their original claim, according
to letters sent to Social Security's Acting Commissioner Carolyn
Colvin.

The agency initially gave each recipient 10 days to provide
additional evidence, which would be forwarded to appellate
operations and onto an administrative law judge if the case is
assigned for a hearing.

"While we remain concerned about the alleged fraud and abuse of
(Social Security Disability Insurance) benefits, we believe
consideration should be provided to those individuals that are
rightfully receiving benefits," the congressmen wrote. "Ten days
may not be enough time."

Pillersdorf's federal action represents one of two, class-action
lawsuits filed on behalf of the more than 900 with immediate
suspensions. The other targets Conn accusing the attorney of
negligence and fraud.

Pillersdorf's class won a temporary restraining order in the state
case. It blocks Conn from transferring assets and destroying
evidence related to the case. A final order could be granted
following a hearing set.

Similar lawsuits targeting Conn are filed in West Virginia.

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

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

If you are having thoughts of suicide, call Prestera Center for
Mental Health Services at 800-642-3434 or the National Suicide
Prevention Lifeline at 800-273-8255.


UNITED STATES: Customs Sued Over Detained Immigrants' Treatment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rodrigo Ugarte, writing for Latin Post, reported that a group of
immigrant activist and civil rights groups have filed a class-
action suit on behalf of three people against the U.S. Customs and
Border Patrol, claiming CBP's Tucson area officers violated CBP
policy concerning the detainment and treatment of immigrants.

The American Immigration Council along with the National
Immigration Law Center, the ACLU of Arizona, the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and
Morrison & Foerster LLP on behalf of two unidentified immigrant
women and a Tucson man, according to an AIC press release.

The lawsuit argues the Tucson Sector CBP violated the plaintiffs'
right to due process, established in the Fifth Amendment, as well
as the Administrative Procedure Act.

The complaint lists Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson, CBP
Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske, U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael
J. Fisher, Arizona Joint Field Commander Jeffrey Self, and Chief
Patrol Agent of Tucson Sector Manuel Padilla, Jr. as defendants.
The plaintiffs are the two unnamed women and Norlan Flores.

The complaint argues the CBP in Tucson subjected the plaintiffs,
as well as other detainees, to "inhumane and dangerous conditions"
while under their custody. The facilities operated within Tucson
Sector failed to provide detainees with bedding, appropriate
medical care, soap and basic hygiene necessities as well as
potable water. Pregnant women and children were deprived of warm
clothing and forced to sleep in overcrowded concrete cells
referred to as hieleras or iceboxes.

Detainees were denied access to the outside and were only removed
from the cells for questioning. However, according to CBP policy,
detainees are only meant to be held in holding cells for up to 12
hours. The plaintiffs argue CBP held them in these conditions for
two to three days, violating CBP policy as well as their Fifth
Amendment rights.

The groups interviewed hundreds of detainees and incorporated
their statements to create a picture of the conditions within the
facilities in Tucson Sector.

"The inhumane and dangerous conditions in the Tucson Sector
facilities result in irreparable, ongoing physical and
psychological harm to Plaintiffs and putative class members and
serious risk of future harm," the complaint states.

The class certification motion argues the plaintiffs' right to due
process, which "prohibits the federal government from punishing
people who have not been convicted of a crime," because they are
being held in "punitive, inhumane conditions."

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

According to the Tucson Sentinel, the CBP in the past has refuted
previous claims of immigrant detainees being mistreated and
released a statement saying it takes "safety and welfare of
individuals in its custody seriously."

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

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Arizona and asks
the federal court to ensure the agents follow new guidelines via
court order.


UNUM LIFE: Faces Claims for Accidental Death, Dismemberment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tracy McPike, individually and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Unum Life Insurance Company of
America, a Maine corporation; Unum Group, a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. '15CV1445 AJB JMA (S.D.
Cal., July 1, 2015), seeks to secure all benefits to which
Plaintiff and others similarly situated are entitled under the
accidental death and dismemberment policy underwritten and
administered by UNUM.

Unum Life Insurance Company of America is engaged in the business
of life insurance in the State of California, including the County
of San Diego in the Southern District.

Unum Group is engaged in, and engaged in, the business of
disability insurance in the State of California, including the
County of San Diego in the Southern District.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer L. Connor, Esq.
     Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
     Michael D. Singer, Esq.
     605 C. Street, Suite 200
     San Diego, CA
     Tel: 619/595-3001

          - and -

     Harris Steinberg, Esq.
     5015 Estates Way
     El Cajon, CA 92020
     Tel: 619/441-9734


UPONOR INC: September 10 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
If You Own or Owned Property in Clark County, NV That Contains
High Zinc Content Brass Plumbing Products You Could Benefit From a
Class Action Lawsuit

There is a Settlement in a class action lawsuit filed against
Uponor Inc., Wirsbo Company, and Uponor Wirsbo Inc. ("Uponor") and
certain developers/builders, subcontractors, and
distributors/suppliers ("Other Defendants").  The lawsuit claims
that Uponor's high zinc content brass plumbing fittings and
components are defective and prematurely corrode (or break down).
Uponor and the Other Defendants deny these claims and that they
did anything wrong.

Who is included in the Settlement?

Generally, you may be included in the Settlement if your Las Vegas
Valley home, non-residential property, or the common area of your
home or property contains Uponor brand fittings and plumbing
components made of high zinc content brass ("Uponor Yellow Brass
Fittings").  This Settlement is not about water quality issues
concerning the drinkability of the water supplied by the Southern
Nevada Water Authority.  A separate nationwide Settlement
involving properties outside of Las Vegas has been reached. (Get
more information at the website below.)

What does the Settlement provide?

All eligible property owners will receive an extended, enhanced
warranty on the Uponor Yellow Brass Fittings that provides
benefits for certain property damage, such as leaks or flow
problems.  This includes reimbursement for past repairs and
repairs that become necessary in the future.  The Settlement
will also pay (1) the costs of notice and administration, (2)
special service awards to the Class Representatives, and (3)
attorneys' fees and costs.

How can I get benefits?

Submit a Claim Form by mail. The timing to file a claim varies.
However, if you previously had property damage, you need to file a
claim within 12 months after the Settlement is approved.  For
future property damage, you will need to file a claim within 12
months after the damage occurs.  The amount of any benefit you may
receive will depend on the amount and type of included property
that you own and the damage you have experienced and/or repairs or
replacement needed.  The claims period will run for eight
years from when the Settlement is approved.  Additional details
are in the Settlement Agreement available on the website.

What are my rights?

Even if you do nothing, you will be bound by the Court's
decisions.  If you want to keep your right to sue Uponor and/or
the Other Defendants yourself, you must exclude yourself from the
Settlement by August 19, 2015.  You will give up the possibility
of receiving Settlement benefits, but you will not be bound by the
Court's orders.  If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to
it by August 19, 2015.  Additional details on how to opt out or
object are in the Settlement Agreement available on the website.

The Court will hold a hearing on September 10, 2015 to consider
whether to approve the Settlement, a request for attorneys' fees
and costs up to $22 million, and special service payments of
$5,000 per home or homeowners' association to each of the Class
Representatives.  You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at
the hearing at your own expense.

For More Information: 1-888-227-9828
www.BrassFittingsClass.com

                          *     *     *

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


VIROPHARMA INC: Oct. 29 Settlement Fairness Hearing
---------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Labaton Sucharow LLP
regarding the In re ViroPharma Incorporated Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In re VIROPHARMA INCORPORATED
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02714

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
VIROPHARMA SECURITIES DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN DECEMBER 14, 2011
AND APRIL 19, 2012, INCLUSIVE, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY
("SETTLEMENT CLASS").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, that a
settlement between (i) Lead Plaintiff, on behalf of the Settlement
Class and (ii) ViroPharma Incorporated ("ViroPharma"), Vincent J.
Milano, Charles A. Rowland, Jr., Thomas F. Doyle, and J. Peter
Wolf (collectively "Defendants") in the amount of $8,000,000 to
resolve the captioned action in its entirety has been proposed by
the Settling Parties.

A hearing will be held before the Honorable C. Darnell Jones,
United States District Judge, on October 29, 2015 at 1:00 p.m. at
the James A. Byrne U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106, for the purpose of determining, among
other things, (i) whether the Settlement set forth in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated as of April 28,
2015 ("Settlement Agreement") is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and should be approved; (ii) whether this Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Settlement Agreement;
(iii) whether the Plan of Allocation of the Net Settlement Fund is
fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved; and (iv) the
reasonableness of the application of Lead Counsel for the payment
of attorney's fees and expenses, with interest, incurred in
connection with this Action.  The Court has reserved the right to
reschedule the hearing without further notice.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class described above, your
rights will be affected by this Action and the proposed Settlement
thereof.  If you have not received the detailed Notice of Pendency
of Class Action and Proposed Settlement and Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim form, you may
obtain them by downloading them at
www.viropharmasecuritieslitigation.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator:

ViroPharma Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10179
Dublin, OH 43017-3179
(844) 322-8240

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

          Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
          LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Tel: (888) 219-6877
          Email: jgardner@labaton.com


WASHINGTON: Teachers Sue State Pension System
---------------------------------------------
The Seattle Times, reported that two teachers in the Snoqualmie
Valley School District have filed a class-action lawsuit in
federal court against the state pension system.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of current and former teachers who
transferred their retirement savings from one plan to another in
the state pension system.

The lawsuit claims the state wrongly withheld interest from
teachers when their retirement savings were transferred.

Seattle attorney Steve Festor says his law firm unsuccessfully
pursued the case in Washington state courts before filing it in
federal court.

Festor said his law firm is not sure how much money is owed the
teachers in the class, who he estimates to total about 20,000
people. A similar pension lawsuit filed in Washington on behalf of
another group of teachers was settled for $5.5 million.

A request for comment from the Washington attorney general's
office was not immediately returned on afternoon.

         Steve Festor, Esq.
         BENDICH, STOBAUGH AND STRONG P.C.
         701 Fifth Avenue, Ste 4850 Seattle, WA 98104-7062
         Tel: 206-622-3536
         Fax: 206-622-5759


WATERSHED LLC: Woodberry Kitchen Pastry Cooks Sue Over Unpaid OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Wood, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reported that two
pastry cooks who worked for the Woodberry Kitchen restaurant in
Baltimore are suing the owners, alleging they weren't paid for
overtime.

Christine Giegerich and Amelia Steinman, filed their lawsuit in
U.S. District Court in Baltimore. Both stopped working at
Woodberry earlier.

The employees said Woodberry used a "shift pay" system that
violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Maryland Wage and
Hour Law.

The employees were required to work a minimum of 10 hours per day
in order to earn their daily pay, which ranged from $75 to $130.
If they worked fewer than 10 hours, they would not be paid at all,
they contend in the lawsuit.

The employees also said they were required to work five days per
week, which pushed their total work week to 50 hours or more, but
they were not paid overtime.

"Through this unlawful scheme, Defendants willfully and
intentionally evaded the payment of wages owed to Plaintiffs and
others," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit was filed against Watershed LLC, the parent company of
Baltimore restaurants Woodberry Kitchen in Woodberry, Parts &
Labor in Remington, Artifact Coffee in Hampden and the now-
shuttered Shoo-Fly in Belvedere Square. The lawsuit also names
owners Spike and Amy Gjerde.

Spike Gjerde did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

He was honored in May with a James Beard Award for best chef in
the Mid-Atlantic region. The Gjerdes' restaurants are known for
their farm-to-table menus.

The pastry cooks allege that other employees also were harmed by
the "shift pay" system and are seeking class-action status. They
are seeking back pay with interest, as well as attorneys' fees.

Giegerich and Steinman are represented by James A. Lanier and
Benjamin L. Davis III of the Law Offices of Peter T. Nicholl, who
could not be reached for comment.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


WILLMARK COMMUNITIES: Says Renters Class Suit 'Without Merit'
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Mecija, writing for ABC10 News, reported that more local
renters have come forward to Team 10, voicing concerns over a
property management company accused of charging extra money when
renters move out.

Willmark Communities operates several apartment complexes
throughout San Diego County. Recently, a class-action lawsuit was
filed against the company, alleging the company kept security
deposits, fraud and elder abuse.

One woman told Team 10 she has known about the problems for a
couple of years because she had to take the company to court.

"You did me wrong so I'm going to do what I have to do to get my
security deposit back," said former renter Anita Trachta.

Trachta lived in one of Willmark's apartment complexes for a few
months in 2013. When she moved into another apartment, also
operated by Willmark, management told her she would get her more
than $500 security deposit returned.

"After approximately 30 days, I hadn't received any check in the
mail," Trachta said.

She called the main office several times, but was unsuccessful in
reaching anyone to help her.

Trachta said she finally reached someone who said a replacement
check was being sent.

"I never received a check back when it was supposedly mailed
twice," Trachta said.

Trachta, who has years of experience in property management, sued.
She settled with management, who eventually paid her back her
deposit as well as $200 extra.

She is not the only one who made a similar complaint.

Diana Davis used to live in Alpine Woods in Alpine. She told Team
10 she did not get her deposit returned either.

"I've rented at a few places and never experienced something like
this," Davis said.

The new class-action lawsuit alleges one former Willmark employee
said they would charge tenants for "whatever [they] could get away
with."

The California Civil Code says deposits can be used to "return the
unit to the same level of cleanliness" as when the person moved
in. It also says deposit money should be returned within 21 days.

Nobody at the main office would comment to Team 10, but Willmark
Communities' lawyer said the lawsuit is "without merit."

The company's attorney, Lane Webb of Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman
LLP, sent this statement to Team 10:

Webb also told Team 10 a form that residents can fill out for
complaints has been around for five years.

Former tenants Team 10 spoke with said they have never seen that
form and nobody in management ever directed them to the phone
number and email address Willmark's attorney provided.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Mr. Harke may be reached at:

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


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Ma. Cristina
Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan,
Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A.
Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2015. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *