CAR_Public/150728.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 28, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 149


                            Headlines


4JLJ LLC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ACXIOM CORPORATION: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 29
ADVANCED SOLIDS CONTROL: Bid to Amend Complaint Denied
ALABAMA: Inmate Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action, Judge Says
ALAMEDA, CA: Illegally Collects Utility Users Tax, Suit Claims

ALCOVE ASSISTED: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ALFOCCINO INC: 6th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment Order
ALIPHCOM: Court Narrows Claims in "Frenzel" Suit Over Jawbone
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Mochrie" Suit for TCPA Violation
AMADEUS IT: Sued in N.Y. Over Collection of Excessive GDS Fees

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Giordano" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Hardimon" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Nathanson" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing
APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Jason Feola Files Class Action
ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Teamsters' Class Suit Dismissed

ATAMI ON 2ND: Faces "Cao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AUTO PARTS: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AVON CANADA: Recalls Nut Choppers Due to Injury Hazard
AXA EQUITABLE LIFE: "Shuster" Suit Remanded to NJ Superior Court
BDE INC: Faces "Jenkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Hacked Legal Files, Class Action Claims
BEST BUY: Judge Recommends Final Approval of "Roeser" Settlement
BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls DaVinci Brand Cribs Due to Fall Risk
BIOLASE INC: Oct. 9 Class Certification Hearing Set
BMW: Recalls 2014 Mini Cooper & Cooper S Due to Noncompliance

BOEING COMPANY: 7th Cir. Sends Passengers' Suit to N.D. Cal.
BOB EVANS: Fails to Pay Workers OT Wages, "Lorusso" Suit Claims
BRASKEM SA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
BULLDOG SERVICES: Faces "Middleton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Noteholders' Suit v. Parent Can Proceed

CALIFORNIA: Court Rules on Inmate's Claims
CAMMAN CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Breach of Contract
CITIGROUP INC: ERISA Plaintiffs' Bid for Reconsideration Denied
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
COVISINT CORP: Filed Motion to Dismiss 2 Putative Class Actions

CVS CAREMARK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Handicap Parking
CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Trims Securities Class Action
DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Reiferson" Suit Over Cox Merger
DELAWARE NORTH: Volunteer Files Suit vs. Concession Operators
DETREX CORPORATION: Sued in Ohio Over Noxious Odor Emission

DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: 4th Dist. Affirms Ruling in "Golba" Case
DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Faces Restraint of Trade Suit in Calif. Court
DIRECTV LLC: Removed "Flynn" Suit to Connecticut District Court
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
DJ ENGINEERING: Court Decertifies Engineer Class

DOLGENCORP LLC: "Farr" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ENTRE CORP: Faces "Deas" Suit in M.D. Fla. Over FDCPA Violation
FAIRWAY GROUP: Defending Securities Class Action
FAIRWAY GROUP: Agreed in Principle to Settle Wage and Hour Action
FIORENTINO RISTORANTE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

FLASH CATERING: "Notarmuzi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FLYNN'S RESTAURANT: Fails to Distribute Workers Tips, Suit Claims
FMS INC: N.D. Ill. Judge Throws Out "Gonzalez" FDCPA Suit
FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Class Suit Over Power Steering Defect
FRANK'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

FXCM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
GLOBE LIFE: Removed "Proctor" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOME DEPOT: At Least 57 Class Actions Filed Over Data Breach
ILLINOIS: Dismissal of Class Suit v. School District 303 Affirmed

INSULET CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit
JAPAN: Faces "You" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged War-Time Sex Slavery
KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Must Face Former Players' Class Suit
KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in Del. Over Allergan Merger
LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP To Refund Overcharged Customers

LOUISANA: 5th Cir. Rules on Inmate's Appeal
MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: FLSA Case Wins Conditional Certification
MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint Denied
MEXICAN RADIO: "Spiciarich" Suit Transferred to N.D.N.Y.
MISSION BAY: Bid for Class Certification Granted

MISSOURI: Court Dismisses Inmate's Complaint
MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Class Certification Bid in CRT Suit Granted
MOVADO GROUP: Individual Plaintiff Files Class Action
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Hall" FDCPA Class Action Goes to Trial
NESTLE USA: Faces "Gyorke-Takatri" Suit Over Product Misbranding

NEW DOMINION: Okla. High Ct. Allows Earthquake Suit to Continue
NISSIN FOODS: Court Trims "Guttman" Suit Over Noodles
OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Court Rules on Joint Combined Motion in Limine
OCWEN FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in "Adelson" Case
OHANA MILITARY: Summary Judgment Bid Denied in Pesticides Suit

OM GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Probes Acquisition by Apollo Funds
OPENGATE CAPITAL: Removed "Mitra" Class Suit to C.D. California
PENINSULA GRILL: Clement May Join FLSA Class Suit, Court Says
PENNY NEWMAN: Wins Initial Approval of Employee Case Settlement
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Princeton Joins Wyoming in Wet Wipes Suit

QUALITY SYSTEMS: Briefing in Appeal to be Completed
QUALITY SYSTEMS: Facing Foss, Deerfield Class Actions
RIGHT CHOICE: Court Sends "Thomas" FLSA Suit to Arbitration
RITA'S FRANCHISE: Faces "Newby" Suit in Pa. Over TCPA Violation
ROBERT DERING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages

ROCK CREEK: Entered Into MOU to Settle with Jonnie Williams
SPRINT CORP: Final Deal Approval Hearing on August 5
SPRINT CORP: Settlement in Process of Administration
SPRINT CORP: Richard Wuest Action in Early Stages
SPRINT CORP: Lindsay Class Action in Early Stages

SPRINT CORP: Discovery Ongoing Clearwire Stockholders Action
STATE FARM: Bid to Certify Question to Ky. High Court Overruled
STATE FARM: 5th Cir. Rules on Appeals in "Rigsby" Suit
SURVEYING ACCESSORIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TETLEY USA: Bid to File 4th Amended Complaint Denied

TRANSURBAN: Va. Drivers Sue Over Penalties for Unpaid Toll Fees
UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss "Agarwal" Amended Suit Denied
UNIV. OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Greer" Bias Suit Dismissed
VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES: Settlements in CRT Class Suit Win Initial OK
WAL-MART STORES: "Phipps" Class Claims May Proceed, 6th Cir. Says

WALGREEN CO: Father of 'Bottle Bill' Sues Over Bottle Redemptions
WESTERN POWER: Class Suit Over Perth Hills Bush Fire Advances
WILLOW INC: Sued by Homeowners in Harvey Gated Community
XOOM CORP: Faces "Beverly" Suit Over Proposed PayPal Merger

* Hausfeld Inks $19.5-Mil. Settlement in Potatoes Antitrust Suit



                            *********


4JLJ LLC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Edwards, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 4JLJ, LLC d/b/a J4 Oilfield Services, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00299 (S.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

4JLJ, LLC provides equipment and services to the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Burdett Moulton, Esq.
      MOULTON AND PRICE PC
      109 SH 110 S
      Whitehouse, TX 75791
      Telephone: (903) 871-3163
      E-mail: jim@moultonprice.com


ACXIOM CORPORATION: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acxiom Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing on whether to grant
final approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit is
tentatively scheduled for July 29, 2015.

On August 16, 2012, a putative class action styled Henderson, et
al. v. Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc., et al. was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
against the Company, Acxiom Information Security Systems, a former
subsidiary of the Company that was sold to another company in
fiscal 2012, and Acxiom Risk Mitigation, Inc. (now known as Acxiom
Identity Solutions, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company), a
subsidiary of the Company.  The action seeks to certify nationwide
classes of persons who requested a consumer file from any Acxiom
entity from 2007 forward; who were the subject of an Acxiom report
sold to a third party that contained information not obtained
directly from a governmental entity and who did not receive a
timely copy of the report; who were the subject of an Acxiom
report and about whom Acxiom adjudicated the hire/no hire decision
on behalf of the employer; who, from 2010 forward,  disputed an
Acxiom report and Acxiom did not complete the investigation within
30 days; or who, from 2007 forward, were the subject of an Acxiom
report for which no permissible purpose existed.

The complaint alleges various violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified amount
of statutory, compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees
and costs. The parties have reached a settlement agreement and the
Company has accrued $3.7 million as its estimate of its probable
loss associated with this matter.

On April 21, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the class
action settlement.  A hearing on whether to grant final approval
of the settlement is tentatively scheduled for July 29, 2015.  The
Company believes the chances of additional loss are remote.


ADVANCED SOLIDS CONTROL: Bid to Amend Complaint Denied
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jason B. Libby denied the plaintiff's motion to
amend the complaint in the case captioned ZACH WESTBROOK, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED SOLIDS CONTROL, LLC, Defendant, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-131 (S.D. Tex., Corpus Christi Div.).

On April 21, 2014, an "opt in" collective action was brought
against Advanced Solids Control, alleging that Advanced Solids
failed to pay its solids control technicians overtime as required
by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Motion For Leave to File First
Amended Complaint, seeking to add state law claims under the New
Mexico Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs also sought to bring their
originally filed FLSA opt-in cause of action simultaneously with a
traditional opt-out class action lawsuit under Rule 23 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Finding substantial reason to deny the motion, Judge Libby held
that plaintiffs have not articulated a reason to grant the
amendment or an explanation why the amendment is sought at this
stage of the litigation.

A copy of the July 15, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/hZDIqSfrom Leagle.com.

Zach Westbrook, Guadalupe Lara, David Joseph R. Baeza, Jr., Rodney
W. Williams, Maurice Wortham, John Johnson, Raul Gamboa, John D
Gerva, Mark A Allen, Corry Youngblood, Luis De La Cruz, William M.
Rowley, Craig Brockway, Ronnie Washington, Johnathon Carey, Jeremy
R Jones, Emmanuel Madison, Humberto Montes, Terry L Stevenson,
Jesse Catalan, Maura G. Lara, Johnny A. Jackson, Frank Menchaca,
Cory Otlewski, Lowell D Bartlett, Alejandro Ledezma, Gerald I
Trujillo, Epolito G Lara, Jonathan C Head, Jason Morris, and
Robert S Golden, Plaintiffs, represented by Richard J Burch,
Bruckner Burch PLLC, Andrew Dunlap, Fibich Hampton et al, Lindsay
Rae Itkin, Fibich Leebron et al & Michael A Josephson, Fibich,
Hampton, LeeBron, Briggs & Josephson, LLP.

Advanced Solids Control, LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael D
Seale -- mseale@craincaton.com -- CRAIN CATON & JAMES PC & Juliann
Hale Panagos -- jpanagos@craincaton.com -- Crain Caton & James PC.


ALABAMA: Inmate Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action, Judge Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Charles S. Coody recommended the denial of the
Motion for Class Certification filed in the case captioned NILES
HAMPTON HARE, #135983, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT BENTLEY, et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-CV-710-MHT (M.D. Ala., Northern
Div.).

A complaint was filed by Niles Hampton Hare, a state inmate,
challenging actions taken with respect to the deduction of funds
from his work release earnings. On June 4, 2015, Hare filed a
motion for class certification under Rule 23, seeking to represent
the interests of all inmates currently participating in the prison
system's work release program.

Judge Coody held that a pro se inmate does not have sufficient
competence to litigate the claims of other individuals. Among the
requirements to maintain an action as a class action is that the
"representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class."

A copy of the June 16, 2015 recommendation is available at
http://is.gd/7UUtkkfrom Leagle.com.

Niles Hampton Hare, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Robert Bentley, Kim Thomas, Sharon McSwain-Holland, and Alabama
Department of Corrections, Defendants, represented by Albert Sim
Butler, Alabama Department of Corrections.


ALAMEDA, CA: Illegally Collects Utility Users Tax, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Clyde Grossman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. City of Alameda and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. RG15777784 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 14, 2015), arises out
of the Defendants' alleged illegal collection of Utility Users Tax
for mobile phone services and long distance telephone services.

The City of Alameda is located within Alameda County and has a
population of approximately 76,419 residents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
      Howard B. Miller, Esq.
      Robert Finnerty, Esq.
      Christopher Aumais, Esq.
      Alexandra T. Steele, Esq.
      Carlos Urzua, Esq.
      GIRARDI KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
      Telephone: (213) 977-0211

         - and -
      Thomas S. Slovak, Esq.
      SLOVAK, BARON, EMPEY, MURPHY & PINKNEY, LLP
      1800 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
      Palm Springs, CA 92262
      Telephone: (760) 322-2275
      Facsimile: (760) 322-2107
      E-mail: sartain@sbemp.com


ALCOVE ASSISTED: "Smith" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Smith, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Alcove Assisted Living Facility, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01655-CEH-
TBM (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Alcove Assisted Living Facility, Inc. owns and operates an elder
care facility in Pinellas County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William John Gadd, Esq.
      W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      Suite 250, 2727 Ulmerton Rd
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      Facsimile: (727) 524-6330
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


ALFOCCINO INC: 6th Cir. Reverses Summary Judgment Order
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IMHOFF INVESTMENT, L.L.C., Plaintiff, AVIO,
INC., a Michigan corporation, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ALFOCINO, INC.; D. TALIERCIO INVESTMENTS,
INC.; FARSHID SHUSHTARI, Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-1704 (6th
Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
reversed the district court's order granting summary judgment to
Alfoccino and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Avio, Inc. sued Alfoccino for allegedly violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by hiring Business to Business
Solutions ("B2B") to send unsolicited facsimile advertisements to
Avio and a class of similarly situated persons.

The district court granted Alfoccino's motion for summary
judgment. It dismissed Avio's case for lack of Article III
standing and because Avio could not prove Alfoccino was
vicariously liable for B2B's transmission of the faxes.

The appellate court, however, found that Avio has demonstrated
that it does have Article III standing to bring its claim. The
appellate court also found that primary, not vicarious liability
attaches to Alfoccino under the TCPA. It explained that the
pertinent regulations of the Federal Communications Commission are
explicit that the party whose goods or services are advertised -
and not the fax broadcaster - is the sender.

A copy of the July 7, 2015 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/d3MOHKfrom Leagle.com.

ON BRIEF: Phillip A. Bock -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK &
HATCH, LLC, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellant.

John R. Prew, Jason R. Mathers -- jmathers@harveykruse.com --
HARVEY KRUSE, P.C., Troy, Michigan, for Appellees.


ALIPHCOM: Court Narrows Claims in "Frenzel" Suit Over Jawbone
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted in part and denied in
part the motion to dismiss filed in the case captioned ROBERT
FRENZEL, Plaintiff, v. ALIPHCOM, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-03587-
WHO (N.D. Cal.).

On August 7, 2014, a suit was filed by Robert Frenzel against
Aliphcom dba Jawbone. Frenzel accused Jawbone of fraudulently
inducing him to purchase a Jawbone UP fitness tracker wristband
through misrepresentations regarding the device's battery life and
general functionality. The complaint asserted the following causes
of action against Jawbone:

     (1) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
("CLRA"),

     (2) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law
("UCL"),

     (3) violations of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"),

     (4) breach of express warranty,

     (5) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability; and

     (6) breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose.

After the dismissal of his original complaint, Frenzel filed a
first amended complaint ("FAC") based on two theories: (1)that
Jawbone misrepresented that Jawbone UP "retains its [battery]
charge for 10 days when fully charged;" and (2)that Jawbone
misrepresented that the device "would accurately 'track' and
'measure' a user's movement, sleep patterns, and calorie intake."
Jawbone moved to dismiss, contending that both theories are
defective under Rule 9(b).

Judge Orrick declined to hold that California's choice of law
rules prohibit Frenzel from maintaining his claims against
Jawbone, and denied the motion to dismiss on this ground.

Judge Orrick also denied the motion to dismiss Frenzel's CLRA,
UCL, and FAL claims based his battery life theory, finding it
sufficient that Frenzel has alleged how long after he acquired
each device it began lasting only a few hours or a day.

Jawbone's motion to dismiss Frenzel's CLRA, UCL, and FAL claims
arising from the functionality theory was however, granted. Judge
Orrick held that general statements about a product's
functionality - as opposed to statements regarding the product's
quality or reliability - do not become actionable on an
affirmative misrepresentation theory merely because the product
fails to work perfectly.

Judge Orrick also dismissed Frenzel's warranty claims because
Frenzel did not allege in the FAC that Jawbone failed to repair or
replace either of his devices during the applicable warranty
periods.

A copy of the July 7, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/cE5z6ofrom Leagle.com.

Robert Frenzel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Julia A. Luster --
jluster@bursor.com -- Bursor and Fisher, P.A., Annick Marie
Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher, P.A. &
Lawrence Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Bursor & Fisher,
P.A..

Aliphcom, doing business as Jawbone, Defendant, represented by
Mortimer H. Hartwell -- mhartwell@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS
LLP, Howard Holderness -- holdernessh@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig & Jeremy Noah Lateiner -- jlateiner@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Faces "Mochrie" Suit for TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Holly Mochrie, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-00855-TJM-ATB
(N.D.N.Y., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeanne Lahiff, Esq.
      8 Cayuga Road
      Cranford, NJ 07016
      Telephone: (862) 812-0623
      E-mail: rsvp2jeanne@gmail.com


AMADEUS IT: Sued in N.Y. Over Collection of Excessive GDS Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gordon, et al. v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-05457 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2015), is an action for damages
as a result of the Defendants' anticompetitive practices,
specifically by charging supra-competitive "global distribution
systems" (GDS) fees that have inflated ticket prices for airline
passengers.

Amadeus IT Group, S.A. is a provider of GDS services to the
Airlines and other air carriers operating to, from, and within the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
      Mayra V. Tarantino, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com
              mtarantino@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
      Mindee J. Rueben, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
      1521 Locust Street, 7th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (267) 519-8306
      Facsimile: (215) 569-0958
      E-mail: sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com
              mreuben@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Renae D. Steiner, Esq.
      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      James W. Anderson, Esq.
      Ian F. McFarland, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS &OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Telephone: (612) 338-4605
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4692
      E-mail: vesades@heinsmills.com
              rsteiner@heinsmills.com
              janderson@heinsmills.com
              imcfarland@heinsmills.com

         - and -

      Douglas A. Millen, Esq.
      William H. London, Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON &MILLEN, LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      Facsimile: (224) 632-4521
      E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com
              wlondon@fklmlaw.com
              mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

         - and -

      Robert G. Eisler, Esq.
      Peter A. Barile, Esq.
      GRANT &EISENHOFER, PA
      485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com
              pbarile@gelaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
      Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
      Ryan J. McEwan, Esq.
      JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC.
      505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 500-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
      E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
              jdavis@saverilawfirm.com
              rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com

         - and -

      Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
      Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
      BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
      Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
      Philadelphia, PA 19130
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
      E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
              jgittleman@barrack.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
      Michael J. Kane, Esq.
      BERGER &MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3009
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
              mkane@bm.net

         - and -

      Joseph Goldberg, Esq.
      Vincent J. Ward, Esq.
      Josh Ewing, Esq.
      Frank T. Davis, Esq.
      FREEDMAN BOYD HOLLANDER GOLDBERG URIAS & WARD P.A.
      20 First Plaza, Suite 700
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 842-9960
      Facsimile: (505) 842-0761
      E-mail: jg@fbdlaw.com
              vjw@fbdlaw.com
              je@fbdlaw.com
              ftd@fbdlaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
      Dena C. Sharp, Esq.
      GIRARD GIBBS LLP
      601 California Street, 14th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 981-4800
      Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
      E-mail: dcg@GirardGibbs.com
              chc@GirardGibbs.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey S. Istvan, Esq.
      Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
      FINE KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 567-6565
      Facsimile: (215) 568-5872
      E-mail: jistvan@finekaplan.com
              apessin@finekaplan.com

         - and -

      Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
      Ronnie Seidel Spiegel, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 268-9352
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: tony@hbsslaw.com
              ronnie@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      KARON LLC
      700 West Saint Clair Avenue, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 622-1851
      Facsimile: (216) 241-8175
      E-mail: dkaron@karonllc.com

         - and -

      R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
      SAVERI &SAVERI, INC.
      706 Sansome Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: rsaveri@saveri.com

         - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF &WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      Facsimile: (215) 496-6611
      E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com

         - and -

      Andrew J. McGuiness, Esq.
      ANDREW J.MCGUINNESS, ESQ.
      122 South Main Street, Suite 118
      P.O. Box 7711
      Ann Arbor, MI 48107-7711
      Telephone: (734) 274-9374
      Facsimile: (734) 786-9935
      E-mail: drewmcg@topclasslaw.com

         - and -

      Harry Shulman, Esq.
      SHULMAN LAW
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3830
      San Francisco, CA 94104-4811
      Telephone: (415) 901-0505
      Facsimile: (415) 901-0506
      E-mail: harry@shulmanlawfirm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Giordano" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lois Giordano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-02310-M (N.D. Tex., July 13, 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 operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Caddell, Esq.
      Cynthia B. Chapman, Esq.
      CADDELL & CHAPMAN
      1331 Lamar St., Suite 1070
      Houston TX 77010
      Telephone: (713) 751-0400
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0906
      E-mail: mac@caddellchapman.com
              cbc@caddellchapman.com

         - and -

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 W. Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail: BFJ@Chimicles.com
              AWF@Chimicles.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Hardimon" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Hardimon, 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. 2:15-
cv-03881-GAM (E.D. Pa., July 13, 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 operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark S. Goldman, Esq.
      Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
      Brian D. Penny, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
      101 E. Lancaster Ave Suite 204
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      E-mail: goldman@gsk-law.com
              scarlato@gsk-law.com
              penny@gsk-law.com

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Nathanson" Suit Alleges Ticket Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judah Nathanson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-04101-ENV-VVP (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 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 operate the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory A. Frank, Esq.
      Marvin L. Frank, Esq.
      Bridget V. Hamill, Esq.
      Asher Hawkins, Esq.
      FRANK & BIANCO LLP
      275 Madison Avenue, Suite 705
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 682-1853
      Facsimile: (212) 682-1892
      E-mail: gfrank@frankandbianco.com
              mfrank@frankandbianco.com
              bhamill@frankandbianco.com
              ahawkins@frankandbianco.com


APPLIANCE RECYCLING: Jason Feola Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Appliance Recycling Centers of America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
27, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a
complaint was filed on March 6, 2015, in United States District
Court for the Central District of California by Jason Feola,
individually and as a representative of a class consisting of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 15, 2012
and February 11, 2015, against Appliance Recycling Centers of
America, Inc. and certain current and former officers of the
Company.  Mr. Feola, pursuant to terms of his retainer agreement
with The Rosen Law Firm, certified that he purchased 240 shares of
the Company's common stock for $984 in total consideration.

"To our knowledge, neither the Company nor the individual
defendants have been served the complaint. The complaint alleges
that misstatements and omissions occurred in press releases and
filings by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and that these misstatements or omissions constitute violations of
Section 20 (a) and Section 10(b) of, and Rule 10b-5 under, the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  This matter has been forwarded
to our insurance carrier and we intend to contest vigorously the
claims made in the complaint," the Company said.


ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS: Teamsters' Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County granted the
Motion to Dismiss filed in the case captioned TEAMSTERS LOCAL 237
WELFARE FUND, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP and ZENECA,
INC., Defendants, C.A. NO. N04C-11-191 VLM (Del., New Castle
County).

In November 18, 2004, a class action suit was filed by six New
York-based health care funds against Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals,
L.P. and Zeneca, Inc. alleging consumer fraud, unjust enrichment,
and negligent misrepresentation in connection with Astrazeneca's
marketing of its prescription heartburn medication, Nexium. On
March 3, 2005, Astrazeneca moved to dismiss.

The Superior Court of Delaware granted Astrazeneca's motion and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a
claim under applicable law.

A copy of the July 8, 2015 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/6XEQhrfrom Leagle.com.

A. Zachary Naylor -- ZN@chimicles.com -- Esquire, Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP, Wilmington, DE, Attorney for Plaintiffs.

Michael P. Kelly, Esquire -- mkelly@mccarter.com -- McCarter &
English, LLP, Wilmington, DE, Attorney for Defendants.


ATAMI ON 2ND: Faces "Cao" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yi Cao, Bin Dou, Zhiwei Yuan, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Atami on 2nd Avenue Inc., d/b/a Atami
Japanese Fusion, Michael "Doe", Judy "Doe", Joe "Doe", Jenny
"Doe", Qiu Ru Dong, and Jian Zeng Lin, Case No. 1:15-cv-05434
(S.D.N.Y., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40
each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with a principal
address at 1167 2nd Avenue, New York, NY 10065.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


AUTO PARTS: "Moore" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Moore v. Auto Parts Group Southwest, LLC, d/b/a Pick-N-Pull
Auto Dismantling and Used Auto Sales, Case No. 4:15-cv-00425-JM
(E.D. Ark., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of purchasing used and salvage
vehicles from tow companies, private parties, auto auctions,
charities and insurance companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Sanford, Esq.
      Joshua Lee West, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      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
              west@sanfordlawfirm.com


AVON CANADA: Recalls Nut Choppers Due to Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 15, 2015
Posting date: July 15, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54198

This recall involves nut choppers sold by Avon. The product
consists of two transparent plastic compartments, a stainless
steel chopping mechanism, a steel and plastic crank and a non-skid
rubberized base. The plastic parts of the nut chopper are orange.
The lower compartment has a capacity of 1 1/4 cups (12.7 x 7.6 x
17.3 cm high). The recalled product can be identified by the UPC
094000870954 and date code F3730731.

Avon has identified a potential problem with the chopping teeth,
which can bend or break, posing an injury hazard. Bits of the
blades can end up in food.

In Canada, Avon Canada has received one report of an incident
related to breakage of one of the chopping teeth after several
uses of the product. No injuries were reported. Health Canada has
received no reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of these products.

In the United States, Avon Products Inc. has received six reports
from consumers of the chopping teeth bending or breaking. No
injuries were reported.

Approximately 5,097 recalled choppers were sold in Canada, and
approximately 26,063 were sold the United States.

The recalled products were sold from June to December 2013 through
the network of Avon representatives.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Shenyuan Bamboo et Wood Products (Jiayuan Co. Ltd.)
              Hong Kong
              CHINA

Distributor: Avon Canada ULC
             Pointe Claire
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the nut choppers and
contact Avon for a refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Avon Canada toll-free
at 1-800-265-2866, Monday to Friday from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm EST,
or visit Avon Canada's website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/Kl2vWp


AXA EQUITABLE LIFE: "Shuster" Suit Remanded to NJ Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert B. Kugler remanded to the Superior Court of
New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County, the case captioned ARLENE
SHUSTER, Plaintiff, v. AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, CIVIL NO. 14-8035 (RBK/JS) (D.N.J., Camden Vicinage).

On November 17, 2014, Arlene Shuster brought a state law breach of
contract class action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Camden County, alleging that AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Company ("AXA") violated New York law by implementing an
investment strategy for certain investment accounts without
properly obtaining approval from the New York State Department of
Financial Services ("DFS").

AXA removed the case to district court on December 29, 2014.
Shortly after AXA's Notice of Removal was filed, Shuster filed a
Motion to remand the action to state court.

AXA opposed Shuster's motion and also asked for the dismissal of
the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending
that the case is precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"). Shuster maintained that remand is
appropriate because the purported state law claims are not subject
to preclusion under SLUSA.

Judge Kugler found that AXA has failed to satisfy its required
showing in order to remove and dismiss the action pursuant to
SLUSA, and as such, remand is required. He held that though
misrepresentation appears to be a material element of the claim,
there is no indication that it was a misrepresentation made in
connection with the purchase or sale of covered securities.

A copy of the July 14, 2015 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/swn5xffrom Leagle.com.

ARLENE SHUSTER, ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by SUNG-MIN LEE -- SLee@lowey.com
-- LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART PC.

AXA EQUITABLE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, represented by
ANDREW MUSCATO -- andrew.muscato@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS,
SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP & CARL D. POPLAR.


BDE INC: Faces "Jenkins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zantrail Tramel Jenkins, on his own behalf and others similarly
situated v. BDE, Inc., d/b/a Taco Bell, Case No. 8:15-cv-01648-
JDW-TBM (M.D. Fla., July 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

BDE, Inc. operates as a part of the nationwide chain of
restaurants that serves customers traveling from all parts of the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William John Gadd, Esq.
      W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      Suite 250, 2727 Ulmerton Rd
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      Facsimile: (727) 524-6330
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Hacked Legal Files, Class Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
major worker's compensation insurers, including a Berkshire
Hathaway company, hacked into thousands of confidential legal
files to save money on judgments and settlements, an Angeleno
claims in a federal class action.

Hector Casillas claims the insurers "hacked into privileged and
confidential litigation files of thousands of individuals
litigating worker's compensation cases against them. The
defendants stole these files from servers used by law firms
representing the individual litigants and used the illegally
obtained information to obtain a litigation advantage."

The insurance company defendants are Berkshire Hathaway Homestate
Companies, Cypress Insurance and Zenith Insurance. Other corporate
defendants are Broadspire Claims Services and the Knox Ricksen law
firm.

Also named as defendants are attorneys Eric Danowitz, Daniel
Sharp, Russell Ching and Stella Mendoza, Berkshire Hathaway
Homestate Companies investigator William Reynolds and Zenith
employee Oliver Glover.

"Their corrupt conduct evidenced a total disregard for the
integrity of the judicial system," Casillas said in the June 23
complaint.

It continues: "The American system of justice depends upon fair
play in an impartial forum. A fair and impartial forum for rich
and poor alike is [a] central feature of the American way of life
and is important to our national reputation."

Casillas claims the insurers hacked into tens of thousands legal
files, including about 5,000 from Reyes & Barsoum, a prominent
worker's compensation law firm in California.

Casillas, a client of Reyes & Barsoum, says the lawsuit "is
directed against those powerful insurance companies and their co-
conspirators who, because of their immense wealth and power, acted
as if they were above the law."

The insurers are among the nation's largest underwriters of
worker's compensation insurance and provide coverage for a large
percentage of workers in California, Casillas says.

He claims they hired investigators who "hacked into and stole
stored confidential attorney-client files in cases in which they
were the insurer" and hired Knox Ricksen, which "willingly and
knowingly participated" in the scheme, to gain a legal advantage.

He claims that attorneys for Reyes & Barsoum first suspected the
hacking during an April 20, 2014 hearing when attorneys Ching and
Mendoza revealed they had Casillas' "attorney-privileged intake
packet" that bore Rony M. Barsoum's name at the top of the first
page and contained the retainer agreement Casillas had signed.

When the judge asked how Ching and Mendoza had obtained the
confidential file, they gave several explanations before saying
they didn't know, Casillas says.

The judge declared the documents to be protected by attorney-
client privilege and ordered Ching and Mendoza to turn them over
to Reyes & Barsoum, along with any others that might turn up after
a "diligent search," the complaint states.

Defendant Danowitz later told law firm partner Jorge Reyes that
the confidential documents were downloaded from the website for HG
Sign-Up Services, with whom Reyes & Barsoum have an agreement to
provide services for clients who can't come to the law office due
to financial, physical or transportation reasons, Casillas says.

He claims that defendant investigators Reynolds and Glover worked
for the insurers and "implemented a scheme to wrongfully engage in
continuous cyber attacks over a period of years" to obtain and use
thousands of confidential documents to gain a legal advantage and
"save huge sums in judgments or settlements."

Casillas says all of the defendants conspired in the hacking
scheme on a nationwide basis.

He seeks class certification, disgorgement, an injunction and
exemplary damages for fraud, conversion, invasion of privacy,
interference with prospective economic advantage, and violations
of the Stored Communications Act, the Electronic Privacy Act,
California's Business and Professions Code and the state's
Computer Data Access and Fraud Act.

He is represented by Mark Ravis, who was not immediately available
for comment. Nor were representatives for Reyes & Barsoum or Knox
Ricksen.


BEST BUY: Judge Recommends Final Approval of "Roeser" Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Peter Roeser, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Best Buy Co., Inc.;
Best Buy Stores, L.P.; BBY Solutions, Inc.; Bestbuy.com, LLC; and
Geek Squad; Defendants, CASE NO. 13-CV-1968 (JRT/HB) (D. Minn.),
Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended (1) granting the
plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action
settlement, and (2) granting in part and denying in part
plaintiff's motion for class representative service award and for
an award of fees, costs, and expenses to settlement class counsel.

On July 22, 2013, a putative class action was filed against Geek
Squad's "Home Networking Made Simple" (HNMS) product, alleging the
following causes of action: (1) consumer fraud, (2) false
advertising, (3) deceptive trade practices, (4) unlawful trade
practices, (5) breach of contract, and (6) unjust enrichment.

The parties engaged in mediation and reached a settlement
agreement which was granted preliminary approval after a hearing
on January 6, 2015. The final approval hearing was set for April
9, 2015.

Judge Bowbeer found the proposed settlement fair, reasonable, and
adequate and recommended that it be granted final approval.

Plaintiff sought a class representative service award in the
amount of $2,000 in the form of a Best Buy gift card. Judge
Bowbeer recommended that the award be approved, finding it to be a
reasonable award to compensate the class representative for his
work in initiating the case, gathering documents for production,
and assisting class counsel.

In determining the reasonableness of class counsel's requested
fees, Judge Bowbeer adopted the lodestar method but declined to
recommend applying a multiplier to the lodestar amount. He
recommended $358,182.25 as a reasonable fee award.

Finally, Judge Bowbeer found that the costs and expenses amounting
to $21,357.82 are reasonable, are typical of costs and expenses
ordinarily charged to clients, and were necessary to the
resolution of the litigation.

A copy of the June 17, 2015 report and recommendation is available
at http://is.gd/VOoisafrom Leagle.com.


BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls DaVinci Brand Cribs Due to Fall Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 15, 2015
Posting date: July 15, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Identification number: RA-54188

This recall includes specific models of the DaVinci brand cribs
manufactured between May 2012 and December 2012.

The affected DaVinci brand cribs include the following models:

  Model Name    Model Number    Purchase Order (serial number)
  ----------    ------------    ------------------------------
  Reagan crib   2801            4959/ 5035/ 5109
  Emily crib    4791            4648/ 4669/ 4962
  Jamie crib    7301            4954/ 5029
  Jenny Lind    7391            4954/ 4620/ 4669/ 4758/ 4934/
  crib                          4994/ 5041/4648

The purchase order number, model number and manufacture date can
be found on the label located on the side panel of the crib. The
purchase order number is listed as "serial number" and is preceded
by "N00" on the label.

A metal bracket that connects the mattress support to the crib can
break and become detached from the crib, creating an uneven
sleeping surface or a gap. If this occurs, a child can become
entrapped in the crib, fall or be lacerated by the broken metal
bracket.

Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents
or injuries related to the use of the affected cribs.

Bexco Enterprises, Inc. has received 10 reports in the US of
detachment. No injuries were reported as a result of the detached
bracket.

Approximately 40 affected cribs in Canada and nearly 11,900
affected cribs in the United States were distributed at juvenile
products retailers nationwide.

The recalled products were manufactured between May 2012 and
December 2012.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Bexco Enterprises Inc.,
             Montebello
             California
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact the company for a free replacement mattress support which
includes new attached brackets. In the meantime, parents are urged
to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment for the child,
such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed depending on the
child's age.

Consumers should contact DaVinci toll-free at (888) 673-6652 from
8:30 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or by e-mail or
visit the company's website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

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


BIOLASE INC: Oct. 9 Class Certification Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration
LLC, as Claims Administrator, on behalf of Bernstein Liebhard LLP.

In re BIOLASE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION
Case No. 13-1300-JLS (FFMx)
IN THE United States District Court Central District of California

SUMMARY NOTICE

TO:

ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF BIOLASE, INC.
("BIOLASE") DURING THE PERIOD FROM NOVEMBER 5, 2012 THROUGH AUGUST
13, 2013, INCLUSIVE.

PARA UNA NOTIFICACION EN ESPANOL, LLAMAR O VISITAR NUESTRO WEBSITE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, that a
hearing will be held on October 9, 2015, at 2:30 p.m., before the
Honorable Josephine Staton, United States District Judge, in
Courtroom 10A of the United States District Court, 411 West Fourth
Street, Santa Ana, CA, 92701-4516, for the purpose of determining:
(1) whether the Court should certify the Settlement Class for
purposes of the Settlement pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23; (2) whether the proposed Settlement of $1,750,000.00
in cash, plus any return thereon, should be approved by the Court
as fair, just, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether the
Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice as against
Defendants and their Corresponding Released Parties as set forth
in the Stipulation of Settlement dated as of March 30, 2015; (4)
whether the Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate
and, therefore, should be approved; (5) whether the application of
Plaintiffs' Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with
the Litigation should be approved; and (6) such other matters as
the Court may deem appropriate.

WHO'S INCLUDED?

If you purchased BIOLASE common stock during the period of
November 5, 2012 through August 13, 2013, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") your rights may be affected by the settlement of the
Litigation.  You are a Settlement Class Member only if you bought
BIOLASE shares individually, not simply through a mutual fund.  If
you sold stock during the Class Period, you are only a Settlement
Class Member if those shares were purchased during the Class
Period.  If you have not received a detailed Notice and a copy of
the Proof of Claim, you may obtain copies by writing to BIOLASE,
Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o RG/2 Claims Administration LLC,
P.O. Box 59479, Philadelphia, PA  19102-9479, or by calling 866-
742-4955 (toll free).  You may also obtain copies on the internet
at www.rg2claims.com/biolase.html.  Complete information
concerning the Litigation may be obtained from the Court files on
this matter.

WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

The lawsuit claimed that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by misrepresenting
and omitting material facts about, among other things, the growth
of, and demand for, BIOLASE's WaterLase dental laser systems, and
BIOLASE's Class Period liquidity.  Defendants denied they did
anything wrong.  The Court did not decide which side was right.
But both sides agreed to the Settlement to resolve the case and
provide payment to investors.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Defendants agreed to create a fund of $1.75 million in cash, plus
any return thereon, to be divided among all Settlement Class
Members who send in valid Proofs of Claim, following deduction of
fees and expenses.  The Stipulation, available at
www.rg2claims.com/biolase.html, describes all of the details about
the proposed Settlement.

Your share of the Settlement Fund will depend on the number of
valid Proofs of Claim that Settlement Class Members send in, how
many BIOLASE shares you bought, and when you bought and sold them.
Generally, if you bought more shares and have more Recognized
Losses (as explained in the detailed Notice), you will get more
money.  If you bought fewer shares and have fewer Net Recognized
Losses, you will get less.

If every eligible Settlement Class Member sends in a valid Proof
of Claim, the average payment will be 10 cents per share before
deduction of Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, and
approximately 7 cents per share after deduction of fees and
expenses.

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT?

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must timely
submit a Proof of Claim on or before August 15, 2015, either by
U.S. Mail at the address above and postmarked no later than August
15, 2015, or submitted by electronic means not later than midnight
EST on August 15, 2015.  Instructions for electronic submission of
the Proof of Claim are available at
www.rg2claims.com/biolase.html.  The submitted Proof of Claim must
establish that you are entitled to a recovery.  You will be bound
by any judgment entered in the Litigation whether or not you make
a claim, unless you request to be excluded, in writing, to the
address above.  If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement
Class, you must submit to the Claims Administrator a request for
exclusion, at the address above and postmarked no later than
September 24, 2015, in the manner and form detailed in the Notice.

WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS?

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and/or the Fee and Expense Application must be filed in the manner
detailed in the Notice and sent to Biolase, Inc. Securities
Litigation, RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, P.O. Box 59479,
Philadelphia, PA  19102-9479, such that it is received no later
than September 24, 2015:


BMW: Recalls 2014 Mini Cooper & Cooper S Due to Noncompliance
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 14, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 4130
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015306TC
ID number: 2015306

Certain vehicles may not comply with the side impact protection
requirements of United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 214, which is voluntarily-adopted in Canada. As a result,
rear seat occupants could be at a higher risk of injury in a side-
impact crash. Correction: Dealers will install additional energy
absorption material between the rear interior side panels and the
exterior vehicle body, as necessary.

Note: This recall is an expansion of recall 2014-584.

  Make     Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----     ----------------------
  MINI     COOPER    2014
  MINI     COOPER S  2014


BOEING COMPANY: 7th Cir. Sends Passengers' Suit to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The federal district court in San Francisco, California, and not
the state court in Illinois, should hear a class action lawsuit
filed by airline passengers against The Boeing Company, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has ruled.

On July 6, 2013, a Boeing 777 hit the seawall that separates the
ocean from the end of a runway at San Francisco International
Airport.  The National Transportation Safety Board concluded that
the principal cause of the accident was pilot error.

Suits brought in federal courts in California, and some other
district courts, were consolidated by the Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1407(a).

Some passengers filed suit against the Boeing Company in state
courts of Illinois, contending that the plane's autothrottle,
autopilot, and low-airspeed-warning systems contributed to the
pilots' errors.  Boeing removed these suits to federal court,
asserting two sources of jurisdiction: admiralty, plus federal
officials' right to have claims against them resolved by federal
courts.  The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation then decided that
these suits, too, should be transferred to California to
participate in the consolidated pretrial proceedings.

But before receiving the Panel's formal directions to transfer the
suits to California, the District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois remanded them for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,
concluding that Boeing did not act as a federal officer for the
purpose of 28 U.S.C. Section 1442 and that the tort occurred on
land, when the plane hit the seawall, rather than over navigable
water.

On appeal by Boeing, the Seventh Circuit agreed with the district
court that Section 1442 does not support removal. It explained
that the Federal Aviation Administration or any other agency has
delegated, not the power to make rules, but the power to certify
compliance with them. However, the appellate court concluded that
28 U.S.C. Section 1333(1) supplies admiralty jurisdiction, which
shows that subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Boeing therefore
was entitled to remove these suits to federal court.

The district court's decision was reversed, and the case was
remanded with instructions to rescind the remand orders and
transfer the cases to the Northern District of California for
consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. Section 1407,
consistent with the decision of the Panel on Multidistrict region.

The case before the Seventh Circuit is, LU JUNHONG, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, et al. v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant-
Appellant, NO. 14-1825 (7th Cir.).

A copy of the July 8, 2015 decision is available at
http://is.gd/nf3ulSfrom Leagle.com.


BOB EVANS: Fails to Pay Workers OT Wages, "Lorusso" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Lorusso, on his own behalf and others similarly
situated v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-01654-RAL-TGW
(M.D. Fla., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Bob Evans Farms, LLC operates as a part of the nationwide chain of
restaurants that serves customers traveling from all parts of the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William John Gadd, Esq.
      W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      Suite 250, 2727 Ulmerton Rd
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Telephone: (727) 524-6300
      Facsimile: (727) 524-6330
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


BRASKEM SA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, filed a class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all purchasers of Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or
the "Company") American Depositary Shares ("ADRs") between June 1,
2010 and March 11, 2015 (the "Class Period"). The action seeks
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical company that is the largest
petrochemicals producer in Latin America. Braskem is also the
largest producer of thermoplastic resins in the Americas. Braskem
buys naphtha, which accounts for half of its production costs and
is the main ingredient for making petrochemicals in Brazil, from
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras ("Petrobras") under long-
term agreements. Petrobras provides approximately 70% of Braskem's
naphtha needs.

According to the complaint, the truth began to emerge on March 11,
2015, when a report from a Sao Paulo newspaper, Folha de S. Paolo,
implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding
Petrobras. As reported by Folha de S. Paolo, according to
testimony made by former Petrobras executive Paulo Roberto Costa
and self-confessed money launderer Alberto Youssef, Braskem paid
at least $5 million annually to Petrobras between 2006 and 2012.
The payments were made to acquire crude derivative contracts like
propylene and naphtha at cheaper prices. On this news, Braskem
ADRs fell over 20%, or $1.80 per ADR, on March 11, 2015.

If you purchased Braskem ADRs during this time period and wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court
no later than August 31, 2015. Any member of the class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If
you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-
scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (646) 582-0121) or visit the
Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-
scott.com.


BULLDOG SERVICES: Faces "Middleton" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Middleton and Kevin Oliver, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. Bulldog Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00227-HSO-JCG (S.D. Miss., July 14, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bulldog Services, LLC is an Alabama corporation that provides
contract labor to various shipyards multiple job locations in
Mississippi.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Virginia Carothers LoCoco, Esq.
      Joseph A. Lococo, Esq.
      Jacob King, Esq.
      LOCOCO AND LOCOCO, PA
      P. O. Box 6014
      D'Iberville, MS 39532
      Telephone: (228) 392-3799
      E-mail: virginia.lococo@lococolaw.com
              joseph.lococo@lococolaw.com
              jake.king@lococolaw.com


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Noteholders' Suit v. Parent Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar in Chicago denied the motion
of the debtors Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., Inc. and more
than 170 of its subsidiaries for a preliminary injunction under
section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, to halt four civil actions
against CEOC's non-debtor parent, Caesars Entertainment Corp. in
other courts.

The actions arise out of nearly $4.6 billion in second lien and
senior unsecured notes that CEOC issued and CEC guaranteed. The
plaintiffs in the four actions -- indenture trustees and holders
of the notes -- brought the actions after CEC claimed that two
2014 transactions involving CEC had released the guarantees.
Those plaintiffs include (1) Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB;
(2) BOKF, N.A.; (3) MeehanCombs Global Credit Opportunities Master
Fund, LP; Relative Value-Long/Short Debt Portfolio, a Series of
Underlying Funds Trust; SB 4 CF LLC; CFIP Ultra Master Fund, Ltd.;
and Trilogy Portfolio Co., LLC; and (4) Frederick Barton Danner,
as representative of a plaintiff class.

The actions seek damages from CEC for breach of contract (among
other things) as well as declaratory judgments that the guarantees
are still in effect. The debtors contend the actions should be
enjoined because their prosecution threatens the success of the
debtors' chapter 11 cases.

MeehanCombs et al. opposed the debtors' request.

Judge Goldgar said the debtors have not shown they are entitled to
the injunctive relief they request.

The adversary case is, CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT OPERATING CO., INC.,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. BOKF, N.A., et al., Defendants, No. 15 A
149 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.).  A copy of Judge Goldgar's July 22, 2015
Memorandum Opinion is available at http://is.gd/5B9u4mfrom
Leagle.com.

Reuters and CNBC report that Judge Goldgar's July 22 ruling caused
Caesars Entertainment's shares to briefly plunged about 60% that
day -- to a low of $3.30.  Following its initial dip after the
ruling, the Company's stock pared some of those losses to a price
above $5 (still a more than 30% loss on the day).

Reuters and CNBC say the creditor lawsuits claim up to $11
billion.  The report noted that Caesars has said it may join its
operating unit in bankruptcy if those lawsuits were not put on
hold.

                           *     *     *

Kimberly Pierceall, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
it's the company's creditors that have been suing Caesars in the
Delaware Court of Chancery and the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, arguing that the company robbed the
subsidiary of valuable assets that were transferred to other
divisions and removed their guarantees as investors and
noteholders in the process.

In the two cases in New York, creditors are seeking more than $7
billion in claims and have sought a summary judgment from the
court.  A court clerk said on July 22 that no date has been set
for the motion to be heard.

Company attorneys have argued that losing the litigation would be
dire to the casino company's finances, rendering its plan to
contribute some $2.5 billion in funds -- although creditors have
been skeptical of the amount -- to help its subsidiary emerge from
bankruptcy moot.

The July 22 bankruptcy court ruling doesn't spell immediate doom
for the casino giant.  The judge in the New York case would still
need to rule.  If Caesars didn't win the case, the company could
appeal.

"We believe our defenses in the New York litigation are strong,
and will continue to contest those cases vigorously," said
Caesars spokesman Stephen Cohen in an emailed statement after the
ruling.  "The bankruptcy court's ruling was a technical
interpretation of bankruptcy law and did not address in any way
the merits of the New York litigation."


CALIFORNIA: Court Rules on Inmate's Claims
------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KENNETH JEROME PACKNETT, Plaintiff, v. DR.
FERNAND ALVAREZ, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 15-CV-01229-YGR (PR)
(N.D. Cal.), District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an order
transferring certain claims to the Southern and Central Districts
and dismissing remaining claims, among other matters.

A pro se civil rights action was filed by Kenneth Jerome Packnett,
a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the R.J. Donovan
Correctional Facility ("RJDCF"), alleging that defendants violated
his constitutional rights while he was housed at San Quentin State
Prison ("SQSP") from November through December 2012. Packnett
sought monetary and punitive damages as well as declaratory
relief.

Judge Rogers dismissed Packnett's claims against the defendants at
the California Institution for Men ("CIM"), where he was housed
during a layover in his transfer from SQSP to RJDCF, because CIM
is located within the venue of the Central District of California.
The dismissal was without prejudice to the refiling of the claims
in a new civil rights action in the Eastern Division of the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

Packnett's claims against defendants at the RJDCF were also
dismissed because RJDCF is located within the venue of the
Southern District of California. The dismissal was also without
prejudice to the refiling of the claims in a new civil rights
action in the court of the said district.

The Court dismissed without prejudice Packnett's claims for
disability discrimination, conspiracy, and violation of his rights
under the Armstrong Remedial Plan. Judge Rodgers, however,
acknowledged in his order that Packnett also states certain
cognizable claims.

A copy of the July 10, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/rqri50from Leagle.com.


CAMMAN CONSTRUCTION: Sued in N.Y. Over Alleged Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------------
367 Waverly Avenue Realty LLC, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated v. Camman Construction Group Corp., et al.,
Case No. 508628/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 14, 2015), arises from
the Defendants' alleged breach of contract, specifically by
failing to timely, properly and fully perform the construction of
ten residential apartments within three floors above the existing
one-story commercial structure, the installation of a new fa9ade
on the ground floor, the installation of a staircase in the
basement and repairs and upgrades to the basement of the of the
premises located at 367 Waverly Avenue, Brooklyn, NY.

Camman Construction Group Corp. owns and operates a New York based
construction company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph P. Asselta, Esq.
      FORCHELLI, CURTO, DEEGAN, SCHWARTZ, MINEO & TERRANA, LLP
      367 Waverly Avenue Realty LLC
      333 Earle Ovington Boulevard, Suite 1010
      Uniondale, NY 11553
      Telephone: (516) 248-1700
      E-mail: jasselta@forchellilaw.com


CITIGROUP INC: ERISA Plaintiffs' Bid for Reconsideration Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John G. Koeltl denied the plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration in the case captioned IN RE CITIGROUP ERISA
LITIGATION, NO. 11 CV.7672 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.).

Citigroup employees brought consolidated class action was brought
against the defendants, asserting that the latter violated their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA"). Their claims were based on the defendants'
purported mismanagement of the employee stock ownership plans
("ESOPs") when the defendants continued to allow the plaintiffs to
invest in Citigroup common stock at a time when Citigroup stock
was falling drastically.

In an opinion and order dated May 13, 2015, Judge Koeltl dismissed
the plaintiffs' complaint in its entirety, holding that the
plaintiffs' claims were time-barred under ERISA's statute of
limitations and that the plaintiffs' fiduciary claims were without
merit.

Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, arguing that the Supreme
Court's subsequent decision in Tibble v. Edison Int'l, 135 S.Ct.
1823 (2015) compels reconsideration of both these grounds for
dismissal.

Judge Koeltl, however, found that Tibble and the present case have
little in common. Tibble did not involve claims based on a drop in
an employer's stock price, but concerned allegations of buying
mutual funds at a retail price when they could have been obtained
more cheaply at an institutional price. Accordingly, nothing in
Tibble casts any doubt on the Court's holding with respect to the
lack of merit in the plaintiffs' claims in this case.

A copy of the July 7, 2015 opinion and order is available at
http://is.gd/inWOJefrom Leagle.com.

Mark Geroulo, Plaintiff, represented by Ronen Sarraf --
ronen@sarrafgentile.com -- Sarraf Gentile, LLP, Andrew Eugene
Lencyk -- alencyk@wolfpopper.com -- Wolf Popper LLP, Joseph
Gentile -- joseph@sarrafgentile.com -- Sarraf Gentile LLP, Karen
L. Handorf -- khandorf@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll PLLC, Mark Peter Kindall -- mkindall@izardnobel.com --
IZARD NOBEL LLP, Matthew Alexander Smith --
msmith@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,
Michelle Celia Yau -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, Nancy A. Kulesa, Izard Nobel LLP, Robert A.
Izard -- rizard@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel LLP, William Edward
Bernarduci, IZARD NOBLE LLP & Robert I. Harwood --
rharwood@hfesq.com -- Harwood Feffer LLP.

Sherri M Harris, and Chad D Meisner, Movants, represented by
Robert I. Harwood, Harwood Feffer LLP.

Steven Goldstein, Movant, represented by Edwin J. Mills --
emills@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody & Robert I. Harwood,
Harwood Feffer LLP.

Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Administration Committee Of
Citigroup, Inc., Richard Tazik, Jorge Bermudez, Michael Burke,
Larry Jones, Thomas Santagelo, The Citigroup 401(K) Plan
Investment Committee, Leo Viola, Donald Young, Robert Grogan,
Robin Leopold, Glenn Regan, Christine Simpson, Timothy Tucker,
Marcia Young, Sir Winfried F.W. Bischoff, Kenneth Derr, Roberto
Hernandez, Robert Rubin, Franklin Thomas, C. Michael Armstrong,
Alain J.P. Belda, John M. Deutch, Andrew N. Liveris, Anne M.
Mulcahy, Vikram S. Pandit, Richard D. Parsons, Judith Rodin,
Lawrence R. Ricciardi,and Robert L. Ryan, Defendants, represented
by Brad Scott Karp -- bkarp@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP, Lewis Richard Clayton --
lclayton@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
LLP & Susanna Michele Buergel - sbuergel@paulweiss.com
-- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Steven Muehlgay, ADR Provider, Frederick Winfield, All Plaintiffs,
represented by Robert I. Harwood, Harwood Feffer LLP.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Costco Wholesale Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9945

Industry is recalling No Name and Barber Foods brands uncooked
stuffed chicken products from the marketplace due to possible
Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume and
distributors, retailers and food service establishments such as
hotels, restaurants, cafeterias, hospitals and nursing homes
should not sell or use the recalled products.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home or
establishment. Recalled products should be thrown out or returned
to the location where they were purchased.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in another country. The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common name       Size   Code(s)      UPC
  ----------   -----------       ----   on product   ---
                                        ----------
  No Name      Chicken Parmesan  284 g  2016 FE 17   0 60383-
               Stuffed Breaded          2016 FE 23   80483 1
               Chicken Breast
               Cutlettes -
               Uncooked
  No Name      Ham & Cheese      284 g  2016 FE 19   0 60383-
               Stuffed Breaded          2016 FE 26   68108 1
               Chicken Breast           2016 MR 02
               Cutlettes -
               Uncooked
  No Name      Garlic Butter     284 g  2016 FE 19   0 60383-
               Stuffed Breaded          2016 FE 26   68109 8
               Chicken Breast           2016 MR 02
               Cutlettes -
               Uncooked
  No Name      Broccoli & Cheese 284 g  2016 FE 19   0 60383-
               Stuffed Breaded          2016 FE 26   68107 4
               Chicken Breast           2016 MR 02
               Cutlettes -
               Uncooked
  Barber Foods Raw Stuffed       1.13   2016 MR 01   N/A*
               Chicken Breasts - kg                  Correction
               Cordon Swiss
               (ITM. 824695)
  Barber Foods Stuffed Breasts   3.4 kg 2016 MA 10   60073461-
               of Chicken -                          955037
               Cordon Swiss
  Barber Foods Raw Stuffed       1.13   2016 FE 18   N/A*
               Chicken Breasts   kg                  Correction
               - Broccoli &
               Cheese
               (ITM. 924699)
  Barber Foods A La Kiev -       4.08   Pack Date:   80073461-
               Breasts of        kg     2015 FE 26*  954072
               Chicken                  Correction


  Barber Foods Stuffed Breaded   284 g  2016 FE 17   N/A*
               Chicken Breast                        Correction
               Cutlettes/
               Uncooked -
               Broccoli &
               Cheese

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/TpsrW4


COVISINT CORP: Filed Motion to Dismiss 2 Putative Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Covisint Corporation has filed a motion to dismiss two putative
class actions, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

The Company said, "Beginning on May 30, 2014, two putative class
actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us, our directors and former
directors, and certain of our officers and former officers
alleging violation of securities laws in connection with our IPO
and seeking unspecified damages. These lawsuits have been
consolidated."

"On October 14, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
class action complaint (the "Complaint") alleging violations of
Regulation S-K and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The
Complaint alleges, among other things that the IPO's registration
statement contained (1) untrue statements and omissions of
material facts related to the Company's projected revenues for
fiscal 2014, (2) materially inaccurate statements regarding the
Company's revenue recognition policy, and (3) omissions of known
trends, uncertainties and significant risk factors as required to
be disclosed by Regulation S-K. The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the Complaint.

"We believe the Complaint is without merit, and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend it.  The results of legal
proceedings, however, cannot be predicted with certainty. Should
we fail to prevail in this legal matter, our financial condition
and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.
We currently have no other pending litigation," the Company said.


CVS CAREMARK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Handicap Parking
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Slivak, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CVS Caremark Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-03867 (E.D.
Pa., July 13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act's regulations
regarding handicap parking.

CVS Caremark Corporation operates a pharmacy at One CVS Drive,
Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RA YZ, LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@kalraylaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: sconnolly@cwg-law.com
              gwells@cwg-law.com


CYTRX CORPORATION: Court Trims Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge George H. King ruled on the motions to
dismiss and the motion to substitute party filed in the case
captioned In Re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, CASE NO.
CV 14-1956-GHK (PJWX) (C.D. Cal.).

On October 1, 2014, a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CCAC")
was filed by Deepak Gupta, Randall S. Pettit and Diane D. Pettit,
who sought to represent a class of shareholders who acquired CytRx
publicly traded securities between November 20, 2013 and March 13,
2014.

The complaint brought claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a)-(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act")
and SEC Rule 10b-5(a)-(c), as well as claims under Sections 11(a),
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1993 against the
underwriters for CytRx's January 31, 2014 Secondary Offering.

The CytRx defendants and underwriter defendants separately moved
to dismiss the CCAC.

Judge King granted in part and denied in part the motions as
follows:

     "(1) The CytRx Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' Rule 10b-
5(b) claim is GRANTED as to Defendant Haen and as to all other
named Defendants on the statements found in DreamTeam articles.
This Motion as to Plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5(b) claim against
Kriegsman, Caloz, and CytRx is DENIED in all other respects."

     "(2) The CytRx Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' Rules
10b-5(a) and (c) claim is DENIED."

     "(3) Both Motions as to Plaintiffs' Section 12(a)(2) claim
are GRANTED."

     "(4) Both Motions as to Plaintiffs' Section 11(a) claim are
DENIED."

     "(5) The CytRx Defendants' Motion as to Plaintiffs' Sections
15, 20(a), and 20(b) control person liability claims is DENIED."

Judge King gave the plaintiffs 30 days within which to file a
First Amended CCAC, should they elect to do so.

Judge King also granted the plaintiffs' Motion to Substitute
Shirley Selter for Marvin Selter as defendant.

On November 10, 2014, the CytRx defendants had filed a Notice of
Death of Party regarding Marvin Selter's death. The Notice
identified Shirley Selter as Selter's "representative."

A copy of the July 13, 2015 civil minutes is available at
http://is.gd/o3jg25from Leagle.com.

Bangzheng Chen, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm PA & Ramzi Abadou --
Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Kahn Swick and Foti LLP.

Deepak Gupta, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn
Swick and Foti LLP, Elaine Chang -- echang@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay and Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Melinda A
Nicholson, Kahn Swick and Foti LLC, Michael J Palestina, Kahn
Swick and Foti LLC & Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.

Victor Perri, Plaintiff, represented by Elaine Chang, Glancy
Prongay and Murray LLP,Howard G Smith, Law Offices of Howard G
Smith, Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael M
Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick
and Foti LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay and Murray
LLP.

Hyun Dong Kim, Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow and
Goldberg LLP, Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP & Robert
Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP.

Mitchell Kahn, Brent Reed, and Gordon Niedermayer, Movants,
represented by Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP & Patrice L
Bishop, Stull Stull and Brody.

Michael D Gore, Movant, represented by Evan Jason Smith, Brodsky
and Smith LLC &Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP.

Kisuk Cho, Movant, represented by Laurence M Rosen, The Rosen Law
Firm PA &Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP.

John Corbitt, Movant, represented by Elaine Chang, Glancy Prongay
and Murray LLP, Lionel Zevi Glancy, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Ramzi Abadou, Kahn Swick and Foti LLP, Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay and Murray LLP & Michael M Goldberg, Glancy Binkow
and Goldberg LLP.

The CytRx Investor Group, Movant, represented by Peter E Borkon --
peterb@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, Reed R Kathrein
-- reed@hbsslaw.com -- Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Betsy C
Manifold -- manifold@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
and Herz LLP.

CytRx Investor Group II, Movant, represented by Peter E Borkon,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro.

Cytrx Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alexander Robert
Safyan -- asafyan@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP &
Clifford H Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon Warshaw
LLP.

Steven A. Kriegsman, Defendant, represented by Allen L Lanstra -
allen.lanstra@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, Peter Bradley Morrison -- peter.morrison@skadden.com --
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP & Thomas Jerome Nolan --
thomas.nolan@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom
LLP.

John Y. Caloz, David J. Haen, Louis J. Ignarro, Joseph Rubinfeld,
and Richard L. Wennekamp, Defendants, represented by Thomas Jerome
Nolan, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP.

Thomas Michael Meyer, Defendant, represented by Steven M
Goldsobel, Law Offices of Steven M Goldsobel.

Jefferies LLC, Aegis Capital Corporation, and H.C. Wainwright &
Co., LLC, Defendants, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada -
charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP,
Lucy Han Wang -- lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and
Bockius LLP & John Warren Rissier --
warren.rissier@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.

Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Charlene Sachi
Shimada, Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP & John Warren Rissier,
Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP.


DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Reiferson" Suit Over Cox Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry L. Reiferson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Dealertrack Technologies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11295 (Del. Ch., July 15, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
the public stockholders of Dealertrack Technologies, Inc., to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of Dealertrack by Cox Automotive,
Inc., for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Dealertrack Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
provides web-based software solutions and services to the
automotive industry.

Cox Automotive, Inc. is a worldwide provider of remarketing
services and digital marketing software solutions for the
automotive ecosystem.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DELAWARE NORTH: Volunteer Files Suit vs. Concession Operators
-------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Record.com reported that operators of concession stands at
baseball games in St. Louis and Kansas City owe back wages to
workers they recruited as volunteers, according to a class action
complaint in federal court.

Matthew Leonard, possibly of St. Louis, proposes to represent
thousands who thought they volunteered at Busch and Kauffman
stadiums since 2012.

Leonard toiled at Busch Stadium on May 30, 2013, according to a
complaint he filed against Delaware North Companies Sport Service
on May 29.

"Plaintiff, like all other members of the class, has sustained
legal injuries arising from defendant's conduct," attorney Rayan
Paulus of Kansas City wrote for Leonard.

"These 'volunteers' were recruited under the auspices they were
raising money for various nonprofit organizations of their choice.

"Defendant is in fact exploiting a volunteer labor force to avoid
paying money for necessary labor, a privilege not afforded for-
profit companies under the Fair Labor Standards Act."

He wrote that a class action would be appropriate because, "common
questions of fact and law predominate over any individual
questions that may arise."

"[I]f the size and individual class members' claims are small,
their aggregate volume, coupled with the economies of scale in
litigating similar claims on a common basis, will enable this case
to be litigated as a class action on a cost effective basis," he
wrote.

Paulus proposed to certify two classes, one seeking the federal
minimum wage of $7.25 an hour and one seeking the Missouri minimum
of $7.65.

He wrote that Leonard retained attorneys who are highly skilled
and experienced in complex and class action litigation.

Jeremy Hollingshead and John Eccher, Paulus' colleagues at
Hollingshead, Paulus and Eccher in Clayton, placed their names on
the complaint.

They filed it at Cole County circuit court, in Jefferson City, but
Delaware North counsel Douglas King of Clayton asserted federal
jurisdiction on June 26.

King removed the suit to Western Missouri district court in
Jefferson City, and he asked that court to transfer it to Eastern
Missouri district court in St. Louis.

He argued that the complaint didn't involve Kansas City at all.

King wrote that all events giving rise to the action occurred in
St. Louis and that all or nearly all witnesses reside there.

He wrote that Delaware North does not operate concessions at
either stadium, and that an indirect subsidiary operates at Busch
but not Kauffman.

"Plaintiff does not even claim to have volunteered or otherwise
worked at Kauffman Stadium," King wrote.  "Upon information and
belief, plaintiff is a resident of St. Louis."

Leonard's complaint identifies him as a Missouri resident.

He signed a document on May 30, authorizing the filing and
prosecution of claims contesting the failure to pay him wages.

He specifically authorized negotiation for settlement of any and
all claims.

The document bears Leonard's signature but black lines cover his
home address, his telephone number and his e-mail address.


DETREX CORPORATION: Sued in Ohio Over Noxious Odor Emission
------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Collins, Nancy DuFour, and Rosanna Maley, on her own behalf
and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Detrex Corporation,
et al., Case No. CV-15-848209 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, July 13, 2015),
is an action for damages as a result of the noxious odors, fumes,
and gases, emanating from and otherwise caused by the existence
and negligent design, construction and ongoing operation and
potential changes in production at the Detrex Chemical
Manufacturing Facility.

Detrex Corporation is a Michigan corporation that manufactures
lubricant additives and specialty chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
      CONNICK LAWLLC
      25550 Boulevard, Suite 101
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 364-05121
      Facsimile: (216) 609-3446
      E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com

         - and -

      Edward W. Cochran, Esq.
      20030 Marchmont Road
      Shaker Heights, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 751-5546
      E-mail: edwardcochran@wowway.com

         - and -

      Michael R. Blumenthal, Esq.
      David Waxman, Esq.
      WAXMAN BLUMENTHAL LLC
      Eton Tower
      28601 Chagrin Boulevard, Suite 500
      Cleveland, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 514-9400
      Facsimile: (877) 468-7077
      E-mail: mblumenthal@waxmanblumenthal.com
              davidwaxman@waxmanblumenthal.com


DICK'S SPORTING GOODS: 4th Dist. Affirms Ruling in "Golba" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, 4th District, Div. Three
affirmed the trial court's ruling in the case captioned LESLIE
GOLBA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. DICK'S SPORTING GOODS,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, NO. G049611 (Cal. Ct. App., 4th
Dist., Div. 3).

A class action was filed in May 2011 by Leslie Golba against
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. ("Dick's"), alleging violations of the
Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971.

The initial complaint listed plaintiff's counsel of record as Sean
Reis, California State Bar No. 184044, and several other out-of-
state attorneys, including lawyers of Siprut PC in Chicago,
Illinois who were not members of the California State Bar nor
admitted pro hac vice to practice law in California. In January
2013, Reis filed a consent to associate as plaintiff's counsel of
record, Todd Atkins, an attorney from Siprut PC, who was a member
of the California State Bar.

The litigants reached a settlement which provided, among others,
that Dick's would not oppose class counsel's application for court
approval of attorney fees and costs in the amount of $210,000 and
payment to plaintiff of an "incentive award" in the amount of
$3,500.

On December 4, 2013, the trial court issued a minute order on the
motion for attorney fees. It awarded attorney fees and costs of
$11,000 and awarded a plaintiff incentive award of $500. The court
allowed attorney fees only for work performed by Reis and Atkins
and denied attorney fees to out-of-state counsel.

The appellate court held that the trial court did not err by
denying recovery of attorney fees for work performed by the Siprut
PC out-of-state attorneys, holding that no one may recover
compensation for services as an attorney at law in California
unless that person was a member of the State Bar at the time those
services were performed.

The appellate court also affirmed the reduction of the plaintiff
incentive award to $500 for spending only 16 hours over a period
of about 24 months assisting with the case.

A copy of the July 14, 2015 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/iUvKznfrom Leagle.com.

Siprut, Todd C. Atkins -- tatkins@siprut.com -- and Joseph J.
Siprut -- jsiprut@siprut.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent.


DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Faces Restraint of Trade Suit in Calif. Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ninth Inning Inc. d/b/a The Mucky Duck, for itself and for all
others similarly situated v. DirecTV, Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-05261-BRO-JEM (C.D. Cal., July 13, 2015), arises out of the
ongoing, unreasonable restraint of trade that the Defendants have
implemented through DirecTV's exclusive deal to broadcast all
Sunday afternoon out of market games.

DirecTV, Holdings LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company that
provides digital television entertainment in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202)540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Irving Scher, Esq.
      Scott A. Martin, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      165 Broadway, Suite 2301
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (646) 357-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
      E-mail: ischer@hausfeld.com
              smartin@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Lee Albert, Esq.
      Brian Murray, Esq.
      GLANCY PONGRAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: lablert@glancylaw.com
              bmurray@glancylaw.com

         - and -
      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
             bsweeney@hausfeld.com
             clebsock@hausfeld.com

        - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY PONGRAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 432-1495
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com


DIRECTV LLC: Removed "Flynn" Suit to Connecticut District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jean M. Flynn and James E.
Stead, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. DirecTv, LLC, Case No. UWY-CV15-6027576-S, was removed from the
Judicial District of Waterbury to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut (New Haven). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01053-JAM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts property damage claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
      BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
      747 Stafford Avenue
      Bristol, CT 06010
      Telephone: (860) 583-5200
      Facsimile: (860) 589-5780
      E-mail: bnewman@bpslawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Matthew Dallas Gordon, Esq.
      Nicholas Norton Ouellette, Esq.
      MATTHEW DALLAS GORDON LLC
      836 Farmington Ave., Suite 221A
      West Hartford, CT 06119
      Telephone: (860) 523-0471
      Facsimile: (860) 523-0472
      E-mail: mattgordon@mdgordonlaw.com
              nouellette@mdgordonlaw.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action was filed against the District of Columbia for its
alleged failure to implement policies, procedures, and practices
to ensure its compliance with its duties under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. Sections 1400,
et seq.; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section
794(a); and District of Columbia ("D.C.") law.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the
District's liability through 2007 with respect to each subclass's
claims, and a motion for judgment pursuant to Rule 52(c) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on the District's liability for
the period from January 1, 2008, through April 6, 2011, with
respect to each subclass's claims.

Defendants, on the other hand, filed a motion for the exclusion of
the expert reports and testimony of Drs. Carl Dunst and Leonard
Cupingood, as well as a motion to grant summary judgment in its
favor as to the claims of all plaintiffs from March 22, 2010 to
the present.

In a June 10, 2015 memorandum opinion, which is available at
http://is.gd/Jo4tqBfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Royce C.
Lamberth:

     -- granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their
IDEA and D.C. law claims as to the period through 2007, but denied
summary judgment for plaintiffs' Rehabilitation Act claims;

     -- granted plaintiffs' motion for partial judgment pursuant
to Rule 52(c) from 2008 through April 6, 2011 as to their IDEA and
D.C. law claims, but denied as to all Rehabilitation Act claims;

    -- denied defendants' motion to exclude opinions and testimony
by plaintiffs' witnesses;

     -- denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a sur-reply in
response to defendants' reply in further support of their motion
for summary judgment;

     -- denied defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the
first, third, and fourth plaintiff subclass' claims under the IDEA
and D.C. law;

     -- granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all
of the second plaintiff subclass' claims under the IDEA and D.C.
law after March 22, 2010; and

     -- granted defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all
claims under the Rehabilitation Act for all plaintiff subclasses
after March 22, 2010.

Remaining for trial are plaintiffs' claims under the
Rehabilitation Act for the period prior to March 22, 2010 as to
each plaintiff subclass, and plaintiffs' claims under the IDEA and
D.C. law from April 6, 2011 to present as to the first, third, and
fourth plaintiff subclasses.

The case is captioned DL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 05-1437 (D.D.C.).


DJ ENGINEERING: Court Decertifies Engineer Class
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree granted in part and denied in
part the defendants' Motion to Decertify Collective Action and
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned JONATHAN SWARTZ,
et al., Plaintiff, v. DJ ENGINEERING, INC., and REZAUL CHOWDHURY,
Defendants, CASE NO. 12-CV-01029-DDC-KGG (D. Kan.).

A lawsuit was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
against defendants DJ Engineering ("DJE") and its Chief Executive
Officer, Rezaul Chowdhury. The complaint alleged that defendants
improperly classified plaintiffs, who are former employees of DJE,
as salaried employees exempt from the FLSA's overtime-pay
requirements.

On September 24, 2014, the court conditionally certified the
following class of employees: (1) all employees whom defendants
deemed exempted as administrative, executive or professional
employees (the "Deduction Class"); and (2) all engineers who
worked in the Engineering Department whom the defendants deemed to
be exempt professional employees (the "Engineer Class"). All
employees in both classes are those who worked more than 40 hours
in any workweek and who worked at DJE at any time from January 19,
2010, through January 21, 2013.

Defendants sought an order decertifying both of the conditionally-
certified classes. They also sought summary judgment on the claims
asserted by both classes.

Judge Crabtree referred to the Thiessen factors in ruling on the
defendants' Motion to Decertify: (1) disparate factual and
employment settings of the individual plaintiffs; (2) the various
defenses available to defendant which appear to be individual to
each plaintiff; and (3) fairness and procedural considerations.

Judge Crabtree concluded that each of the three Thiessen factors
favors allowing the Deduction Class' claims to proceed as a
collective action and denied the defendants' motion to decertify
this class. He however found differently for the Engineer Class
and granted the defendants' motion to decertify this class.

As to the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Judge Crabtree
denied the portion thereof seeking summary judgment on plaintiff's
claims alleging improperly salary deductions. However, he granted
the portion on plaintiff Jonathan Swartz' claim alleging that he
was misclassified as an exempt professional.

A copy of the July 9, 2015 memorandum and order is available at
http://is.gd/J1QBKyfrom Leagle.com.

Jonathan Swartz, Plaintiff, represented by Larry G. Michel --
lmichel@kenberk.com -- Kennedy, Berkley, Yarnevich, & Williamson,
Chtd, James M. Kaup, Kaup Law Office & Michael M. Shultz, Law Firm
of Michael M. Shultz.

Claude Riggins, Saeed Mansouri, David Haul, Vien Nguyen, David
McDonald, Michael D. Clift, and Ramin K. Ranjbar, Plaintiffs,
represented by Larry G. Michel, Kennedy, Berkley, Yarnevich, &
Williamson, Chtd & Michael M. Shultz, Law Firm of Michael M.
Shultz.

D-J Engineering, Inc., a Kansas Corporation, and Rezaul
Chowdhurry, Defendants, represented by Terry L. Mann --
tlmann@martinpringle.com -- Martin, Pringle, Oliver, Wallace &
Bauer, LLP.


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Farr" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Farr, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
DolgenCorp, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-00142 (N.D. Fla., July 14,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
attorney fees, and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Dolgencorp, LLC is a Kentucky corporation with a retail store in
Waldo, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew William Birk, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK
      309 NE 1st St
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 244-2069
      Facsimile: (352) 372-3464
      E-mail: mbirk@gainesvilleemploymentlaw.com


ENTRE CORP: Faces "Deas" Suit in M.D. Fla. Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matoya Deas, on behalf of herself and all those similarly situated
v. Entre Corp, d/b/a Dovuto Collection Services. Case No. 3:15-cv-
00874-BJD-PDB (M.D. Fla., July 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Weiss, Esq.
      WEISS LAW GROUP, PA
      5531 N University Dr Ste 103
      Coral Springs, FL 33067
      Telephone: (954) 573-2800
      Facsimile: (954) 573-2798
      E-mail: jason@jswlawyer.com


FAIRWAY GROUP: Defending Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Fairway Group Holdings Corp. continues to defend a securities
class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended March 29, 2015.

"In February and March 2014, three purported class action lawsuits
alleging the violation of the federal securities laws were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against us and certain of our current and former officers
and directors and the underwriters for our initial public
offering," the Company said.

The actions were consolidated on June 3, 2014 under the caption In
re Fairway Group Holdings Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 14-cv-
0950. On July 18, 2014, an amended class action complaint was
filed, adding affiliates of Sterling Investment Partners as
defendants.

"The complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges misleading
statements in the registration statement and prospectus for our
initial public offering and in subsequent communications regarding
our business and financial results," the Company said.

"On September 5, 2014, we and the other defendants moved to
dismiss the amended class action complaint.  On January 20, 2015,
the Magistrate appointed by the district judge to whom the case
was assigned to review the motions and make a recommendation to
the judge recommended that our and the other defendants' motion to
dismiss be granted in part and denied in part.

"We filed an objection to the Magistrate's recommendation.  In
March 2015, the district judge to whom the case was assigned
notified the plaintiffs and defendants to refile the complaint and
motion to dismiss in light of a recent decision of the Supreme
Court.  All revised filings were required to be made by June 30,
2015.  Although we believe the claims are without merit and intend
to defend this lawsuit vigorously, we cannot predict the outcome
of this lawsuit."


FAIRWAY GROUP: Agreed in Principle to Settle Wage and Hour Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fairway Group Holdings Corp. has agreed in principle with the
plaintiffs in a wage and hour class action to settle the matter,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
March 29, 2015.

"In May 2014, a purported wage and hour class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us and certain of our current and
former officers and employees," the Company said.  "This suit
alleged, among other things, that certain of our past and current
employees were not properly compensated in accordance with the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  In May 2015,
we agreed in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the matter
without material financial consequence."


FIORENTINO RISTORANTE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Naula and Enrique Tizol, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Fiorentino Ristorante, Inc. d/b/a
Fiorentino's Ristorante, Anthony Fiorentino and Helen Doe, Case
No. 1:15-cv-04100 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant located at
313 Avenue U, Brooklyn, New York 11223.

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


FLASH CATERING: "Notarmuzi" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shayna Notarmuzi v. Flash Catering LLC d/b/a Flash Beach Grille,
and Anita C. Breinig, Case No. 9:15-cv-80957-RLR (S.D. Fla., July
13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, and reasonable attorney's fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Flash Beach Grille restaurant in
Martin County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Allan Isaacs, Esq.
      GARY A ISAACS, P.A.
      Suite 400, 712 U.S. Highway One
      North Palm Beach, FL 33408-7146
      Telephone: (561) 844-3600
      Facsimile: (561) 842-4104
      E-mail: gaisaacs@bellsouth.net


FLYNN'S RESTAURANT: Fails to Distribute Workers Tips, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Kropis and all others similarly situated v. Sean M.
Downes, John T. Downes, John Doherty, Flynn's Restaurant Group
d/b/a Flynn's Irish Pub, Three Irishmen, Inc. d/b/a Flynn's Irish
Pub, and Flynn's Cedarville Restaurant Group d/b/a Flynn's Irish
Pub, Case No. SUCV2015-02117 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to distribute full
proceeds of gratuities and tips to service bartenders and service
employees.

The Defendants own and operate pubs and restaurants at three
locations in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Messinger, Esq.
      REGAN, LANE & MESSINGER LLP
      41 Winter Street, Fifth Floor
      Boston, MA 02108
      Telephone: (857)277-0902
      Facsimile: (617)778-9742
      E-mail: Rob@reganlanemessinger.com


FMS INC: N.D. Ill. Judge Throws Out "Gonzalez" FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Ruben Castillo granted the motion to dismiss
filed in the case captioned SERGIO GONZALEZ, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FMS, INC.,
Defendant, NO. 14 C 9424 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Div.).

On November 24, 2014, Sergio Gonzalez brought a putative class
action against FMS, Inc. ("FMS"), alleging that the latter
violated Section 1692f(8) of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA") by sending him a dunning letter that displayed a
fifteen-digit number on the envelope.

The Defendant moved to dismiss, arguing that the numbers on the
envelope did not violate the FDCPA because they did not disclose
that the mailing was from a debt collector or otherwise invade
Gonzalez's privacy.

In granting the motion to dismiss, Judge Castillo held that the
provision of the FDCPA was only intended to prohibit markings that
could be considered unfair or unconscionable, not those that are
innocuous or benign. Judge Castillo found that because the string
of numbers appearing on the envelope is benign, it did not violate
Section 1692f(8). Thus, Gonzalez has failed to state a plausible
claim for relief under the FDCPA.

A copy of the July 6, 2015 report and memorandum opinion and order
is available at http://is.gd/hI4yhUfrom Leagle.com.

Sergio Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Jacob Wood,
Wood Finko & Thompson P.C., Andrew Finko, Wood Finko & Thompson
P.C. & Bryan Paul Thompson, Wood Finko & Thompson, P.C..

FMS, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Kevin Schultz --
jschultz@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions Fishman Nathan & Israel LLP
& Daniel W. Pisani -- dpisani@sessions-law.biz -- Sessions Fishman
Nathan & Israel.


FORD MOTOR: Court Narrows Class Suit Over Power Steering Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh granted in part and denied in part the
Motion to Dismiss filed in the case captioned WILLIAM PHILIPS et
al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-
02989-LHK (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div.).

A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Ford Motor
Company by William Philips, Jaime Goodman, Allison Colburn and her
son Ian Colburn.  The California Plaintiffs sought to represent a
class of statewide consumers who purchased or leased Ford Fusion
vehicles, model years 2010 through 2014, or Ford Focus vehicles,
model years 2012 through 2014, which were alleged to be equipped
with a defective Electronic Power Assisted Steering ("EPAS")
system.

On April 30, 2015, Ford filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing that:
(1) California Plaintiffs have waived or abandoned various claims,
(2) California Plaintiffs' are barred by the applicable statutes
of limitations, (3) California Plaintiffs have failed to
adequately plead their fraud-based claims, (4) California
Plaintiffs' Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") claims must fail
because they have failed to allege a "transaction" under the
meaning of the statute, (5) California Plaintiffs' equitable
claims must be dismissed because California Plaintiffs have an
adequate remedy at law. Ford also asked the court to strike
references to "nationwide" claims from the Second Amended
Complaint ("SAC").

Judge Koh found the matter suitable for decision without oral
arguments under Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). He ruled on Ford's Motion
to Dismiss as follows:

     -- granting with prejudice, as to Plaintiff Ian Colburn;

     -- denying, as to California Plaintiffs' claims for
fraudulent concealment and CLRA claims for damages;

     -- granting without prejudice, as to California Plaintiffs'
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claims and CLRA claims for
injunctive relief; and

     -- denying Ford's request to strike the nationwide claims
from the SAC.

A copy of the July 7, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/VFn9Pffrom Leagle.com.

William Philips, Phillip Clay Cecil, Robert Halsey, Temple Halsey,
Performance Fire Protection, LLC, and Jason Wilkinson, Plaintiffs,
represented by Adam J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., John Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@gelaw.com -- Grant
and Eisenhofer P.A., Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com --
Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Nathan Bowen Atkinson --
natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC, Niall
A Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC,
Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Baron & Budd, P.C. &
Roland K. Tellis - rtellis@baronbudd.com -- Baron Budd, P.C..

Alison Colburn, and Ian Colburn, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark
Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C..

Jaime Goodman, Plaintiff, represented by Mary Sikra Thomas, Grant
& Eisenhofer, P.A. & Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C..

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Andrew L. Chang -
achang@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P., Dustin Alan Lane --
dlane@seippflick.com -- Seipp Flick Hosley LLP, Michael Kevin
Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP & Todd
Andrew Croftchik -- tcroftchik@seippflick.com -- Seipp, Flick,
Hosley LLP.


FRANK'S INTERNATIONAL: Sued over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Soliz, individually and for others similarly situated v.
Frank's International, NV & Timco Services, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-00296 (S.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oil field service company that
is one of the world's largest providers of tubular services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com


FXCM INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of shareholders (the "Class") who
purchased shares of FXCM, Inc. ("FXCM" or the "Company") (NYSE:
FXCM) common stock between June 11, 2013 and January 20, 2015 (the
"Class Period").

FXCM provides online foreign exchange ("FX") trading and related
services to retail and institutional customers worldwide.  The
Company acts as an agent between retail customers and a collection
of global banks and financial institutions by making foreign
currency markets for customers trading in foreign exchange spot
markets.

According to the Complaint, during the Class Period, FXCM and
certain of its executive officers issued a series of materially
false and/or misleading statements regarding the Company's
business operations and the strength of its financial prospects,
while concealing significant weaknesses concerning its core
business. The Complaint alleges that Defendants' Class Period
statements were materially false and/or misleading when made
because they misleadingly omitted, among other things: (1) that
the Company's agency model did not insulate FXCM's customers or
the Company itself from financial risk; (2) the true potential
risk to the Company posed by market volatility; (3) that the
Company did not maintain sufficient regulatory capital reserves;
and (4) that Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and growth lacked a reasonable basis.

On January 16, 2015, FXCM announced that it had been extended a
$300 million loan by Leucadia National Corp. in order to stave off
a regulatory default and possible bankruptcy.  The terms of the
loan were described as "highly punitive" and wiped out nearly all
shareholder value in FXCM.  Trading of the Company's stock was
suspended until January 20, 2015.  When the Company's stock
resumed trading, it declined nearly 90% in value, from a pre-halt
closing price of $12.63 per share on January 16, 2015 to a closing
price of $1.60 per share on January 20, 2015.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in FXCM common stock during the Class Period.  If you
invested in FXCM common stock as described above, and lost money
on the transactions, you may wish to join in this action to serve
as lead plaintiff.  In order to do so, you must meet certain
requirements set forth in the applicable law and file appropriate
papers no later than July 7, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.


GLOBE LIFE: Removed "Proctor" Class Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Michael Proctor, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Globe Life And
Accident Insurance Company, Case No. CJ-15-00838, was removed from
the District Court of Oklahoma County to the U.S. District Court
Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00750-W to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under alleged violation of
an insurance contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark A. Engel, Esq.
      Steven S. Mansell, Esq.
      MANSELL & ENGEL PC
      101 Park Ave, Suite 665
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 232-4100
      Facsimile: (405) 232-4140
      E-mail: mansell-engel@coxinet.net
              mansell-engel@coxinet.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      John D. Russell, Esq.
      Steven J. Adams, Esq.
      FELLERS SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS
      321 S Boston Ave, Suite 800
      Tulsa, OK 74103-3318
      Telephone: (918) 599-0621
      Facsimile: (918) 583-9659
      E-mail: jrussell@gablelaw.com
              sadams@gablelaw.com

         - and -

      Tammy D. Barrett, Esq.
      GABLE & GOTWALS
      100 W 5th St, Suite 1100
      Tulsa, OK 74103-4217
      Telephone: (918) 595-4851
      E-mail: tbarrett@gablelaw.com


HERTZ EQUIPMENT: Faces "Torres" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karisma Torres and Edna Esparza, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02311-G (N.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation provides rental equipment for
heavy construction, industrial, government projects, homeowners as
well as used equipment for sale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg S. Gober, Esq.
      BLAIES & HIGHTOWER, LLP
      421 W. Third St., Suite 900
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 334-0800
      Facsimile: (817) 334-0574
      E-mail: greggober@bhilaw.com


HOME DEPOT: At Least 57 Class Actions Filed Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2015, that at least 57 class actions
have been filed in courts in the U.S. and Canada, and other claims
may be asserted against the Company on behalf of customers,
payment card brands, payment card issuing banks, shareholders or
others seeking damages or other related relief, allegedly arising
from the Data Breach. The U.S. class actions have been
consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. That court
ordered that the individual class actions be administratively
closed in favor of the filing of consolidated class action
complaints on behalf of customers and financial institutions
allegedly harmed by the Data Breach.

In addition, several state and federal agencies, including State
Attorneys General, are investigating events related to the Data
Breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and the
Company's responses. The Company is cooperating in the
governmental investigations, and the Company may be subject to
fines or other obligations. While a loss from these matters is
reasonably possible, the Company is not able to estimate the
costs, or range of costs, related to these matters because the
proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not
been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of a
class or classes being certified or the ultimate size of any class
if certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues
to be resolved.

The Company has not concluded that a loss from these matters is
probable; therefore, the Company has not recorded an accrual for
litigation, claims and governmental investigations related to
these matters in the first quarter of fiscal 2015. The Company
will continue to evaluate information as it becomes known and will
record an estimate for losses at the time or times when it is both
probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount of the loss
is reasonably estimable. The Company believes that the ultimate
amount paid on these actions, claims and investigations could be
material to the Company's consolidated financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows in future periods.

Future Costs

The Company expects to incur significant legal and other
professional services expenses associated with the Data Breach in
future periods. The Company will recognize these expenses as
services are received. Costs related to the Data Breach that may
be incurred in future periods may also include liabilities to
payment card networks for reimbursements of credit card fraud and
card reissuance costs; liabilities related to the Company's
private label credit card fraud and card reissuance costs;
liabilities from current and future civil litigation, governmental
investigations and enforcement proceedings; future expenses for
legal, investigative and consulting fees; and incremental expenses
and capital investments for remediation activities. The Company
believes that the ultimate amount paid on these services and
claims could be material to the Company's consolidated financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows in future periods.

Insurance Coverage

The Company maintained $100 million of network security and
privacy liability insurance coverage in fiscal 2014, above a $7.5
million deductible, to limit the Company's exposure to losses such
as those related to the Data Breach. As of May 3, 2015, the
Company had received initial payments totaling $30 million of
insurance reimbursements under the fiscal 2014 policy, and expects
to receive additional payments. In the first quarter of fiscal
2015, the Company entered into a new policy, with $100 million of
network security and privacy liability insurance coverage, above a
$10 million deductible, to limit the Company's exposure to similar
losses.


ILLINOIS: Dismissal of Class Suit v. School District 303 Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois, Second District, affirmed the
trial court's dismissal of the class action captioned, JIM DONOVAN
and STEVEN SCHULZE, Individually and in Representative Capacity of
All Those Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. COMMUNITY
UNIT SCHOOL DISTRICT 303, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 2-14-0704 (Ill.
App. Ct., 2nd Dist.).

On October 10, 2013, a complaint was filed against Community Unit
School District 303 alleging that when it adopted the 2011 Plan
that combined Davis Elementary and Richmond Elementary, it failed
to give the parents of the children forced to attend Richmond a
"choice" to transfer them to another school, "in contravention of
the law." Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 ("NCLB"), any
school that failed to achieve adequate yearly progress ("AYP") for
2 consecutive years was required to allow its students' parents to
transfer them to a school that had achieved AYP. In the fall of
2011, Richmond had failed to achieve AYP for 3 consecutive years.

On February 26, 2014, the trial court granted defendant's motion
to dismiss, stating that plaintiffs' complaint was barred by
section 2-103 of the Tort Immunity Act, and that the School Code
and its regulations do not "give rise to an implied [private
cause] of action for damages."

The appellate court determined that the trial court properly
granted defendant's motion to dismiss, based on section 2-103 of
the Tort Immunity Act.

A copy of the July 16, 2015 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/NdHLl3from Leagle.com.


INSULET CORP: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray reminds investors that a class action has
been filed on behalf of investors in Insulet Corp. ("Insulet" or
the "Company"), who purchased Insulet securities between February
27, 2013 and April 30, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Insulet investors had until July 6, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

Insulet is primarily engaged in the development, manufacturing and
sale of its proprietary OmniPod Insulin Management System (the
"OmniPod System"), an insulin infusion system for people with
insulin-dependent diabetes.

The complaint filed against the Company alleges that Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose: (1) that the Company was experiencing slower demand for
its products; (2) that the Company was facing issues with its
sales and marketing efforts; (3) that, as a result, the Company
experienced unevenness in its financial performance; and (4) that,
as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects lacked a
reasonable basis. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities after disclosing the decline in its revenues,
investors have suffered significant losses and damages.

If you purchased Insulet shares or 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 e-
mail 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.


JAPAN: Faces "You" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged War-Time Sex Slavery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hee Nam You and Kyung Soon Kim, for themselves and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Japan, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-
03257-KAW (N.D. Cal., July 13, 2015), arises from the alleged war-
time sex slavery by the Japanese government before and during
World War II.

The complaint asserts that Japan enslaved and perpetrated
atrocities upon the Plaintiff during the 1940-1945 periods in
violation of international and domestic laws.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hyungjin Kim, Esq.
      JEONG SE LAW FIRM
      15th Floor Opulence Building
      Seoul, KR 137893
      Telephone: (822) 581-4040
      E-mail: intercle@gmail.com


KANSAS CITY ROYALS: Must Face Former Players' Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chief Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero denied the amended Motion
to Dismiss the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in the case
captioned AARON SENNE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KANSAS CITY ROYALS
BASEBALL CORP., et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-00608-JCS,
RELATED CASE NO. 14-CV-03289-JCS (N.D. Cal.).

On February 7, 2014, former Minor League baseball players filed a
putative class action, asserting claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and various state wage and hour laws
against Bud Selig (the former Commissioner of Baseball), the
Office of the Commissioner of Baseball doing business as Major
League Baseball ("MLB") and MLB's member franchises.

On May 20, 2015, the Court dismissed 8 MLB franchises for lack of
personal jurisdiction, leaving 22 franchises in the case as
defendants.  The Franchise Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Second Consolidated Amended Complaint in Part for Lack of
Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim.

Judge Spero denied the motion.  He found that it is appropriate to
address the issues of class standing and/or sufficiency of the
class claims after class certification or, where applicable, in
the context of the class certification determination.

A copy of the July 13, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/lbP98Sfrom Leagle.com.

Aaron Senne, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw --
dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron
Michael Zigler -- azigler@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery,
Anne Brackett Shaver -- ashaver@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan --
bshiftan@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bobby Pouya
-- bpouya@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Brian P.
Murray - bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Bruce Lee Simon -- bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis -- gbroshuis@koreintillery.com -- George
Andrew Zelcs -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery  LLC,
Lee Albert -- lalbert@glancyla.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Rachel Geman -- rgeman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Randall K Pulliam -- rpulliam@cbplaw.com -- Carney
Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Stephen Matthew Tillery --
stillery@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, LLC & Thomas Kay
Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP.

Michael Liberto, Oliver Odle, Brad McAtee, Craig Bennigson, Matt
Lawson, Kyle Woodruff, Ryan Kiel, Kyle Nicholson, Brad Stone, Matt
Daly, Aaron Meade, Justin Murray, Jake Kahaulelio, Ryan Khoury,
Dustin Pease, Jeff Nadeau, Jon Gaston, and Brandon Henderson,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Aaron Michael Zigler, Korein Tillery - St. Louis,
Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bobby
Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis, George Andrew Zelcs,
Korein Tillery LLC, Randall K Pulliam, Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC, Richard Clay Stockton, Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP,
Stephen Matthew Tillery, Korein Tillery, LLC & Thomas Kay
Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP.

Tim Pahuta, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Michael Zigler, Korein
Tillery - St. Louis,Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee
Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis, George Andrew Zelcs,
Korein Tillery LLC, Randall K Pulliam, Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC, Richard Clay Stockton, Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP,
Stephen Matthew Tillery, Korein Tillery, LLC & Thomas Kay
Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP.

Lee Smith, Joseph Newby, Ryan Hutson, Matt Frevert, Roberto Ortiz,
Witer Jimenez, Kris Watts, Mitch Hilligoss, Matt Gorgen, Brett
Newsome, Jake Opitz, and Daniel Britt, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron Michael
Zigler, Korein Tillery - St. Louis, Anne Brackett Shaver, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Brian P. Murray, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Bruce
Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis,
George Andrew Zelcs, Korein Tillery LLC, Lee Albert, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Randall K Pulliam, Carney Bates & Pulliam,
PLLC, Richard Clay Stockton, Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP,
Stephen Matthew Tillery, Korein Tillery, LLC & Thomas Kay
Boardman, Pearson Simon, Warshaw and Penny, LLP.

Yadel Marti, Edgardo Baez, Helder Velaquez, Jorge Jimenez, Jorge
Minyety, Edwin Maysonet, and Jose Diaz, Plaintiffs, represented by
Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Samuel
Kornhauser, Law Offices of Samuel Kornhauser, Aaron Michael
Zigler, Korein Tillery - St. Louis, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP,Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Brian A. David, Law Offices of Brian David, Bruce
Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP & Richard Clay Stockton,
Pearson, Simon and Warshaw, LLP.

Nick Giarraputo, Lauren Gagnier, Leonard Davis, Gaspar Santiago,
Grant Duff, Omar Aguilar, Mark Wagner, Matt Lewis, David
Quinowski, Brandon Pinckney,

Plaintiff, represented by Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon,
Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Garrett Ray Broshuis, George Andrew
Zelcs, Korein Tillery LLC, Richard Clay Stockton, Pearson, Simon
and Warshaw, LLP & Stephen Matthew Tillery, Korein Tillery, LLC.

Kansas City Royals Baseball Corp., Miami Marlins, L.P., San
Francisco Baseball Associates, LLC, Office of the Commissioner of
Baseball, Allan Huber Selig, Defendant, represented by Elise M.
Bloom -- ebloom@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Neil H.
Abramson -- nabramson@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, Adam M
Lupion -- alupion@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP, D. Gregory
Valenza, Shaw Valenza LLP, Enzo Der Boghossian, Proskauer Rose
LLP, Howard L. Ganz -- hganz@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP &
Rachel Santoro - rsantoro@proskauer.com -- Proskauer Rose LLP.

Angels Baseball LP, St. Louis Cardinals, LLC, Colorado Rockies
Baseball Club, Ltd., Cincinnati Reds, LLC, Houston Baseball
Partners LLC, Athletics Investment Group, LLC, Rogers Blue Jays
Baseball Partnership, Padres L.P., San Diego Padres Baseball Club,
L.P., Minnesota Twins, LLC, Detroit Tigers, Inc., Los Angeles
Dodgers LLC, Sterling Mets L.P., AZPB L.P., New York Yankees
P'ship, Rangers Baseball Express, LLC, Rangers Baseball, LLC,
Milwaukee Brewers Baseball Club, Inc., Milwaukee Brewers Baseball
Club, L.P., and Los Angeles Dodgers Holding Company LLC,
Defendants, represented by Elise M. Bloom, Proskauer Rose LLP, D.
Gregory Valenza, Shaw Valenza LLP, Enzo Der Boghossian, Proskauer
Rose LLP, Howard L. Ganz, Proskauer Rose LLP & Rachel Santoro,
Proskauer Rose LLP.

Chicago Cubs Baseball Club, LLC, Pittsburgh Associates, LP, and
Baseball Club of Seattle, LLLP, The, Defendants, represented by
Elise M. Bloom, Proskauer Rose LLP, Enzo Der Boghossian, Proskauer
Rose LLP, Howard L. Ganz, Proskauer Rose LLP & Rachel Santoro,
Proskauer Rose LLP.


KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued in Del. Over Allergan Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Cohodes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
11289 (Del. Ch., July 14, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., to enjoin
the Kythera's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to
Allergan PLC for inadequate consideration and unfair price.

Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focused on the discovery, development,
and commercialization of prescription products for the aesthetic
medicine market in the United States and internationally.

Allergan PLC is based in Dublin with U.S. headquarters in
Parsippany, N.J. Allergan is a pharmaceutical company that
provides treatments in dermatology, aesthetics, eye care and for
cardiovascular disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-4568
      Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
      E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
      POWERS TAYLOR LLP
      Campbell Centre II
      8150 North Central Expressway Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 239-8900
      Facsimile: (214) 239-8901
      E-mail: info@Powerstaylor.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: DWP To Refund Overcharged Customers
----------------------------------------------------
Mike Reicher, writing for Los Angeles Daily News, reported that
The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power has agreed to refund
what it overcharged customers because of its faulty billing
system, according to a court document.

The tentative settlement in one of four billing class-action
lawsuits would ensure payment, however, a DWP official said the
agency would credit consumers who were overbilled.

An attorney representing plaintiffs in the first class-action suit
filed accuses the city of negotiating in secret and cherry-picking
the plaintiff with less experience against the DWP. He also
disputes the DWP's claim that the tentative agreement applies to
the other cases.

"It may be that it's a fine settlement, but just none of this
makes any sense," said Tim Blood, an attorney who in 2012 won an
overbilling class-action suit against the department. "The fact
that the city does not want to share the basic terms of the
settlement with the lawyers who brought the cases is just another
example of its lack of transparency."

Attorneys representing the DWP didn't tell Blood or other
plaintiffs' attorneys they were meeting with lawyers for Van Nuys
resident Antwon Jones, Blood said in a court filing. On June 11
and June 12, a retired U.S. District Court judge held mediation
sessions between Jones' attorneys and the city. Afterward, the
city told the court it had reached a tentative settlement that
would cover nearly all of the billing cases.

But the four class-action suits present varying demands.

Blood's suit would require the DWP to cease overbilling and
identify victims who qualify for refunds.

Jones' case does not specifically call for changes to department
billing and doesn't specify how the department would identify who
gets the refunds.

Jones is represented by the Ohio-based personal injury law firm
Landskroner Grieco Merriman and Encino lawyer Michael J. Libman.
An attorney from Landskroner said he couldn't comment, and Libman
did not return messages.

The four lawsuits stem from the department's troubled customer
service computer system launched in September 2013. For thousands
of customers, it sent inaccurately estimated bills, or no bills at
all. When their statements were corrected, the system sometimes
sent huge tabs that incorrectly bumped people into higher rate
tiers, resulting in overbilling. Former power chief Randy Howard
said last August that overbilled accounts would be credited.

Based on the outline of the settlement, the department would
review all customer accounts since the billing system was launched
and would refund all overcharges resulting from the system's
billing errors. No other details were released.


LOUISANA: 5th Cir. Rules on Inmate's Appeal
-------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled on
the appeal from the trial court's ruling in the case captioned,
ELZIE BALL; NATHANIEL CODE; JAMES MAGEE, Plaintiffs-Appellees
Cross-Appellants, v. JAMES M. LEBLANC, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS; BURL CAIN, WARDEN, LOUISIANA STATE
PENITENTIARY; ANGELA NORWOOD, Warden of Death Row; LOUISIANA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS, Defendants-Appellants
Cross-Appellees, NO. 14-30067 (5th Cir.).

Three inmates sued the Louisiana Department of Corrections and
various prison officials in their official capacities, claiming
that the heat they endure at the Louisiana prison facility during
the summer months violates the 8th Amendment because of their pre-
existing medical problems. They also asserted that the failure to
provide air conditioning violates the Americans with Disabilities
Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

The district court sustained the prisoners' 8th Amendment claims,
rejected their disability claims, and issued an injunction
effectively ordering the defendants to install air conditioning
throughout death row.

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit Affirmed the district court's
conclusion that housing the prisoners in very hot cells without
sufficient access to heat-relief measures, while knowing that each
suffers from conditions that render him extremely vulnerable to
serious heat-related injury, violates the 8th Amendment.

The appellate court also affirmed the district court's rejection
of the disability claims, finding that the claims are
insupportable as a matter of law even under the expanded legal
definition of disability. The overwhelming majority of the
testimony related to the future risk of heatstroke, not on any
limitations the prisoners presently experience.

However, the appellate court vacated and remanded the district
court's injunction for reconsideration. It held that the said
injunction provides an unnecessary type of relief and applies
beyond the three plaintiffs, and thus violates the Prison
Litigation Reform Act.

A copy of the July 8, 2015 decision is available at
http://is.gd/VbwGRJfrom Leagle.com.


MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: FLSA Case Wins Conditional Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DE IVORY SMITH, ET AL., SECTION "B"(2), v.
MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT COMPANY, LLC, ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-
2623 (E.D. La.), District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle granted in part
and denied in part the plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify
FLSA Collective Action and to Facilitate Notice under
29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

On November 17, 2014, a complaint was filed by De Ivory Smith and
Marlie Trujillo against Manhattan Management Co., LLC and Berk-
Cohen Associates, LLC for alleged violations of the minimum wage
and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Smith and Trujillo resided and worked as after-hours telephone
dispatchers at the Forest Isles Apartment Complex owned and
operated by the defendants.

Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of a class for
purposes of bringing a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b). They also requested that the Court exercise its discretion
to facilitate notice to potential class members by approving their
proposed notice plan.

In an order dated July 6, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/BboTnLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lemelle granted the
plaintiffs' motion, in part, so as to conditionally certify a
class composed of telephone dispatchers and Unit 10/property
monitors, while excising the pool monitors.

Judge Lemelle, however, denied plaintiffs' motion, in part, as to
that portion requesting approval of the proposed notice plan. He
however directed the parties to meet, confer, and thereafter
submit to the Court a joint proposal of notice no later than 21
days of entry of the Court's order.

De Ivory Smith, and Marlie Trujillo, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jody Forester Jackson -- jjackson@jackson-law.net -- Jackson &
Jackson & Mary Bubbett Jackson -- mjackson@jackson-law.net --
Jackson & Jackson.

Manhattan Management Company, LLC, and Berk-Cohen Associates,
L.L.C., Defendants, represented by Loretta G. Mince --
lmince@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood, Jeanette Amedee
Donnelly -- jdonnelly@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood &
Rebecca Sha -- rsha@fishmanhaygood.com -- Fishman Haygood.


MED-1 SOLUTIONS: Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore denied the plaintiff's Motion
for Leave to File First Amended Complaint in the case captioned
MARK SUESZ, Plaintiff, v. MED-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, NO.
1:12-CV-01517-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis Div.).

On October 18, 2012, Mark Suesz filed his original complaint,
alleging that the debt collection practices of Med-1 Solutions,
Inc. ("Med-1") violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA").

Suesz moved for leave to file his First Amended Complaint,
proposing two changes to the original complaint: (1) to change the
putative class's definition, and (2) to add Tressa Bowman as an
additional plaintiff. The motion, however, was denied as moot
insofar as it seeks to modify the putative class definition after
the court granted plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Withdraw Amended
Motion for Class Certification without Prejudice.

In denying the motion, Judge Dinsmore held that the statute of
limitations for Bowman's alleged injury began to run from the
filing by Med-1 of the original complaint against her on October
11, 2011 in Pike Township small claims court. As a result, the
statute of limitations for Bowman's claim expired on October 11,
2012, and the claim was thus already time-barred when Suesz filed
his original complaint on October 18, 2012.

A copy of the July 6, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/cSOXUhfrom Leagle.com.

MARK SUESZ, Plaintiff, represented by Michelle R. Teggelaar,
EDELMAN COMBS & LATTURNER & Daniel A. Edelman, EDELMAN COMBS
LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC.

TRESSA K. BOWMAN, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel A. Edelman,
EDELMAN COMBS LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC.

MED-1 SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, represented by Nicholas Ward Levi
-- nlevi@k-glaw.com -- KIGHTLINGER & GRAY & Peter A. Velde,
KIGHTLINGER & GRAY.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Intervenor, represented by Jill Z.
Julian, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE & Kerala Thie Cowart,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.


MEXICAN RADIO: "Spiciarich" Suit Transferred to N.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sidney H. Stein granted the motion to transfer
litigation to the Northern District of New York in the case
captioned ANDREW SPICIARICH, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MEXICAN RADIO CORP., MEXICAN
RADIO HUDSON, LLC, WILLIAM YOUNG and LORI SELDEN, Defendants, NO.
14-CV-9009 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.).

On November 12, 2014, Andrew Spiciarich, on behalf of himself and
other current and former tipped employees of defendants, sued the
corporate and individual owners of two Mexican Radio Restaurants
in New York City and Hudson, New York. The complaint alleged
various wage and hour violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Defendants moved to (1) dismiss for improper venue, or in the
alternative, to transfer the action; (2) dismiss the complaint
against Mexican Radio Hudson, LLC for insufficient service of
process; (3) dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim;
or (4) stay the litigation pending a Department of Labor
investigation into similar claims.

Judge Stein dismissed the motion as moot to the extent that
defendants sought to dismiss the complaint against Mexican Radio
Hudson, LLC for insufficient service of process because Spiciarich
has remedied any deficiency in his service of process on Mexican
Radio Hudson, LLC. However, Judge Stein found that defendants have
shown, by clear and convincing evidence, that transfer pursuant to
28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) is warranted, and granted the motion
insofar as it sought to transfer the litigation to the Northern
District of New York.

A copy of the July 10, 2015 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/4OTug3from Leagle.com.

Andrew Spiciarich, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Scott Schaffer,
Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP, Eric Joshua Gitig, Fitapelli &
Schaffer, LLP & Arsenio David Rodriguez, Fitapelli & Schaffer LLP.

Mexican Radio Corp., Mexican Radio Hudson, LLC, William Young, and
Lori Selden, Defendants, represented by Dana Lynn Salazar --
dana@salazaresq.com -- Salazar and Erikson LLP.


MISSION BAY: Bid for Class Certification Granted
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned HORACIO DE VEYRA PALANA,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. MISSION BAY INC., et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 13-CV-05235-SI (N.D. Cal.)

A putative class action was filed on November 12, 2013 against the
defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and California's Labor Code and California's Business and
Professions Code Section 17200, for failing to compensate their
employees the correct overtime rate and for failing to provide
their employees meal and rest breaks. Plaintiffs further alleged
that defendants violated California Labor Code sections 203 and
226, by failing to pay employees the amount due them and failing
to provide accurate wage stubs.

Plaintiffs sought class certification for 163 care worker
employees who provided companionship, therapy, and assistance to
developmentally disabled individuals who were clients of
defendants. They argued that defendants had a uniform policy in
place regarding the payment of overtime and provision of meal and
rest breaks for its employees.

In a July 7, 2015 order, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/afh7i6from Leagle.com, Judge Illston granted the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  She found that the
proposed classes met the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule
23(a) for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. She
also found that the plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements
under Rule 23(b) for predominance and superiority.

Horacio De Veyra Palana, Joan Soliven, Conchito Cabiles, and
Alexander Yalung, Plaintiffs, represented by Phung Hoang Truong,
Justice at Work Law Group, Tomas Eduardo Margain, CASA Legal & Huy
Ngoc Tran, Justice at Work Law Group.

Mission Bay Inc., and Print It Here And Copy, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Reyna Elena Macias, WFBM, LLP & Scott A. Freedman,
WFBM, LLP.


MISSOURI: Court Dismisses Inmate's Complaint
--------------------------------------------
District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr. dismissed the amended
complaint in the case captioned JOHN A. RICHMAN, Plaintiff, v.
DWAYNE KEMPKER, Defendant, NO. 1:15CV63 SNLJ (E.D. Mo.,
Southeastern Div.).

John Richman, an inmate at Southeast Correctional Center ("SCC"),
brought an action against Dwayne Kempker, Deputy Division Director
of Adult Institutions for the Missouri Department of Corrections.
Richman asserted a violation of his "due process rights".

Richman sought leave to commence the action without payment of the
required filing fee. Finding that Richman did not have sufficient
funds to pay the entire filing fee, Judge Limbaugh granted the
motion to proceed in forma pauperis and assessed an initial
partial filing fee of $2.50.

Judge Limbaugh, however, dismissed the amended complaint for
failing to state a claim for relief. He held that there is no
violation of due process because Missouri state laws provide an
adequate post-deprivation remedy for Richman's claim if he wishes
to seek one in Missouri state court.

A copy of the Juy 10, 2015 memorandum and order is available at
http://is.gd/1csIHnfrom Leagle.com.


MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC: Class Certification Bid in CRT Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti granted the motion for class
certification in the case captioned IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT)
ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Order Relates To: ALL DIRECT PURCHASER
ACTIONS, MDL NO. 1917, NO. CV-07-5944-SC., CV-14-2058-SC (N.D.
Cal.).

In a Multidistrict Litigation case concerning allegations of a
worldwide conspiracy to fix prices in the Cathode Ray Tube ("CRT")
market, Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs") filed a motion for
class certification with respect to defendants Thomson and
Mitsubishi. Thomson settled and stipulated to class certification,
pending hearing. Mitsubishi opposed the motion, and is the only
remaining defendant.

Upon completion of a "rigorous analysis" of the required elements
of class certification, for good cause shown, Judge Conti found
that all the threshold and minimum requirements of Rule 23(a)and
23(b)(3) have been met. The DPPs, however, were ordered to
specifically identify the "affiliate[s]" in the class definition
(and class notice) to enable the parties and class members to
better determine who is in the class.

A copy of the July 8, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/3r86o0from Leagle.com.

"Thomson" refers to: Technicolor SA (f/k/a Thomson SA) ("Thomson
SA") and Technicolor USA, Inc. (f/k/a Thomson Consumer
Electronics, Inc.) ("Thomson Consumer"), and Technologies Displays
Americas LLC (f/k/a Thomson Displays Americas LLC) ("TDA").

Allied with Thomson is Defendant Videocon Industries, Ltd.
("Videocon").

"Mitsubishi" refers to: Mitsubishi Electric Corporation,
Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Electric &
Electronics USA, Inc.), and Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions
America, Inc. (f/k/a Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America,
Inc.).

Thomson, Videocon, and Mitsubishi are "Defendants."

The other co-conspirators, with most of whom the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs ("DPPs") have already settled, are: (a) Chunghwa
Picture Tubes, Ltd. and Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd.
(collectively "Chunghwa"); (b) Daewoo International Corporation,
Daewoo Electronics Corporation f/k/a Daewoo Electronics Company,
Ltd., Orion Electric Company ("Orion"), and Daewoo-Orion
SocieteAnonyme (collectively "Daewoo/Orion"); (c) Hitachi Ltd.;
Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd., Hitachi Asia, Ltd.,
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), and Shenzhen SEG Hitachi Color
Display Devices, Ltd. (collectively "Hitachi"); (d) Irico Group
Corporation, Irico Group Electronics Co., Ltd., and Irico Display
Devices Co., Ltd. (collectively "Irico"); (e) LG Electronics, Inc.
("LGE"), LG Electronics USA, Inc., and LG Electronics Taiwan
Taipei Co., Ltd. (collectively "LG"); (f) LP Displays
International, Ltd. ("LPD"); (g) Panasonic Corporation, f/k/a
Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd., Matsushita Electronic
Corporation (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd., and Panasonic Corporation of
North America (collectively "Panasonic"); (h) Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V., Philips Electronics Industries Ltd., Philips
Electronics North America, Philips Consumer Electronics Co.,
Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., and Philips dba
Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda. (collectively "Philips"); (i)
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn
Bhd., Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. f/k/a Samsung Display Device Company
("Samsung SDI" or "SDI"), Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Samsung
SDI Brasil Ltda., Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd., and Tianjin
Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. (collectively "Samsung"); (j) Thai CRT
Company, Ltd.; (k) Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba America, Inc.,
Toshiba America Consumer Products LLC, Toshiba America Consumer
Products, Inc., Toshiba America Electronic Components, Inc.,
Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., and Toshiba Display
Devices (Thailand) Company, Ltd. (collectively "Toshiba"); (l) MT
Picture Display Co., Ltd., f/k/a Matsushita Toshiba Picture
Display Co., Ltd., ("MTPD"); and (m) Bejing-Matsushita Color CRT
Company, Ltd. ("BMCC").


MOVADO GROUP: Individual Plaintiff Files Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Movado Group, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that an individual
plaintiff filed on February 4, 2015, a complaint against the
Company and several of its officers in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (the "Complaint") as a
purported class action, alleging that between March 26, 2014 and
November 13, 2014, the Company made false and misleading
statements about the Company's financial performance. The
Complaint also claims that these alleged false and misleading
statements resulted in the Company's stock trading at an
artificially high price until November 14, 2014, when the Company
issued a press release preliminarily announcing financial results
and reducing its previous projections, after which the Company's
stock price fell. The Company believes that the Complaint is
meritless and it intends to vigorously defend this matter.

The Company believes that it has valid legal defenses to all of
the matters currently pending against it. These matters are
inherently unpredictable and the resolutions of these matters are
subject to many uncertainties and the outcomes are not predictable
with assurance. Consequently, management is unable to estimate the
ultimate aggregate amount of monetary loss, amounts covered by
insurance or the financial impact that will result from such
matters.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Hall" FDCPA Class Action Goes to Trial
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno denied the defendants' motions
for summary judgment in the cases captioned VIRGINIA B. HALL,
Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NOS. 13-6563, 14-2257 (E.D. Pa.).

Two actions were brought by Virginia B. Hall against Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, Champion Mortgage Company, Champion Mortgage, and
their unnamed representatives. In the first action, which was
brought on November 12, 2013 as a class action, Hall alleged that
defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") through misleading statements in a letter involving a
foreclosure notice. In the second action, an individual action,
Hall alleged that defendants violated the FDCPA by directly
contacting her with respect to a debt despite knowing that she was
represented by counsel. On September 2, 2014, the defendants moved
for summary judgment on both actions.

Judge Robreno denied the defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
as to both the class action and the individual action. However, he
sua ponte dismissed the individual class action without prejudice
because the plaintiff lacks standing and the court, therefore, has
no subject matter jurisdiction over this claim.

A copy of the July 6, 2015 memorandum is available at
http://is.gd/erkmFpfrom Leagle.com.

VIRGINIA B. HALL, Plaintiff, represented by ARKADY ERIC RAYZ --
Erayz@kalraylaw.com -- KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC, DMITRY A. BRAYNIN --
Dbraynin@kalraylawcom -- KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC & GERALD D. WELLS,
III, CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP.

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, CHAMPION MORTGAGE COMPANY, and CHAMPION
MORTGAGE, Defendants, represented by MARTIN C. BRYCE, JR. --
bryce@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL,
L.L.P. & S. CLIFFORD SACALIS -- sacaliss@ballardspahr.com --
BALLARD SPAHR LLP.


NESTLE USA: Faces "Gyorke-Takatri" Suit Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Gyorke-Takatri and Katie Silver, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Nestle USA, Inc. and Gerber
Products Company, Case No. CGC15546850 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 14,
2015), arises from the Defendants' false and deceptive practices
in deceiving consumers about the fruit and vegetable content and
the nutritional and health qualities of Gerber Graduates Puffs.

Nestle USA, Inc. is a Swiss corporation that does business in the
United States and touts itself as the world's largest food
company.

Gerber Products Company is the best known baby food company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Zevin, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      10021 Willow Creek Road, Suite 200
      Telephone: (619) 235-5306
      Facsimile: (815) 377-8419
      E-mail: mzevin@aol.com

         - and -

      Stephen Gardner, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      Scott Kitner, Esq.
      6116 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1500
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 443-4300
      Facsimile: (214) 443-0358

         - and -

      John Roddy, Esq.
      Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      125 Summer Street
      10th Floor, Suite 1030
      Telephone: (617) 439-6730
      Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
      E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
              eryan@baileyglasser.com


NEW DOMINION: Okla. High Ct. Allows Earthquake Suit to Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Wilmoth, writing for News Oklahoma, reported that a Prague
resident injured in the magnitude 5.6 earthquake in 2011 can
continue her lawsuit in district court, the Oklahoma Supreme Court
said.

The state's high court reversed a lower court's October 2014
decision to dismiss the case. Lincoln County District Court Judge
Cynthia Ferrell Ashwood previously said the district court does
not have jurisdiction and that the case should instead be handled
by the Oklahoma Corporation Commission.

The Oklahoma Supreme Court, however, said district court is the
proper arena for the case.

"Because this case does not seek to reverse, review or modify an
OCC (Oklahoma Corporation Commission) order, but simply seeks to
recover damages, jurisdiction is proper in the district court,"
the Supreme Court said.

Prague resident Sandra Ladra last summer filed the lawsuit against
the operators of Lincoln County water disposal wells, claiming
they caused the magnitude 5.6 earthquake in 2011 that caused rock
from her fireplace to land in her lap and injure her knee.

The suit lists as defendants Tulsa-based New Dominion LLC;
Cleveland, OK-based Spess Oil Co.; and 25 other unnamed companies.
Ladra asked for more than $75,000 in actual damages, plus punitive
damages.

Representatives from New Dominion and Spess declined comment.

"Ultimately the decision is for the jury to decide if the
earthquake was attributed to the injection wells. We will offer
scientific findings that the injections are along fault lines,"
Scott Poynter, Ladra's attorney, told The Oklahoman when the
original case was filed. "Ultimately, we think we can meet our
burden of proof, that we can persuade the jury that the
earthquakes in and around Prague were the result of injection well
activity."

Poynter also has filed a potential class-action lawsuit led by
Prague resident Jennifer Lin Cooper, seeking damages related to
the 2011 Prague earthquake. Cooper is seeking class-action status
to include people in Lincoln County and eight surrounding counties
whose homes or home values have been damaged by the earthquakes.

Seismic history

Oklahoma has had a seismically active history. The state is
crossed with thousands of fault lines and has experienced moderate
and large earthquakes in the past. But the intensity of
earthquakes has ballooned over the past few years.

The seismicity rate in 2013 was 70 times greater than the rate
before 2008 and rapidly grew to about 600 times greater, the
Oklahoma Geological Survey said in April. The survey also said
such a rapid increase is "very unlikely the result of a natural
process."

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission over the past few years has
increased its focus on water disposal wells, especially in the
areas where the recent earthquakes have been concentrated. In
Oklahoma, the saltwater that comes up with oil and gas can be 10
times the amount of produced hydrocarbons. In some areas, such as
the Mississippi Lime formation in north-central Oklahoma and
southern Kansas, produced water can be up to 20 times the volume
of oil and gas.

The Corporation Commission has focused its efforts on water
disposal wells that are drilled through the Arbuckle rock
formation -- the deepest layer of sedimentary rock -- and into the
underlying crystalline basement. The commission in March issued a
directive to disposal well operators to prove they weren't
injecting into the basement. If they were, operators were told to
plug back the wells or reduce volumes or rates.

Out of the 357 disposal wells included in the commission
directive, 108 had plugged back by June 17, according to the
Corporation Commission. Another 19 wells had plans to plug back,
while 86 showed they weren't in contact with the basement. The
rest reduced volumes or weren't injecting at this time.


NISSIN FOODS: Court Trims "Guttman" Suit Over Noodles
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss the case captioned VICTOR GUTTMANN, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
NISSIN FOODS (U.S.A.) COMPANY, INC., Defendant, NO. C 15-00567 WHA
(N.D. Cal.).

Victor Guttmann filed a putative class action against Nissin Foods
(U.S.A.) Company, Inc., alleging eight claims for relief:

      (1) the unfair prong of the California Unfair Competition
Law, California Business & Professions Code Sections 17200, et
seq.,

     (2) nuisance under California Civil Code Sections 3749, et
seq.,

     (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability,

     (4) the unlawful prong of the California Unfair Competition
Law,

     (5) the fraudulent prong of the California Unfair Competition
Law,

     (6) the California False Advertising Law, California Business
& Professions Code Sections 17500, et seq.,

     (7) California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil
Code Sections 1750, et seq., and

     (8) breach of the express warranty that the noodles contained
0g trans-fat.

The Defendant manufacturer moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant
to Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Judge Alsup dismissed Guttmann's claims without leave to amend,
except for his claims for violation of the unfair prong of the
Unfair Competition Law and breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability.

Judge Alsup held that Guttmann has stated a plausible claim under
the unfair prong of the Unfair Competition Law, and Nissin has
failed to show that claim is preempted by federal law.

Judge Alsup also explained that for purposes of Rule 12(b)(6),
Guttmann's complaint has plausibly alleged that foods containing
artificial trans-fat, such as Nissin's noodles, are not fit for
human consumption, due to the myriad medical conditions to which
they are linked.

A copy of the July 15, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/2j28bkfrom Leagle.com.


OBAMA FOR AMERICA: Court Rules on Joint Combined Motion in Limine
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington granted in part and
denied in part the defendants' Joint Combined Motion in Limine in
the case captioned LORI SHAMBLIN, Plaintiff, v. OBAMA FOR AMERICA,
ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 8:13-CV-2428-T-33TBM (M.D. Fla.,
Tampa Div.).

On September 19, 2013, a putative class action was filed by Lori
Shamblin against the defendants under the Consumer Protection Act
after she received several unsolicited, autodialed calls to her
cellular telephone urging her to vote for Barack Obama in the 2012
presidential election. Shamblin moved for class certification
several times, but this was always denied by the court.

Defendants sought an Order excluding evidence that this case was
filed as a putative class action and "excluding any evidence
relating to the 'additional calls' referred to in Shamblin's
Second Amended Complaint.

Judge Covington granted the Motion in Limine as to the class
certification proceedings after determining that complex
procedural proceedings, such as those undertaken at the Rule 23
class certification stage, pose a significant risk to junior
confusion. She, however, denied the Motion as to "other calls"
referenced in paragraph 25 of the Second Amendment Complaint.

A copy of the July 13, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/QvqQeQfrom Leagle.com.

Lori Shamblin, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Quiat, Andrew
L. Quiat, P.C., Jack D. McInnes -- mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul
McInnes LLP, Jeffrey M. Paskert -- jpaskert@mpdlegal.com -- Mills
Paskert Divers, PA, Joseph J. Mellon -- jmellon@mellonlaw.com --
The Mellon Law Firm, Mary F. Mellon, The Mellon Law Firm & Richard
M. Paul, III -- paul@paulmcinnes.com -- Paul McInnes LLP.

Obama for America, Defendant, represented by Dale Thomas Golden
-- dgolden@gsgfirm.com -- Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC, Debra R.
Bernard -- Dbernard@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP,
Elisabeth C. Frost -- Efrost@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP,
Graham M Wilson -- Gwilson@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie, LLP,
Gregg Darrow Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero, PL, Marc Erik Elias,
Perkins Coie, LLP & Rachel E. Fugate, Thomas & LoCicero, PL.

DNC Services Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dale Thomas
Golden, Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC, Debra R. Bernard, Perkins Coie,
LLP, Elisabeth C. Frost, Perkins Coie, LLP, Gregg Darrow Thomas,
Thomas & LoCicero, PL & Marc Erik Elias -- Melias@perkinscoie.com
-- Perkins Coie, LLP.

New Partners Consulting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles
James McHale, Jr. -- cmchale@gsgfirm.com -- Golden Scaz Gagain,
PLLC, Dale Thomas Golden, Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC & Gregg Darrow
Thomas, Thomas & LoCicero, PL.

American Association of Political Consultants, Amicus, represented
by Patrick A. Traber -- ptraber@allendell.com -- Allen Dell, PA.

Peter J. Grilli, Mediator, represented by Peter John Grilli --
meditr@aol.com -- Peter J. Grilli, PA.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: 7th Cir. Dismisses Appeal in "Adelson" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit dismissed the
plaintiff's appeal in the case captioned WENDY B. ADELSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 14-3707 (7th Cir.).

Wendy Adelson sued Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC and other companies
involved with her home mortgage in a Michigan court, principally
alleging that Ocwen's irregular handling of her loan resulted in
an unlawful foreclosure action. The suit was eventually
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois, the site of
multidistrict litigation ("MDL") against Ocwen.

Her suit became dormant, because the presiding judge believed that
her suit was extinguished by another MDL case, a successful class
action in which she was a class member. Adelson then filed a
motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), but was denied
by the district judge.

On appeal, the appellate court held that the district judge was
incorrect in his belief regarding the extinguishment of Adelson's
suit. However, it still denied Adelson's appeal for lack of
appellate jurisdiction because there was yet no final judgment in
her individual lawsuit. The case involving Ocwen and its co-
defendants that were transferred from Michigan to the Northern
District of Illinois remains pending.

A copy of the July 13, 2015 nonprecedential disposition is
available at http://is.gd/RvvCsVfrom Leagle.com.


OHANA MILITARY: Summary Judgment Bid Denied in Pesticides Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARA BARBER, MELISSA JONES, MELISSA
STREETER, KATIE ECKROTH, BOB BARBER, TIM JONES, RYAN ECKROTH, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. OHANA MILITARY COMMUNITIES, LLC; FOREST CITY
RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.; DOE DEFENDANTS 1-10, Defendants,
CIVIL NO. 14-00217 HG-KSC (D. Hawaii), District Judge Helen
Gillmor denied the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants
Ohana Military Communities, LLC and Forest City Residential
Management, LLC.

On April 3, 2014, a complaint was filed by Cara Barber, Melissa
Jones, Melissa Streeter, and Katie Eckroth claiming that
defendants did not disclose that pesticides had been confirmed in
the soil at Marine Corps Base Hawaii and required remediation, and
that defendants did not follow their own soil remediation plan and
their construction efforts exposed plaintiffs to visible dust at
Marine Corps Base Hawaii while they were tenants in defendants'
housing.

Defendants Ohana Military Communities, LLC, and Forest City
Residential Management, Inc. sought summary judgment in their
favor, claiming that plaintiffs are unable to carry their burden
at trial without expert testimony. Plaintiffs did not submit an
expert witness disclosure by the deadline provided in the
Scheduling Order.

Judge Gillmor, however, concluded that defendants have not
established that expert testimony is required for plaintiffs to
meet their prima facie burden for their state law substantive
claims.

A copy of the July 9, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/l9GbMrfrom Leagle.com.

Cara Barber, Melissa Jones, Melissa Streeter, Katie Eckroth, Bob
Barber, Tim Jones, and Ryan Eckroth, Plaintiffs, represented by
Malia R. Nickison-Beazley -- malia@revereandassociates.com --
Revere & Associates, Patrick Kyle Smith, Lynch, Hopper, Salzano &
Smith, Sergio Salzano, Lynch, Hopper, Salzano & Smith LLP &
Terrance M. Revere -- terry@revereandassociates.com -- Revere &
Associates, LLLC.

Ohana Military Communities, LLC, and Forest City Residential
Management, Inc., Defendants, represented by Christine A. Terada
-- cterada@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP,
Lisa W. Munger -- lmunger@goodsill.com -- Goodsill Anderson Quinn
& Stifel LLLP & Randall C. Whattoff -- rwhattoff@goodsill.com --
Goodsill Anderson Quinn & Stifel LLLP.


OM GROUP: Robbins Arroyo Probes Acquisition by Apollo Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights attorneys at Robbins Arroyo LLP are
investigating the recent acquisition of OM Group Inc. OMG, by
certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management
LLC APO.  Under the terms of the June 1, 2015 merger agreement, OM
Group shareholders will receive $34.00 in cash for each share of
OM Group common stock.

Is the Proposed Acquisition Fair for OM Group Shareholders?

On June 17, 2015, an OM Group investor filed a class action
lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court challenging the company's
proposed acquisition.  The complaint alleges that the deal was
made through an unfair negotiation process and that it improperly
buys shareholders out of a company that is headed for success.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that OM Group and its
directors breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, good faith,
due care, and full disclosure to the class by not considering
other buyers before agreeing to the buyout.

Apollo is attempting to acquire OM Group for the $34.00 merger
consideration that is significantly below a $49.00 target price
set by an APB Financial Group analyst in March 2015.  Financial
analysts at BB&T Capital Markets and Northcoast Research have also
appraised OM Group stock above the merger consideration, with
target prices of $37.00 and $35.00, respectively. Moreover, the
merger consideration's 17.9% premium, based on OM Group's closing
price on May 1, 2015, is well below the average one month premium
of 27% for comparable transactions within the past five years.
The class action suit is thus seeking class certification and is
requesting the court to block the deal.

OM Group shareholders interested in information about their rights
and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R. Donahue at
(800) 350-6003, ddonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the shareholder
information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in securities
litigation and shareholder rights law.  The law firm represents
individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative
and securities class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients
realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and the
companies in which they have invested.


OPENGATE CAPITAL: Removed "Mitra" Class Suit to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Malloy Mitra and Brenda Manos,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v.
Opengate Capital, LLC, OpenGate Capital Group LLC, OpenGate
Capital Management LLC and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-02015-00790797, was removed from the Orange County Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-01109 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff Malloy Mitra is represented by:

      Malloy Mitra
      PRO SE

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brenda Manos
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

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


PENINSULA GRILL: Clement May Join FLSA Class Suit, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Patrick Michael Duffy denied the Motion to Strike,
or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss Nicholas Clement's
Untimely Consent in the case captioned ANDREW BROWDER, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
PENINSULA GRILL ASSOCIATES, LLC d/b/a HANK'S SEAFOOD RESTAURANT
and HENRY "HANK" L. HOLLIDAY, III, individually, Defendants, C.A.
NO. 2:14-CV-4135-PMD (D.S.C., Charleston Div.).

On October 23, 2014, a lawsuit was commenced against Hank's
Seafood, seeking, inter alia, unpaid overtime compensation and
minimum wages pursuant to the collective action provision of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

On April 16, 2015, the parties filed a Consent Motion for
Conditional Collective Action Certification and to Authorize
Notice to Putative Class Members.  On April 17, 2015, the Court
granted the parties' Consent Motion, and potential plaintiffs were
given an agreed-upon 45-day period to opt-in to the conditionally
certified collective action by filing the requisite consent to
join form.

On June 11, 2015, shortly after the expiration of the notice
period, plaintiff's counsel filed a Consent Form executed by
Nicholas Clement. Defendants filed a motion to strike Clement's
untimely filed Consent Form.

Judge Duffy concluded that allowing Clement to join the collective
action is both warranted and appropriate under the circumstances
of this case. Clement's Consent Form was accepted by the court as
filed as of the date that it was submitted to the court.

A copy of the July 15, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/iYqAKffrom Leagle.com.

Andrew Browder, Brian Walker, and Nicholas Clement, Plaintiffs,
represented by Bruce E Miller, Bruce E Miller Law Office.

Henry L Holliday, III, and Peninsula Grill Associates LLC,
Defendants, represented by Allan Riley Holmes -- aholmes@gibbs-
holmes.com -- Gibbs and Holmes & Cheryl H Ledbetter --
cledbetter@gibbs-holmes.com -- Gibbs and Holmes.


PENNY NEWMAN: Wins Initial Approval of Employee Case Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESUS PALACIOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENNY
NEWMAN GRAIN, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 1:14-CV-01804-KJM-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted the
plaintiff's unopposed motion for an order preliminary approving a
class settlement and conditionally certifying the settlement
class.

A class action lawsuit was filed against Penny Newman Grain, Inc.
("Penny Newman") and Universal Ag Services, Inc. ("Universal Ag")
for their alleged failure to properly compensate the plaintiffs,
to properly provide meal and rest periods, and to properly provide
timely and accurate wage statements. Plaintiffs also alleged
defendants' failure to indemnify them for work-related expenses as
required.

The parties reached a settlement agreement after a full-day
mediation on January 15, 2015.

Under the agreement, Penny Newman will make a gross payment of
$600,000, to be placed in a trust account and to be allocated as
follows:

     (1) An amount not exceeding $30,000 to be paid to the claims
administrator Gilardi & Co., LLC;

     (2) The amount of $10,000 to be paid to each of the five
named plaintiffs as an enhancement payment;

     (3) The amount of $150,000 to be paid to class counsel as
attorneys' fees; and

     (4) An amount not exceeding $10,000 to be paid to class
counsel as litigation costs.

The Net Settlement Amount, the amount remaining after the
distributions set forth, will be allocated as follows:

     (1) 20 percent of the Net Settlement Amount will be allocated
to the settlement of class claims for unpaid wages;

     (2) 80 percent of the Net Settlement Amount will be allocated
to the settlement of class claims for statutory penalties and
interest, of which $10,000 will be allocated to the settlement of
the claims brought under California's Private Attorneys General
Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), Cal. Lab. Code Sections 2698-2699; and

     (3) Any unclaimed funds will be distributed to Central
California Legal Services (CCLS), a nonprofit legal services
program serving the Central Valley, as a cy pres recipient.

Universal Ag also has agreed to separately cover the employers'
share of payroll taxes on the amounts paid as wages.

Judge Mueller granted preliminary approval of the agreement after
finding that there is no indication of collusiveness between the
parties; no indication of preferential treatment between
plaintiffs and class members; and that the agreement appears to be
within the range of possible approval.

Judge Mueller also held that conditional certification of the
settlement class is appropriate because it met the requirements of
Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3).

A copy of the July 2, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/pX2RQPfrom Leagle.com.

Jesus Palacios, Jose Palacios, Alejandro Herrera Aguilar, Edgar
Torres, and Sabas Medina, Plaintiffs, represented by Della
Barnett, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Enrique
Martinez, Law Offices of John E. Hill, John E. Hill, Law Offices
of John E Hill & Rosa Erandi Zamora, California Rural Legal
Assistance Foundation.

Penny Newman Grain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina
Cusimano Tillman -- Christina.Tillman@mccormickbarstow.co --
McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte and Carruth LLP & David R.
McNamara -- dave.mcnamara@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick
Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP.

Universal Ag Services, Inc., and Juan Zavala, an individual,
Defendants, represented by Paul J. Bauer -- pbauer@w2lg.com --
Walter & Wilhelm Law Group.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Princeton Joins Wyoming in Wet Wipes Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Hage, writing for Forest Lake Times, reported that the
city of Princeton has joined Wyoming in its class action lawsuit
against the makers of flushable wet wipes.

The Princeton City Council on June 25 voted to join a class-action
lawsuit aimed at changing the way manufacturers of flushable wipes
market the products. Princeton City Administrator Mark Karnowski
told members of the City Council that the products are advertised
to be able to be flushed down a toilet without causing harm to
plumbing, sewer and septic systems. But in actuality, he said, the
products are harming municipal wastewater systems.

The wipes allegedly get caught in the sewage system's filtering
screens, clogging pipes and causing system shutdown until they can
be removed manually.

"The rags get caught in our lift stations and can break the whole
thing," Karnowski said.

"They don't disintegrate. They get caught on the jagged edge of
sewer pipes and then stuff builds up," he added.

It's a major issue, Karnowski and Public Works Director Bob Gerold
said.

Karnowski noted in a memo to the council that the wipes stay
intact long enough to cause thousands, if not millions, of dollars
in damage to municipal sewer systems and wastewater treatment
plants.

The city of Wyoming filed a federal class action lawsuit in April
against the makers of several kinds of wet wipes, alleging that
wipes billed "flushable" are clogging the city's sewer system. The
suit claims that Wyoming is only one of many cities that has this
problem. Named in the suit as defendants are P&G, Kimberly-Clark,
Nice-Pak, PDI, Tufco and Rockline. The companies manufacture a
number of well-known wet wipe brands, including Charmin,
Cottonelle, Equate, Hygea, Nice 'n Clean and more.

According to the suit, even though the companies make several
kinds of wipes that clearly state on the packaging that they can
be flushed down the toilet and will dissolve in the sewer system,
the wipes in question don't actually dissolve.

"Flushable wipes must hold up under the pressure of scrubbing
after being soaked in water and propylene glycol lotion for an
extended period of time," the suit states. Because of the need to
maintain this so-called "wet strength," the suit alleges, the
wipes don't break down after they're flushed, like toilet paper
does.

The lawsuit, Karnowski said, asks for the manufacturers of the
wipes to stop marketing them as flushable and to fund a public
relations campaign educating the public on the fact that the wipes
will not disintegrate when flushed.

City Council Member Victoria Hallin noted that Princeton recently
opened a "beautiful new wastewater treatment plant" and made the
motion to support joining the litigation. The motion passed
unanimously.

Princeton and other cities involved in the lawsuit are represented
by the law firm Flaherty and Hood. The firm is representing the
city of Wyoming and the League of Minnesota Cities. There will be
no cost to the city for joining the lawsuit, other than some
research costs and costs associated with time and travel if Gerold
is called as a witness in the case.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Briefing in Appeal to be Completed
---------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that briefing on the appeal in the
Federal Securities Class Action is scheduled to be completed in
the fall of 2015.

On November 19, 2013, a putative class action complaint was filed
on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other than the
defendants against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California by a shareholder of the Company.
After the court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
this action, and recaptioned the action In re Quality Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 8L13-cv-01818-CJC(JPRx), lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 7, 2014. The
amended complaint generally alleges that statements made to the
Company's shareholders regarding the Company's financial condition
and projected future performance were false and misleading in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the individual
defendants are liable for such statements because they are
controlling persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages, court costs and attorneys'
fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
June 20, 2014, which the court granted on October 20, 2014,
dismissing the complaint with prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a motion
for reconsideration of the Court's order, which the court denied
on January 5, 2015.

On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, captioned In
re Quality Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 15-55173.
Briefing on the appeal is scheduled to be completed in the fall of
2015. The Company believes that plaintiff's claims are without
merit and continues to defend against them vigorously.


QUALITY SYSTEMS: Facing Foss, Deerfield Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Quality Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that briefing on the appeal in the
Federal Securities Class Action is scheduled to be completed in
the fall of 2015.

"On October 7, 2013, a complaint was filed against us and certain
of our officers and directors in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Orange, captioned Ahmed D. Hussein
v. Sheldon Razin, Steven Plochocki, Quality Systems, Inc. and Does
1-10, inclusive, No. 30-2013-00679600-CU-NP-CJC, by Ahmed Hussein,
a former director and significant shareholder of ours," the
Company said.  "The complaint generally alleges fraud and deceit,
constructive fraud, negligent misrepresentation and breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with statements made to our
shareholders regarding our financial condition and projected
future performance."

"On November 19, 2013, a complaint was filed against the Company
and certain of the Company's officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
captioned Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Quality Systems, Inc.,
Steven T. Plochocki, Paul A. Holt and Sheldon Razin, No. SACV13-
01818-CJC-JPRx, by the Deerfield Beach Police Pension Fund, a
shareholder of the Company. The complaint is a putative class
action filed on behalf of the shareholders of the Company other
than the defendants. The complaint, which is substantially similar
to the complaint filed by Mr. Hussein described above, generally
alleges that statements made to the Company's shareholders
regarding the Company's financial condition and projected future
performance were false and misleading in violation of the Exchange
Act, and that the individual defendants are liable for such
statements because they are controlling persons under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

"On January 24, 2014, a complaint was filed against the Company
and certain of the Company's officers and current and former
directors in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, captioned Timothy J. Foss, derivatively on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, vs. Craig A.
Barbarosh, George H. Bristol, James C. Malone, Peter M. Neupert,
Morris Panner, D. Russell Pflueger, Steven T. Plochocki, Sheldon
Razin, Lance E. Rosenzweig and Quality Systems, Inc., No. SACV14-
00110-DOC-JPPx, by Timothy J. Foss, a shareholder of the Company.
The complaint arises from the same allegations described above
related to the complaints filed by Mr. Hussein and the Deerfield
Beach Police Pension Fund and generally alleges breach of
fiduciary duties, abuse of control and gross mismanagement by the
Company's directors, in addition to unjust enrichment and insider
selling by individual directors.

"Although we believe the claims to be without merit, our operating
results and share price may be negatively impacted due to the
negative publicity, expenses incurred in connection with our
defense, management distraction, and/or other factors related to
this litigation. In addition, litigation of this nature may
negatively impact our ability to attract and retain customers and
strategic partners, as well as qualified board members and
management personnel."


RIGHT CHOICE: Court Sends "Thomas" FLSA Suit to Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Linda V. Parker granted in part and denied in part
defendants' Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay or Dismiss
Proceedings in the case captioned VINCENT THOMAS AND ALAN QUEEN,
Plaintiffs, v. RIGHT CHOICE STAFFING GROUP, LLC, ADEPT SERVICES
GROUP, INC., DOWNRIVER STAFFING GROUP, LLC, AUTOLINE
TRANSPORTATION, INC. TIMOTHY SCHULTZ, AND TRACY SHAFFER,
Defendants, CIVIL CASE NO. 15-10055 (E.D. Mich., Southern Div.)

A putative class action lawsuit was filed against Right Choice
Staffing Group, LLC ("Right Choice"), Adept Services Group, Inc.,
Downriver Staffing Group, LLC, and Autoline Transportation, Inc.
for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Also impleaded in the suit as defendants were Timothy Schultz, the
resident agent, authorized officer, and manager of the defendant
entities, and Tracy Shaffer, the staffing manager, manager, and
human resources agent of the defendant entities.

On April 1, 2015, defendants filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration
and Stay or Dismiss Proceedings, arguing that their Subcontractor
Agreements, which took effect on December 16, 2013, requires
plaintiffs to arbitrate their FLSA claims.

Judge Parker found no basis to dismiss plaintiffs' claims against
any defendant at this time. She also found that plaintiffs and
Right Choice agreed to arbitrate disputes arising under the
Subcontractor Agreements, and that alternative estoppels requires
plaintiffs to arbitrate their FLSA claims against all defendants
with respect to work performed after December 16, 2013.

The proceedings are stayed with respect to whether plaintiffs are
entitled to relief for work performed prior to December 16, 2013,
pending outcome of the arbitration.

A copy of the July 6, 2015 opinion and order is available at
http://is.gd/1J5cAmfrom Leagle.com.

Vincent Thomas, and Alan Queen, Plaintiffs, represented by Caitlin
E. Malhiot, Gold Star Law, PC & Maia E. Johnson, Gold Star Law.

Downriver Staffing Group, LLC, Autoline Transportation, Inc.,
Timothy Schultz, Tracy Shaffer, Right Choice Staffing Group, LLC,
and Adept Services Group, Inc., Defendants, represented by Mark S.
Demorest, Demorest Law Firm & Michael K. Hayes, Demorest Law Firm
PLLC.


RITA'S FRANCHISE: Faces "Newby" Suit in Pa. Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ericka Newby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Rita's Franchise Corporation and John Does 1-100, Case
No. 2:15-cv-03880-JHS (E.D. Pa., July 13, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barry L. Cohen, Esq.
      ROYER COOPER COHEN BRAUNFELD LLC
      101 W. Elm St Ste 220
      Conshohocken, PA 19428
      Telephone: (484) 362-2628
      Facsimile: (484) 362-2630
      E-mail: bcohen@rccblaw.com


ROBERT DERING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose De Jesus Oviedo Hernandez, Donaciano Nieto, Lorenzo Vega,
Javier Santillan, and Jose Leonel Hernandez Henriques,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. Robert
Dering Construction, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00176 (S.D. Tex., July
13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime compensation,
litigation expenses, expert witness fees, attorney's fees, costs
of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, liquidated
damages, applicable penalties, and all other available remedies
under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Robert Dering Construction, LLC owns and operates a construction
company that conducts business in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rhonda Hunter Wills, Esq.
      WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
      1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 528-4455
      Facsimile: (713) 528-2047
      E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com


ROCK CREEK: Entered Into MOU to Settle with Jonnie Williams
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 27, 2015, that
on May 20, 2015, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Company")
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Settlement
(the "MOU") with Jonnie R. Williams ("Williams") providing for the
manner in which indemnification payments will be made by the
Company to law firms previously engaged by Mr. Williams. The MOU
was entered into in furtherance of the settlement of the Company's
securities class action litigation, which settlement was
preliminarily approved on March 2, 2015, and will be presented to
the Court at a final approval hearing anticipated to be held on
June 22, 2015.

In general, the MOU addresses the manner in which the Company will
satisfy Mr. Williams' indemnification rights for reimbursement of
legal expenses incurred by Mr. Williams from the law firms of
McGuire Woods LLP and Steptoe and Johnson LLP. The MOU provides
for the payment of such expenses by an aggregate up-front payment
of $300,000 to the law firms on or before May 29, 2015, plus
subsequent payments of a total of $60,000 per month between the
law firms to commence on August 1, 2015 (to be delayed until ten
days after the Company obtains additional financing in the event a
financing transaction does not occur prior to that time). The
aggregate amount of payments to be made by the Company over an
approximately two-year payment period under the MOU will be $1.6
million to McGuireWoods LLP (against an invoiced amount of $1.93
million) and $437,000 to Steptoe and Johnson LLP (against an
invoiced amount of $629,897). The MOU also provides that certain
discounts will be granted to the Company in the event that the
Company makes early payment of the balance of payments due under
the MOU, as more particularly set forth in the MOU. The MOU
provides for customary releases and provides for the resolution of
disputes under the MOU by United States Magistrate Judge David J.
Novak. If the Company fails to obtain funding by August, 15, 2015,
the parties agree to return to Judge Novak to enforce or
restructure the payments under the MOU.

A copy of the MOU is available at http://is.gd/3R8uEs


SPRINT CORP: Final Deal Approval Hearing on August 5
----------------------------------------------------
A final approval hearing has been scheduled for August 5, 2015, on
the settlement in the class action lawsuit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

In March 2009, a stockholder brought suit, Bennett v. Sprint
Nextel Corp., in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas, alleging that Sprint Communications and three of its
former officers violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 by failing adequately to disclose certain alleged
operational difficulties subsequent to the Sprint-Nextel merger,
and by purportedly issuing false and misleading statements
regarding the write-down of goodwill. The plaintiff sought class
action status for purchasers of Sprint Communications common stock
from October 26, 2006 to February 27, 2008.

On January 6, 2011, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.
Subsequently, the Company's motion to certify the January 6, 2011
order for an interlocutory appeal was denied. On March 27, 2014,
the court certified a class including bondholders as well as
stockholders. On April 11, 2014, the Company filed a petition to
appeal that certification order to the Tenth Circuit Court of
Appeals but that petition was denied.

After mediation, the parties have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the matter, and the settlement amount is
expected to be substantially paid by the Company's insurers. The
district court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement on April 10, 2015 and a final approval hearing has been
scheduled for August 5, 2015.

"We do not expect the resolution of this matter to have a material
adverse effect on our financial position or results of
operations," the Company said.


SPRINT CORP: Settlement in Process of Administration
----------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement is in the process
of administration in three consumer class actions.

In April 2009, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against
Clearwire U.S. LLC in Superior Court in King County, Washington by
a group of five plaintiffs (Chad Minnick, et al.).

"The lawsuit generally alleges that we disseminated false
advertising about the quality and reliability of our services;
imposed an unlawful early termination fee, which we refer to as
ETF; and invoked allegedly unconscionable provisions of our Terms
of Service to the detriment of subscribers," the Company said.

"In November 2010, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against Clearwire by Angelo Dennings in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Washington. The complaint generally
alleges we slow network speeds when network demand is highest and
that such network management violates our agreements with
subscribers and is contrary to the Company's advertising and
marketing claims. Plaintiffs also allege that subscribers do not
review the Terms of Service prior to subscribing, and when
subscribers cancel service due to network management, we charge an
ETF or restocking fee that they claim is unconscionable under the
circumstances.

"In March 2011, a purported class action was filed against
Clearwire in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California. The case, Newton v. Clearwire, Inc. [sic], alleges
Clearwire's network management and advertising practices
constitute breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair
competition under California's Business and Professions Code
Sections 17200 et seq., and violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act. Plaintiff contends Clearwire's advertisements
of "no speed cap" and "unlimited data" are false and misleading.
Plaintiff alleges Clearwire has breached its contracts with
customers by not delivering the Internet service as advertised.
Plaintiff also claims slow data speeds are due to Clearwire's
network management practices.

The parties collectively settled these three lawsuits, and the
settlement is in the process of administration.

"We have accrued an estimated amount we anticipate to pay for the
settlement in Other current liabilities. The amount accrued is
considered immaterial to the financial statements," the Company
said.


SPRINT CORP: Richard Wuest Action in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that litigation in the case filed by
Richard Wuest is in the early stages.

In August 2012, Richard Wuest filed a purported class action
against Clearwire in the California Superior Court, San Francisco
County. Plaintiff alleges that Clearwire violated California's
Invasion of Privacy Act, Penal Code 630, notably Sec.632.7, which
prohibits the recording of communications made from a cellular or
cordless telephone without the consent of all parties to the
communication. Plaintiff seeks class certification, statutory
damages, injunctive relief, costs, attorney fees, and pre- and
post- judgment interest.

"We removed the matter to federal court. On November 2, 2012, we
filed an answer to the complaint. On May 31, 2013, Plaintiff filed
a First Amended Complaint adding two Clearwire call vendors to the
lawsuit. We filed an answer on July 15, 2013, and discovery has
begun. Class certification briefing is scheduled for the spring of
2014. The litigation is in the early stages, its outcome is
unknown and an estimate of any potential loss cannot be made at
this time," the Company said.


SPRINT CORP: Lindsay Class Action in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that litigation in the lawsuit filed by
Kennet Lindsay is in the early stages.

In April 2013, Kenneth Lindsay, a former employee and others,
filed a purported collective class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, against Clear Wireless LLC
and Workforce Logic LLC. Plaintiffs allege claims individually and
on behalf of a purported nationwide collective class under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, which we refer to as the FSLA, from
April 9, 2010 to present. The lawsuit alleges that defendants
violated the FLSA, notably sections 201 and 207 and relevant
regulations, regarding failure to pay minimum wage, failure to pay
for hours worked during breaks or work performed "off the clock"
before, during and after scheduled work shifts, overtime, improper
deductions, and improper withholding of wages, commissions and
bonuses. Plaintiffs seek back wages, unpaid wages, overtime,
liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.

"We filed an answer to the complaint on April 30, 2013. In
January, 2014, the magistrate judge granted plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification, and we have filed our objections
to that ruling with the district judge. The litigation is in the
early stages, its outcome is unknown and an estimate of any
potential loss cannot be made at this time," the Company said.


SPRINT CORP: Discovery Ongoing Clearwire Stockholders Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 26, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that discovery has begun in the class
action filed by Clearwire stockholders ACP Master, Ltd., Aurelius
Capital Master, Ltd., and Aurelius Opportunities Fund II, LLC.

On April 26, 2013, stockholders ACP Master, Ltd., Aurelius Capital
Master, Ltd., and Aurelius Opportunities Fund II, LLC, filed suit
in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, its
directors, Sprint and Sprint HoldCo., which we refer to as the ACP
Action. On December 20, 2013, those entities filed an amended
complaint, naming as defendants Sprint Corporation, Sprint
Communications, Inc., the former directors of the Company,
Starburst I, Inc., and SoftBank Corp. The amended ACP Action
alleges that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Sprint-Clearwire transaction (the
"Merger"), that Sprint breached duties owed to the plaintiff
stockholders by virtue of its status as a "controlling"
stockholder, and that the other entities aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of duties. The ACP action seeks a declaration
that Sprint and the director defendants breached their fiduciary
duties, and that the other entities aided and abetted that breach;
a declaration that the Special Committee and majority-of-minority
conditions were insufficient safeguards and that defendants bear a
burden of proving the "entire fairness" of the transaction; a
declaration that the Note Purchase Agreement was the product of
defendants' breach of fiduciary duties; a finding that the Merger
was unfair to the plaintiffs; rescission of the Merger; and
unspecified damages, fees and expenses. The defendants moved to
dismiss the ACP Action in January, 2014.

On October 23, 2013, the plaintiffs in the ACP Action filed a new
lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company. The
complaint asks the court for an appraisal of the "fair value" of
plaintiffs' stock in Clearwire, and an order that Clearwire pay
plaintiffs the "fair value," plus interest and costs. The Company
filed its answer in November, 2013, and discovery has begun. This
case and the ACP Action are in the early stages, their outcome is
unknown, and an estimate of potential losses cannot be made at
this time.


STATE FARM: Bid to Certify Question to Ky. High Court Overruled
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Henry R. Wilhoit, Jr. overruled the defendant's
Motion to Certify a Question to the Kentucky Supreme Court in the
case captioned JEFFREY BAILEY and SUSAN HICKS, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM
FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-53-HRW
(E.D. Ky., Northern Div., Ashland)

A putative class action was filed by Jeffrey Bailey and Susan
Hicks challenging State Farm Fire and Casualty Company's
methodology in calculating the "actual cash value" of the damaged
portion of an insured structure upon the occurrence of loss.

State Farm sought to certify a question to the Kentucky Supreme
Court, to-wit, "[w]hether, under an insurance policy that provides
for replacement cost coverage, an insurer may depreciate the cost
of labor when it calculates the actual cash value of a structural
loss."

Judge Wilhoit found that State Farm brought this matter to
district court by way of removal and did not seek certification
until after their dispositive motion was denied. While removal
does not foreclose the opportunity to seek certification, the
timing in this case smacks of duplicity.

A copy of the July 7, 2015 memorandum opinion and order is
available at http://is.gd/pSsl2jfrom Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Bailey, and Susan Hicks, Plaintiffs, represented by
Bartley K. Hagerman, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Erik
David Peterson, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Jessica Morgan
Smith, Richardson & Smith, M. Austin Mehr, Mehr Fairbanks Trial
Lawyers, PLLC, Paula Richardson, Richardson, Barber & Williamson
PSC & Philip G. Fairbanks, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Defendant,
represented by David T. Klapheke, Boehl, Stopher & Graves, Harnaik
(Nick) Singh Kahlon -- nkahlon@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin,
LLP, Heidi Dalenberg -- hdalenberg@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff
Hardin, LLP, Joseph A. Cancila, Jr. -- jcancila@schiffhardin.com
-- Schiff Hardin, LLP & Tal C. Chaiken --
tchaiken@schiffhardin.com -- Schiff Hardin, LLP.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by
Heidi Dalenberg, Schiff Hardin, LLP.


STATE FARM: 5th Cir. Rules on Appeals in "Rigsby" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit reversed in part
and affirmed in part the district court's ruling in the case
captioned United States of America, ex rel, CORI RIGSBY; KERRI
RIGSBY, Plaintiffs-Appellants - Cross-Appellees, v. STATE FARM
FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee - Cross-Appellant, NO.
14-60160 (5th Cir.).

Cori and Kerri Rigsby brought a qui tam action under the False
Claims Act against State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, claiming
that the latter submitted false claims to the United States
government for payment on flood policies arising out of damage
caused by Hurricane Katrina.

At trial, the Rigsbys prevailed on a single bellwether false claim
under the FCA. The district court denied their request to conduct
further discovery, and also denied State Farm's motions for new
trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Both parties
appealed.

The cross-appeals presented four issues:

     (1) whether the Rigsbys are entitled to further discovery;

     (2) whether the Rigsby's alleged violations of the FCA's seal
requirement independently warrant dismissal;

     (3) whether the district court retained subject matter
jurisdiction throughout the litigation; and

     (4) whether the jury's verdict was supported by sufficient
evidence.

The appellate court reversed the district court's decision to deny
the Rigsbys additional discovery, but affirmed the decision with
respect to the seal violations, subject matter jurisdiction, and
State Farm's motion for judgment as a matter of law.

A copy of the July 13, 2015 decision is available at
http://is.gd/Jp1PqOfrom Leagle.com.


SURVEYING ACCESSORIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Greisy Chacon and other similarly situated individuals v.
Surveying Accessories Cheaper, LLC, Case No.  2015-016067-CA-01
(Fla. Cir. Ct., July 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Surveying Accessories Cheaper, LLC is engaged in the business of
providing surveying services, having its main place of business in
Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TETLEY USA: Bid to File 4th Amended Complaint Denied
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila denied the plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File a Fourth Amended Complaint in the case captioned
DARYL DE KECZER, Plaintiff, v. TETLEY USA, INC, Defendant, CASE
NO. 5:12-CV-02409-EJ (N.D. Cal., San Jose Div.).

A putative class action was filed against Tetley USA Inc. alleging
that it has made, and continues to make, false and deceptive
claims on its misbranded packaged food products in violation of
federal and California laws.

Plaintiff sought leave to file a Fourth Amended Complaint. Judge
Davila found that plaintiff has not met his burden under
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 16 and denied the motion for the following
reasons:

     -- the claim for unjust enrichment has been deemed waived due
to plaintiff's failure to amend his claim within the 15 days
afforded by the Court's order and the omission of the claim in
subsequent pleadings;

     -- plaintiff did not move for relief under Rule 16 nor
demonstrate that the Rule's requirements are met; and

     -- plaintiff failed to demonstrate good cause to permit
amendment of the complaint.

A copy of the July 10, 2015 order is available at
http://is.gd/fWz8nUfrom Leagle.com.

Daryl De Keczer, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore,
Pratt & Associates & J. Price Coleman, Coleman Law Firm.

Tetley USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Joseph Clasen --
jclasen@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole LLP, Peter R Knight --
pknight@rc.com -- Robinson and Cole LLP & Philip A. Leider, Law
Office of Philip A. Leider.


TRANSURBAN: Va. Drivers Sue Over Penalties for Unpaid Toll Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
WTOP reported that a group of drivers have filed a class-action
lawsuit in Virginia to recover thousands of dollars in penalties
for unpaid toll fees.

The lawsuit alleges that Transurban, an Australian company
operating E-ZPass lanes on two major highways in Virginia, levied
thousands of dollars in penalties against some drivers.

Kevin Stanfield's wife is one of the lawsuit's plaintiffs. The
Maryland man says their car's E-ZPass was linked to his wife's
lost credit card, which they canceled. But when the couple didn't
notify E-ZPass with the new credit card information and kept using
the express lane, despite the transponder not working, the fees
accumulated to more than $11,000.

"My reaction was just pure astonishment . . . unbelievable," Kevin
Stanfield told ABC News.

Transurban says it gave Stanfield the opportunity to reduce
administrative fees several times. Stanfield eventually settled
for $2,200, but says he is now suing to get that money back.

"Basically, I made an honest mistake and it ended up costing me,"
he said. "It's crazy."

The company says it now has programs in place capping fees at
$2,200. The company wants to warn drivers about unpaid tolls.

Drivers should contact Transurban within the first five days to
report missing a toll, and the driver will pay the toll price plus
an administrative fee of $1.50, according to the company.


UNITED STATES: Bid to Dismiss "Agarwal" Amended Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox denied a motion to dismiss
the Amended Class Action Complaint filed by Dr. Anil Agarwal and
Madhu Agarwal.

On May 30, 2014, the Agarwals filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of the First, Seventh and Fourteenth Amendments to the
Constitution, and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Motion to Dismiss was filed by "Any and All Employees and
Council members of Bayonne, Bayonne, NJ" and "Judge Frank T.
Carpenter, Bayonne Municipal Court, Bayonne, NJ".  The movants
assert that there was insufficient process, insufficient service
of process, and that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted.

Judge Fox recommended the denial of the motion because the movants
are not parties to the action. The movants are neither identified
as defendants in the caption of the plaintiffs' actual amendment
complaint, nor referenced in that pleading's factual allegations.
Neither have they presented the Court with any authority that
permits a person who is not a party to make a motion for relief in
the action.

A copy of the July 14, 2015 report and recommendation is available
at http://is.gd/UJcx4Pfrom Leagle.com.

The case is captioned DR. ANIL AGARWAL, 207-209 West Sherman St.
McAdoo, PA 18237-0006, MAOHU AGARWAL, 419 Esplanade, Maywood, NJ
07607 & any and all US CITIZENS and permanent residents effected
in any way by CONSTITUTIONAL WRONGS OF DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, c/o U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, US Congress,
c/o Speaker of the Congress, All Federal Courts Judges c/o Court
Clerk of United States Supreme Court All US Attorneys, c/o US
Attorney General All States of United States, c/o Governor's
and/or Attorney General's of the States, Any and All Violators of
US Constitution, Any and All Institutions connected with Law,
and/or Law Enforcement, Any and All Professionals [lawyers, state
courts and municipal courts judges, sheriffs, police officers,
court officers] specially connected with Law, Any and All News
Media Watch Dogs and Independent Guarantors of US Constitution
Rights, Any and All Jane and John Doe's who violated Constitution
of America in any way, Rishi Rakshpal, 207-209 West Sherman St.,
McAdoo, PA 18237-0006, Judge Susan D. Wigenton U.S. District Court
for New Jersey, Newark, NJ, Judge A. Richard Caputo, U.S. District
Court, Scranton, PA 18501, Judge Thomas M. Blewitt U.S. District
Court; Scranton, PA 18501, All Judges of Third, Circuit Courts of
Appeal, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, All Court
Personals of Third Circuit Courts of Appeal 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106, Third Circuit Courts of Appeal through The
Clerk 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106, All Sherifs
and/or Administrators of detention facilities situated in the
United States, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ
07644, Sandy De Lo Renzo, Hudson City Saving Bank, 304 Essex St.
Lodi, NJ 07644, Hudson City Saving Bank, West 80 Century Road,
Paramus, NJ 07652; Custodian of Records, Hudson City Saving Bank,
West 80 Century Road, Paramus, NJ 07652, Edward Reuter Lodi Police
Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Vincent J. Caruso,
Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Gary
Paparozzi, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644,
Judge Scott G. Sproviero, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive,
Lodi, NJ 07644, Borough Clark of Lodi, Borough of Lodi, One
Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Judge Tracie Nunno-D'Amico,
Municipal Court, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Judge
Giuseppe Randazzo, Municipal Court, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ
07644, Gerry Michata Hudson City Saving Bank, 304 Essex St., Lodi,
NJ 07644, Nicholas M. Alicea, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, P.O.
Box 600035, Harrisburg, PA 17106-0035, Carol Defalco Municipal
Court, Borough of Lodi, One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Lodi
Police Officer #1, Lodi Police Department, One Memorial Drive,
Lodi, NJ 07644, Lodi Police Officer #2, Lodi Police Department,
One Memorial Drive, Lodi, NJ 07644, Judge Gregg A. Padovano,
Municipal Court, 227 Phillips Ave., South Hackensack, NJ 07606,
All Municipal Court Judges in State of New Jersey through NJ
Attorney General, Ronald Dario, Municipal Court, 227 Phillips
Ave., South Hackensack, NJ 07606, Judge Patric J. Roma, Bergen
County Justice Center, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Bergen County
Municipal Courts Administrator, Superior Court, Hackensack, NJ
07601, John L. Molinelli, Bergen County Prosecutor Office, 10 Main
Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Charls Cho, Bergen County Prosecutor
officer, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Monica Haung,
Bergen County Prosecutor officer, 10 Main Street, Hackensack, NJ
07601, Mr. Edward T. Rogan, 125 State Street, Hackensack, NJ
07601, Judge Roy F. McGeady, Vicinage 2 Municipal Court, 10 Main
Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Judge Peter E. Doyne Bergen County
Justice Center, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Judge Axelrad, Appellate
Division of Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006, Judge Sapp-
Paterson, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625-
0006, Andrew Samson, 27 Horseneck Road, #210, Fairfield, NJ 07004,
Judge Joseph F. Lisa, Appellate Division of Superior Court,
Trenton, NJ 08625-0006, Judge Jack M. Sabatino, Appellate Division
of Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006, Joseph H. Orlando,
Clerk, Appellate Division of Superior Court, Trenton, NJ 08625-
0006, All Personal, of Appellate Division, New Jersey Superior
Court, Trenton, NJ 08625-0006, All Banks in USA through the CEO's,
Judge Thomas P. Olivieri, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey
City, NJ 07306, Kristina Gandolfo Murtha, Suite 5000, 701 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106-1532, Goldbeck McCafferty &
McKeever Suite 5000, 701 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106-
1532, Judge Peter F. Bariso, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey
City, NJ 07306, Judge Alvaro L. Iglesias, Superior Court, Hudson
County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Judge Maurice J. Gallipoli,
Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Patricia A.
Krogman, 574 Summit Avenue, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Judge Michael
L. Ravin, Superior Court, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306,
The Clerk, Hudson County Superior Court, NJ 07306, The Sherif,
Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Judge Kenneth J. Slomienski,
Bergen County Justice Center, Hackensack, NJ 07601, Judge Hector
R. Velazquez, Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Judges of
Hudson County, Jersey City, NJ 07306, Borough of Maywood and
Borough of Paramus, New Jersey, Governor and Attorney General, of
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA 17120, All District
Courts of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through Attorney General of
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, To 10,0001 to be identified as Jane
& Jon doe, Defendants, NO. 14-CV-1873 (PAC)(KNF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Dr. Anil Agarwal, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Madhu Agarwal, any and all US Citizens and permanent residents
effected in any way by Constitutional Wrongs of Defendants,
Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Borough of Lodi, Edward Reuter, Vincent J. Caruso, Gerry Michata,
Defendant, represented by Christopher Charles Botta, Botta &
Carver, LLP..

All Municipal Court Judges in State of New Jersey through NJ
Attorney General, Defendant, represented by Shane Alexander
Sullivan, Piro Zinna Cifelli Paris & Genitempo.

Judge Patric J. Roma, Judge Roy F. McGeady, Judge Peter E. Doyne,
Judge Axelrad, Judge Sapp-Paterson, Judge Joseph F. Lisa, Judge
Jack M. Sabatino, Joseph H. Orlando, Judge Thomas P. Olivieri,
Judge Peter F. Bariso, Judge Alvaro L. Iglesias, Judge Maurice J.
Gallipoli, Judge Michael L. Ravin, The Clerk, Judge Kenneth J.
Slomienski, Judge Hector R. Velazquez, Defendant, represented by
David M. Puteska, NJ Division of Law.

Mr. Edward T. Rogan, Defendant, represented by Edward T. Rogan,
Edward Rogan & Associates, LLC.

Kristina Gandolfo Murtha, Goldbeck McCafferty & McKeever, Michael
Ackerman, Defendant, represented by Nicole Carol Gazzo, Gross
Polowy LLC.

Patricia A. Krogman, Defendant, represented by Gregory G. Diebold.

Judge Jacqueline Russell, Defendant, represented by Martha Gale,
Administrative Office of Pa. Courts.

Any and All Employees and Council members of McAdoo, McAdoo, PA
18237, Defendant, represented by Andrew J Bellwoar --
ajbellwoar@sianalaw.com -- Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew, LLP & Eric
M. Brown -- embrown@sianalaw.com -- Siana, Bellwoar & McAndrew,
LLP.

Any and all employees and Council members of Bayonne, NJ 07002,
Judge Frank T. Carpenter, Defendant, represented by Ravinder Singh
Bhalla -- rbhalla@hobokennj.gov.

Shapiro & Denardo, LLC, Defendant, represented by John A. DiCaro,
Shapiro & DiCaro, LLP.

Any and All Employees and Council members of Union City, Union
City, NJ, Defendant, represented by Bryan Patrick Regan, Houser &
Allison, APC.

HSBC, All Defendants, represented by Justin Anthony Angelo --
angeloj@ballardspahr.com -- Ballard Spahr Stillman & Friedman LLP.


UNIV. OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: "Greer" Bias Suit Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan granted the defendant's motion to
dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the case captioned BILLY P.
GREER, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-1728 (TSC)
(D.C.).

On November 1, 2013, Billy P. Greer filed a complaint against his
employer, the University of the District of Columbia ("UDC"),
asserting that UDC discriminated against him on the basis of race,
gender and age, and retaliated against him for protected activity,
by refusing to promote him within the ranks of the UDC police
department.

UDC moved to dismiss the complaint for being untimely, for failure
to exhaust administrative remedies, and for failing to state a
valid claim for relief.

In granting UDC's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint,
Judge Chutkan explained that while she is sympathetic to the
difficulties that Greer's replacement counsel faced when he took
on an already-pending case, these difficulties cannot be used to
explain many of the deficiencies in the operative complaint.

Plaintiff, however, may move for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint.

A copy of the July 10, 2015 memorandum opinion is available at
http://is.gd/Uk6Tzufrom Leagle.com.

BILLY P. GREER, Plaintiff, represented by Monique Daniel Pressley
-- mdpressley@thepressleyfirm.com -- PRESSLEY FIRM, PLLC.

BOARD OF TRUSTEES UNIVERSITY OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant,
represented by Jeremy S. Schneider, WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ,
EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, Yoora Pak -- yoora.pak@wilsonelser.com --
WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN & DICKER, LLP & Anneliese Marie
Kite-Stone -- anneliese.kitestone@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.


VIDEOCON INDUSTRIES: Settlements in CRT Class Suit Win Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: CATHODE RAY TUBE (CRT) ANTITRUST
LITIGATION This document relates to: ALL INDIRECT PURCHASER
ACTIONS; Luscher et al. v. Videocon Industries Limited, et al.,
MASTER FILE NO. CV-07-5944 SC, NO. CV-13-03234-SC, MDL NO. 1917.
(N.D. Cal., San Francisco Div.), District Judge Samuel Conti
granted preliminary approval of class action settlements with the
Philips, Panasonic, Hitachi, Toshiba, Samsung SDI, Thomson and TDA
defendants.

Judge Conti preliminarily found that the requirements of Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied with
respect to the Settlement Class. Mario N. Alioto and Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP were approved as Settlement Class
Counsel.

A Fairness Hearing will be held on November 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of the July 9, 2015 amended order is available at
http://is.gd/QSTXmlfrom Leagle.com.

Crago, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon --
bsimon@pswlaw.com -- Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Guido Saveri,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Ashlei Melissa Vargas, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw LLP, Christopher Wilson, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Clifford
H. Pearson -- cpearson@pswlaw.com -- Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP,
Daniel D. Owen -- dowen@polsinelli.com -- Shughart Thomson &
Kilroy, P.C., Daniel L. Warshaw -- dwarshaw@pswlaw.com -- Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Esther L Klisura -- eklisura@sherleff.com --
Sher Leff LLP, Jonathan Mark Watkins, Pearson Simon Warshaw &
Penny LLP, Patrick John Brady -- jbrady@polsinelli.com --
Polsinelli PC,Aaron M. Sheanin -- asheanin@pswlaw.com -- Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci -- anardacci@bsfllp.com --
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy --
jmccarthy@lindquist.com -- Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Hawel A. Hawel d/b/a City Electronics, Plaintiff, represented by
Betty Lisa Julian,, Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc.,
Clinton Paul Walker, Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pache &
Silva, Fred A. Silva -- fsilva@damrell.com -- Damrell Nelson
Schrimp Pallios, Pacher & Silva, Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri &
Saveri Inc., Gianna Christa Gruenwald, Saveri & Saveri, Guido
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Kathy Lee Monday --
kmonday@damrell.com -- Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios, Pacher &
Silva, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Roger
Martin Schrimp -- rschrimp@damrell.com -- Damrell Nelson Schrimp
Pallios Pacher & Silva & Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP.

Orion Home Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Cadio R.
Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri &
Saveri Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc.,Joseph W.
Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy
LLP, Niki B. Okcu, AT&T Services, Inc. Legal Dept., Randy R.
Renick -- rrr@hadsellstormer.com -- Hadsell Stormer & Renick LLP,
Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Terry Gross --
terry@gba-law.com -- Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Adam C. Belsky --
adam@gba-law.com -- Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Monique
Alonso -- monique@gba-law.com -- Gross & Belsky LLP, Sarah
Crowley, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP & Steven Noel Williams --
swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Jeffrey Figone, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law
Offices of Brian Barry,Dennis Stewart, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP,
Donald L. Perelman, Fine Kaplan & Black RPC, Gerard A Dever, Fine
Kaplan and Black, RPC, Joseph Goldberg, Freedman Boyd Hollander
Goldberg Urias & Ward PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Josh Ewing, Freedman Boyd Hollander
Goldberg Urias & Ward PA, Julie A. Kearns, Hulett Harper Stewart
LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Matthew Duncan, Fine,
Kaplan and Black, RPC,Veronica Besmer, Besmer Law Firm & Vincent
J. Ward, Freedman Boyd Hollander Goldberg Urias & Ward PA.


Chad Klebs, Plaintiff, represented by Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law
Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP,
Lori Erin Andrus, Andrus Anderson LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Patrick Bradford Clayton, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel Mason LLP, Qianwei Fu, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel &
Mason LLP, Richard Michael Hagstrom, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Princeton Display Technologies, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, Lee
Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, James E. Cecchi, Carella
Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC, Lindsey H.
Taylor, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein PC,
Marisa C. Livesay, Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,Betsy Carol
Manifold, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, Francis M.
Gregorek, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum,Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP.

Carmen Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by James McManis, McManis
Faulkner, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP,
Marwa Elzankaly, McManis, Faulkner,Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Samuel J. Nasto, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries
Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence
Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard
Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP,
Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Craig Stephenson, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries
Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence
Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard
Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP,
Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

David G. Norby, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries
Olson & Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence
Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric
Frankovitch, Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard
Selden & Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP,
Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

John Larch, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson &
Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott,
LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP,Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro
Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch
Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden &
Osuch,Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman
Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Gary Hanson, Plaintiff, represented by Joel Flom, Jeffries Olson &
Flom PA, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott,
LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence Genaro
Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, M. Eric Frankovitch,
Frankovitch Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Michael G. Simon, Frankovitch
Anetakis Colantonio & Simon, Robert B. Gerard, Gerard Selden &
Osuch, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman
Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Margaret Slagle, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Karon, Karon
LLC, Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-
Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law
Firm, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Mary
Gilmore Kirkpatrick, Kirkpatrick & Goldborough PLLC, Theresa
Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Barry Kushner, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M. Alioto, Sr.,
Alioto Law Firm, Angelina Alioto-Grace, Alioto Law Firm, Daniel R.
Karon, Karon LLC, Daniel Joseph Mulligan, St. James Recovery
Services, P.C., Derek G. Howard, Minami Tamaki LLP, Jeffrey D.
Bores, Chestnut & Cambronne, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr,
Alioto Law Firm, Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut & Cambronne & Theresa
Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law Firm.

Brian A. Luscher, Plaintiff, represented by Angelina Alioto-Grace,
Alioto Law Firm, Joseph Michelangelo Alioto, Jr, Alioto Law Firm,
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert
James Pohlman, Ryley Carlock & Applewhite PC, Theresa Driscoll
Moore, Alioto Law Firm, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Steven Ganz, Plaintiff, represented by John Dmitry Bogdanov,
Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.,Josef Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C.,
Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP & Tracy R. Kirkman, Cooper & Kirkham PC.

Dana Ross, Plaintiff, represented by Kathleen Styles Rogers, The
Kralowec Law Group,Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Brigid Terry, Plaintiff, represented by Jean B. Roth, Mansfield
Tanick & Cohen, Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Kenneth Leo Valinoti, Valinoti & Dito LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lawrence
Genaro Papale, Law Offices of Lawrence G. Papale, Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert J. Bonsignore,
Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Seymour J. Mansfield, Foley &
Mansfield, PLLP, Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman
Kassof,Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Southern Office Supply, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Gilmur
Roderick Murray, Murray & Howard, LLP, Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC,
Donna F Solen, Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Drew A. Carson,
Miller Goler Faeges, Issac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen, Krishna Brian
Narine, Meredith Narine, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP,Steven J. Miller, Miller Goler Faeges, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.


Meijer, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP,Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox
LLP, David Paul Germaine, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC,
Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group PC, Linda Phyllis Nussbaum,
Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Meijer Distribution, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K
Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan
Kilsheimer & Fox LLP, David Paul Germaine,Gary Laurence Specks,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Joseph Michael Vanek, Vanek Vickers &
Masini PC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum LLP, Linda Phyllis
Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Arch Electronics, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony J.
Bolognese, Bolognese & Associates LLC, Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan
Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP,
Joshua H. Grabar, Bolognese & Associates, LLC, Kevin Bruce Love,
Hanzman Criden & Love, P.A., Linda Phyllis Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law
Group, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Studio Spectrum, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Steven F. Benz,
Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, David Nathan-Allen Sims, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Kory Pentland, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna,
Milberg LLP, Jeff S. Westerman, Westerman Law Corp, Paul F Novak,
Milberg LLP, Andrew J. Morganti, Milberg LLP & Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP.

Kory Pentland, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.
Radio & TV Equipment, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lisa J.
Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLP, Jason Kilene,
Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici,
Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Brady Lane Cotton, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christina Diane Crow, Jinks,
Crow & Dickson P.C., J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin &
Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell,
P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon
Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W.
Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow &
Dickson PC.

Colleen Sobotka, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Christopher William Cantrell,
J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael
Terrell, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Keith Thomson Belt,
Jr., Belt Law Firm, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Robert Page Bruner, Belt Law Firm, P.C.,
Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC, Robert Gordon
Methvin, Jr, McCallum, Methvin & Terrell, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist &
Vennum,Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Lynn W.
Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A. Dickson, Jinks Crow &
Dickson PC.

Daniel Riebow, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Travis Burau, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna,
Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Andrew Kindt, Plaintiff, represented by James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump &
Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP &
Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

James Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna,
Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Alan Rotman, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Ryan Rizzo, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna,
Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Charles Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, J. Matthew Stephens, McCallum
Methvin & Terrell PC, James Michael Terrell, McCallum, Methvin &
Terrell, P.C., Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Robert G. Methvin, McCallum Methvin & Terrell PC,
Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP, Lynn W. Jinks, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC & Nathan A.
Dickson, Jinks Crow & Dickson PC.

Daniel R. Hergert, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Adrienne Belai, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Joshua Maida, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Anne McKenna,
Milberg LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP, Paul F Novak, Milberg LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Rosemary Ciccone, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto,
Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Frank Warner, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump
Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Albert Sidney Crigler, Plaintiff, represented by Mario Nunzio
Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP, Robert Brent Irby,
McCallum, Hoaguland Cook & Irby LLP, Eric D. Hoaglund, McCallum
Hoaglund Cook & Irby LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto,
Trump & Prescott, LLP, Richard Freeman Horsley, King, Horsley &
Lyons, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P.
McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum &Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and
Flexner LLP.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Richard
Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Aaron M. Sheanin,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld
LLP,Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Jayne Ann Peeters,
Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Jill Michelle
Manning, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Michael
Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP,
Travis Luke Manfredi, Saveri and Saveri Inc, Anne M. Nardacci,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Daniel D. Cowen, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC, James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller
and Flexner LLP & P. John Brady, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy PC.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Lingel
Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, Craig C. Corbitt,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus
Anderson LLP, Jennifer Susan Rosenberg, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Josef
Deen Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph Mario Patane, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP,Sylvie K. Kern, KAG Law Group, Tracy R. Kirkham, Cooper &
Kirkham, P.C., Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum,Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump
& Prescott LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP,David Nathan Lake, Law Offices of David N.
Lake, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O.
Scarpulla, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Josef Deen
Cooper, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C., Joseph Mario Patane, Trump,
Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP,James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies
Schiller and Flexner LLP.

State of Washington, Plaintiff, represented by David Michael
Kerwin, Washington State Attorney General's Office, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Electrograph Systems, Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Electrograph Technologies Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Interbond Corporation of America, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart
Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.
Office Depot, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Harold
Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner,Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum.

Compucom Systems Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Titus
LeClair, McKool Smith, P.C., William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Mike
McKool, McKool Smith, P.C., Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum.

Costco Wholesale Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Cori
Gordon Moore, Perkins Coie LLP, David Burman, Perkins Coie LLP,
Eric J. Weiss, PERKINS COIE LLP, Euphemia Nikki Thomopulos,
Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, Joren Surya Bass, Perkins Coie
LLP,Nicholas H. Hesterberg, Perkins Coie LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,Steven Douglas Merriman, Perkins
Coie LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy,
Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner
LLP.

Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Gillett, Susman
Godfrey L.L.P., David M. Peterson, Susman Godfrey LLP, John Pierre
Lahad, Susman Godfrey LLP, Johnny William Carter, Susman Godfrey
LLP, Jonathan Jeffrey Ross, N/A, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Jonathan
Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff Stern LLP, Matthew C. Behncke,
Susman Godfrey LLP, Michael Lloyd Tuchin, Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert J. Pfister, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff
& Stern LLP, Robert Sabre Safi, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Samuel J
Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller
& Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, James
P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller
and Flexner LLP & Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Department of Legal Affairs, and Office of the Attorney General,
Plaintiffs, represented by Patricia A. Conners, Attorney General's
Office, R. Scott Palmer, Office of the Attorney General, Liz Ann
Brady, Office of the Attorney General, Nicholas J. Weilhammer,
Office of the Attorney General, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner, LLP, James P. McCarthy, Lindquist & Vennum & Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Best Buy Co., Inc., Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Best Buy
Purchasing LLC, Best Buy Stores, L.P., Best Buy.com LLC,

Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez, Robins Kaplan LLP, Laura
Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller and Ciresi, Jill Sharon
Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., Kenneth S.
Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP,Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller &
Ciresi, Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, K. Craig
Wildfang & Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P..

Magnolia Hi-Fi, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller
and Ciresi, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
LLP, Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Jennifer
Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP, Jill Sharon Casselman,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller and Ciresi L.L.P., K. Craig Wildfang &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P..

Good Guys, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

KMart Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP,William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP, Jalaine Garcia, James T Almon,
Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Kevin
J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare,
Kenny Nachwalter, PA,Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA &
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Old Comp Inc., and Radioshack Corp., Plaintiffs, represented by
Jason C. Murray, Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell
& Moring LLP, Deborah Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Philip
J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP, William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter PA,
Gavin David Whitis, Pond North LLP,Jalaine Garcia, James T Almon,
Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Philip
J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Richard A. Arnold, Kenny
Nachwalter, Ryan C Zagare, Kenny Nachwalter, PA, Samuel J Randall,
Kenny Nachwalter PA, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner
& Kevin J. Murray, Kenny Nachwalter PA.

Target Corp., Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and Moring LLP,
Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman
Godfrey LLP, Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Robert Brian McNary,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA &
William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Giovanni Constabile, and Gio's Inc, Plaintiffs, represented by
Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Schultze Agency Services, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by William
A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

Tweeter Newco, LLC, and ABC Appliance, Inc., Plaintiffs,
represented by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Philip J. Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner & Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP.

Marta Cooperative of America, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Anne
M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

P.C. Richard & Son Long Island Corporation, Plaintiff, represented
by Anne M. Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J
Iovieno, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner.

Sharp Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Colin C. West, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP & Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, LLP.

Kerry Lee Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Gralewski,
Jr., Gergosian & Gralewski LLP & Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Tech Data Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Melissa Willett,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner,Mitchell E. Widom, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod, LLP, Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price &
Axelrod LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod
LLP, Stuart Harold Singer, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William A.
Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, Anne M. Nardacci, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP & Philip J. Iovieno, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.

Tech Data Product Management, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Robert Turken, Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP, Anne M.
Nardacci, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP,Philip J Iovieno, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Scott N. Wagner, Bilzin Sumberg Baena
Price & Axelrod LLP, William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner
& Jennifer Milici, Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP.

Sharp Electronics Corporation, and Sharp Electronics Manufacturing
Company of America, Inc., Plaintiffs, represented by Craig A
Benson, Paul Weiss LLP,Gary R Carney, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton and Garrison LLP, Jonathan Alan Patchen, Taylor & Company
Law Offices, LLP, Joseph J Simons, Paul Weiss LLP, Kenneth A.
Gallo, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Kenneth S.
Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Kira A Davis, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton and Garrison LLP & Stephen E. Taylor, Taylor & Company Law
Offices, LLP.

Dell Inc., and Dell Products L.P., Plaintiffs, represented by
Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan,
Alston & Bird LLP, Jon G. Shepherd, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher,
Matthew David Kent, Alston + Bird LLP, Michael P. Kenny, Alston &
Bird LLP, Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP & James Matthew
Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP.

Magnolia Hi-Fi, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David Martinez,
Robins Kaplan LLP, Laura Elizabeth Nelson, Robins Kaplan Miller
and Ciresi, Jill Sharon Casselman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller and
Ciresi L.L.P., Elliot S. Kaplan, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi &
Roman M. Silberfeld, Robins Kaplan L.L.P..

Viewsonic Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Jason C. Murray,
Crowell & Moring LLP,Astor Henry Lloyd Heaven, III, Crowell and
Moring LLP, Daniel Allen Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah
Ellen Arbabi, Crowell and Moring LLP, Jerome A. Murphy, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Kenneth S. Marks, Susman Godfrey LLP, Matthew J.
McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP, Robert Brian McNary, Crowell &
Moring LLP & Samuel J Randall, Kenny Nachwalter PA.

YRC, INC., Creditor, represented by Jeffrey M. Judd, Judd Law
Group.

Chunghwa Picture Tubes, LTD., Defendant, represented by Joel
Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Austin Van Schwing, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, David C. Brownstein, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP,
Jacob P. Alpren, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP, William S Farmer,
Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP & Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP.

Chunghwa Picture Tubes (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd., Defendant,
represented by Joel Steven Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Austin Van Schwing,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, David C. Brownstein, Farmer
Brownstein Jaeger LLP, Jacob P. Alpren, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger
LLP, Rachel S. Brass, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP & William S
Farmer, Farmer Brownstein Jaeger LLP.

Hitachi, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas
L Wald, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi America, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP,James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Katherine Hamilton Wheaton& Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP,Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Irico Group Corp., Defendant, represented by Joseph R. Tiffany,
II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Irico Display Devices Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Joseph
R. Tiffany, II, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

LG Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brad D. Brian,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Douglas L Wald, Miriam Kim, Munger,
Tolles & Olson, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP,Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and
Olson,Gregory J. Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Hojoon
Hwang, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Jason Sheffield Angell, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and
Olson LLP,Jessica Nicole Leal, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Robert E. Freitas, Freitas
Angell & Weinberg LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Susan Elizabeth Nash, Munger Tolles Olson
LLP,Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and Olson, LLP, Bethany
Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis
Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER
LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP,William David
Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP & YongSang Kim.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP, A. Paul Victor,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, Amy
Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Andrew R. Tillman, Paine Tarwater
Bickers & Tillman, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De
Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges,Douglas
L Wald, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph Richard
Wetzel, King & Spalding, Kajetan Rozga, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret
Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP,Matthew
Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy,
Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ryan Michael
Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia
Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal &
Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Adam
C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Molly M Donovan, Dewey &
LeBoeuf LLP.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Douglas L Wald, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter
Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott
A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP,Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon
D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton.

Samtel Color, Ltd., ("Samtel") is a Indian company, Defendant,
represented by William Diaz, McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case,Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,Aya Kobori, White and Case
LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Douglas L Wald,George L.
Paul, White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander,
White & Case LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP,John M. Taladay,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau,
White & Case LLP,Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tsung-
Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise
Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Beijing-Matsushita Color CRT Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented
by Terry Calvani, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce C. McCulloch,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Christine A. Laciak,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Craig D. Minerva,
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Michael Lacovara, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
& Richard Sutton Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP.

LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Miriam Kim,
Munger, Tolles & Olson, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and
Olson LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald,
Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson,Hojoon Hwang,
Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jason Sheffield Angell, Freitas Angell
& Weinberg LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome
Cary Roth, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel,
Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Jessica Nicole Leal, Freitas Angell
& Weinberg LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Robert E. Freitas, Freitas
Angell & Weinberg LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger Tolles and
Olson, LLP & William David Temko, Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ethan E.
Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, Scott
A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,
Tiffany Belle Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Van H. Beckwith, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Charles M Malaise, & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, David Kendall Roberts,
O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP,Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas
Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP & Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Michael Frederick Tubach,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Benjamin Gardner Bradshaw, O'Melveny &
Meyers LLP, Courtney C Byrd, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin Douglas
Feder, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Anton Metlitsky, David Roberts,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Haidee L. Schwartz, O'Melveny & Myers LLP &
James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and
McGee, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,George L. Paul, White &
Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C.
Cleveland, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal
Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP,Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp,Samuel James
Sharp, White and Case LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White
& Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP & Matthew Frutig,
White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Bernadette Shawan Gillians, Buist Moore Smythe and McGee,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,George L. Paul, White & Case
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, William C. Cleveland,
Buist Moore Smythe and McGee, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil,
White & Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case
LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,Samuel J.
Sharp, Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave,
III,Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and
Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case,George L. Paul, White & Case LLP, Lucius
Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal Vijay Vakil,
White & Case LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy
Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Tsung-Hui
(Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise
Naifeh, White & Case LLP & Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP.
MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison
LLP, David E. Yolkut, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen
Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Gregory Hull, James F. Lerner, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,Jennifer
Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr.,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,
Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga, Kent
Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP,
Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Matthew Robert
DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP, Steven A. Reiss, Weil
Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP &David L. Yohai.

Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Adam C. Hemlock,
Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L
Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian
T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John
M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David
Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.

Toshiba America Consumer Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, White & Case
LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Bijal
Vijay Vakil, White & Case LLP, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeremy Kent Ostrander,
White & Case LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP,Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP,
Tsung-Hui (Danny) Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III,
Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case
LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y.
Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, David E. Yolkut,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP,
James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP,Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston
& Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP,John
Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kajetan Rozga,
Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B.
Goldstein, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen,
Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Margaret Anne Keane, DLA Piper LLP,
Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP, Martin C. Geagan,
Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal
and Manges LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP,
Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M Donovan, Winston &
Strawn LLP,Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Steven A. Reiss, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, Steven Alan Reiss,
Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP & Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.
Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.
Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented by David Michael Kerwin, Washington State Attorney
General's Office, Ethan E. Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP & Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P..

Samsung SDI (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd., Defendant, represented by Bruce
Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald,Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold
& Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton & James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona
Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James Landon
McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP,Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold
& Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. Ltd, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold
& Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce
Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald,Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John
M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc., Defendant, represented by
Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols,
Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Douglas L
Wald, Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, James Mutchnik,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine
Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Beijing Matsushita Color Crt Company, LTD., Defendant, represented
by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP & Richard Sutton
Snyder, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP.
Hitachi America, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP,Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Mutchnik & Katherine Hamilton Wheaton.


Hitachi Asia, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges
LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,Douglas L Wald, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP &
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Displays, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A.
Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP,Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Barack Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Sharon D.
Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal &
Mangesl LLP.

Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Defendant, represented by Eliot
A. Adelson, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, James Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Katherine Hamilton Wheaton & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Eliot A. Adelson, Kirkland
& Ellis LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Barack
Shem Echols, Kirkland Ellis LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James
Mutchnik, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Katherine Hamilton Wheaton, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White
& Case, Douglas L Wald, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, Richard P. Sobiecki, Baker Botts LLP, Scott A. Stempel,
Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tiffany Belle
Gelott, Baker Botts LLP, Van H. Beckwith, Baker Botts L.L.P.,
Charles M Malaise & Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas L
Wald, Miriam Kim, Munger, Tolles & Olson, William David Temko,
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Cathleen Hamel Hartge, Munger Tolles and Olson LLP,
Esteban Martin Estrada, Munger Tolles and Olson, Gregory J.
Weingart, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP, Hojoon Hwang, Munger
Tolles & Olson LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jason
Sheffield Angell, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jerome Cary Roth, Munger Tolles &
Olson LLP, Jessica Barclay-Strobel, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP,
Jessica Nicole Leal, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP, Robert E.
Freitas, Freitas Angell & Weinberg LLP,Xiaochin Claire Yan, Munger
Tolles and Olson, LLP, Bethany Woodard Kristovich, Munger Tolles
and Olson LLP, Jonathan Ellis Altman, Munger Tolles and Olson, Kim
YoungSang, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Laura K Lin, Munger, Tolles and
Olson LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP & YongSang Kim.

MT Picture Display Co., LTD, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, David L. Yohai, A. Paul
Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison,
Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Diana Arlen Aguilar, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald,Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn
LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP,
John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M.
Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., John Selim Tschirgi, Winston and
Strawn LLP, Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Kevin B. Goldstein, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil, Gotshal and
Manges LLP, Marjan Hajibandeh, Weil, Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP,Meaghan Thomas-
Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Molly M
Donovan, Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP,Ryan Michael Goodland, Weil, Gotshal
and Manges LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,
Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and
Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by David L. Yohai,
Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Amy Lee Stewart,
Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Christopher
M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith
& Allison LLP, Douglas L Wald, Eva W. Cole, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jennifer Stewart,
Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel
Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn LLP,
Matthew Robert DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Meaghan Thomas-
Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael W. Scarborough,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Molly Donovan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Scott A.
Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Sofia Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP & Steven Alan
Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
David L. Yohai, Amy Lee Stewart, Rose Law Firm, Bambo Obaro, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Craig Y.
Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP, Diana Arlen
Aguilar, Weil, Gotshal and Manges, Douglas L Wald, James F.
Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn
LLP, Jennifer Stewart, Winston and Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lara Elvidge Veblen, Weil,
Gotshal and Manges LLP,Martin C. Geagan, Jr., Winston and Strawn
LLP, Meaghan Thomas-Kennedy, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Michael
W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle
Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Sofia
Arguello, Winston and Strawn LLP & Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP.

Philips Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Philips Electronics North America, Defendant, represented by Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey LLP, Charles M Malaise & Erik
T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP.

Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda., Defendant,
represented by Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P..

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by David
Kendall Roberts, O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP & Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI (Malaysia) SDN BHD, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian
T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo
David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton & James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter
& Hampton LLP.

Samsung SDI America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP,James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Brasil LTDA, Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian
T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P.,Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo
David Caseria, Sheppard Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park
Chiu, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius
LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil,
Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Bruce Cobath,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M. Curran,
White & Case, Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP,Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold
& Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samsung SDI Mexico S.A. de C.V., Defendant, represented by Bruce
Cobath, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Douglas L Wald,Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L.
Halling, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton
Everett, Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker
Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold
& Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler
Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Samtel Color, Ltd., Defendant, represented by William Diaz,
McDermott Will & Emery LLP.

Shenzhen Samsung SDI Co. LTD., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP,Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold
& Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP,James
Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Tyler Mark
Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Bruce Cobath, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Douglas L Wald, Dylan Ian Ballard, Gary L. Halling, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Helen Cho Eckert, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Leo David Caseria, Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, Mona Solouki, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP,
Scott A. Stempel, Morgan, Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo,
Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl
LLP, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
& Tyler Mark Cunningham, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Toshiba America Consumer Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp &
William H. Bave, III.

Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Aya
Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White & Case,
Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Jeremy Kent Ostrander, White & Case LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case
LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP,Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP, Michelle Park Chiu,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP & Samuel J. Sharp.

Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Toshiba America Electronics Components, Inc,
Defendant, represented by Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP,
Steven Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, Tsung-Hui (Danny)
Wu, White and Case LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh,
White & Case LLP & Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
by Aya Kobori, White and Case LLP, Christopher M. Curran, White &
Case, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny
& Myers LLP, John Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP,Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White &
Case LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case
LLP, William H. Bave, III, Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP &
Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba America, Inc, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White
and Case LLP,Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, Dana E. Foster,
White and Case LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, John
Mark Gidley, White & Case LLP, Lucius Bernard Lau, White & Case
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Samuel James Sharp, White and Case LLP,
William H. Bave, III & Charise Naifeh, White & Case LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aya Kobori, White
and Case LLP, Dana E. Foster, White and Case LLP, Douglas L Wald,
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, John Clayton Everett,
Jr., Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Kent Michael
Roger, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, Michelle Park Chiu, Morgan
Lewis & Bockius LLP, Samuel J. Sharp, Scott A. Stempel, Morgan,
Lewis Bockius LLP, Sharon D. Mayo, Arnold & Porter LLP, Steven
Alan Reiss, Weil, Gotshal & Mangesl LLP, William H. Bave, III,
Christopher M. Curran, White & Case, George L. Paul, Lucius
Bernard Lau, White & Case LLP &Matthew Frutig, White & Case LLP.
Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brent
Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP, Gabriel A.
Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block
LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP & Shaun M. Van
Horn, Jenner And Block LLP.

Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts, Faegre Baker
Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Ryan M Hurley
& Stephen Michael Judge, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

Thomson S.A., Defendant, represented by Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre
Baker Daniels LLP,Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,
Calvin L. Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Jeffrey Scott Roberts,
Faegre Baker Daniels, Kathy L. Osborn, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP,
Ryan M Hurley & Stephen Michael Judge, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.

PT.MT Picture Display Indonesia, Defendant, represented by Craig
Y. Allison, Bunsow, De Mory, Smith & Allison LLP.

Technologies Displays Americas LLC, Defendant, represented by
Arthur Slezak Gaus, Dillingham Murphy, LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, Donald Arthur Wall, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, Ellen Tobin, Curtis, Mallet-Provost, Colt Mosle LLP,
Jeffrey Ira Zuckerman, Buris, Mallet Prevost, Colt Mosle LLP, Mark
C. Dosker, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP & Nathan Lane, III, Squire
Sanders (US) LLP.

Technicolor S.A, Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP &Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.

Technicolor USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Calvin L. Litsey,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Calvin Lee Litsey, Faegre Baker Daniels
LLP.

Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Defendant, represented by
Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P., Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP & Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP.
Mitsubishi Electric Visual Solutions America, Inc, Defendant,
represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC, Adam C.
Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and Manges LLP,Gabriel A. Fuentes, Jenner &
Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Molly McGrail
Powers, Jenner And Block LLP & Shaun M. Van Horn, Jenner And Block
LLP.

Philips Taiwan Limited, Defendant, represented by Charles M
Malaise, Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey
LLP.

Philips do Brasil Ltda., Defendant, represented by Charles M
Malaise, Erik T. Koons, Baker Botts LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil
Gotshal and Manges LLP, John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon
Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & Joseph A. Ostoyich, Howrey
LLP.

Mitsubishi Electric US, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael T.
Brody, Jenner & Block LLP, Adam C. Hemlock, Weil Gotshal and
Manges LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block LLC.

Alan Frankel, Respondent, represented by Alan Frankel.

Christopher Wirth, Movant, Pro Se.

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP.

Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Mitsubishi Digital Electronics Americas, Inc.,
Interested Party, represented by Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner &
Block LLC.

Mitsubishi Electric & Electronics USA, Inc., Interested Party,
represented by Brent Caslin, Jenner & Block LLP, Gabriel A.
Fuentes, Jenner & Block, LLP, Michael T. Brody, Jenner & Block
LLP, Molly McGrail Powers, Jenner And Block LLP, Shaun M. Van
Horn, Jenner And Block LLP & Terrence Joseph Truax, Jenner & Block
LLC.

State of California, Interested Party, represented by Emilio
Eugene Varanini, IV, State Attorney General's Office & Paul Andrew
Moore, Attorney at Law.

Sean Hull, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.
Douglas A. Kelley, Miscellaneous, represented by Philip J Iovieno,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & William A. Isaacson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner.

John R. Stoebner, represented by Philip J Iovieno, Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP &William A. Isaacson, Boies Schiller & Flexner.

State of Illinois, Intervenor, represented by Blake Lee Harrop,
Office of the Attorney General & Chadwick Oliver Brooker, Office
of the Illinois Attorney General.

State of Oregon, Intervenor, represented by Tim David Nord, Oregon
Department of Justice.


WAL-MART STORES: "Phipps" Class Claims May Proceed, 6th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHERYL PHIPPS; BOBBI MILLNER; SHAWN GIBBONS,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, NO. 13-6194 (6th Cir.), the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a district court's order
dismissing class claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

Cheryl Phipps, Bobbi Millner, and Shawn Gibbons sued Wal-Mart in
federal district court in Tennessee, alleging individual and
putative class claims under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3) on
behalf of current and former female employees in Wal-Mart Region
43.  They also claimed gender discrimination in pay and promotions
as the result of regional Wal-Mart management policies and
decisions.

The district court granted Wal-Mart's motion dismiss the class
claims as time-barred under the tolling principles of American
Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538 (1974), and Crown,
Cork & Seal Co. v. Parker, 462 U.S. 345, 354 (1983).

On appeal, the 6th Circuit held that the putative class claims are
not barred by American Pipe or Crown, Cork & Seal Co. It reversed
the district court's order dismissing the class claims and
remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

A copy of the July 7, 2015 opinion is available at
http://is.gd/mauPCafrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Joseph M. Sellers -- jsellers@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN
MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON,
DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los Angeles, California, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Joseph M. Sellers, Christine E. Webber --
cwebber@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC,
Washington, D.C., George E. Barrett --
gbarrett@barrettjohnston.com -- David W. Garrison --
dgarrison@barretjohnston.com -- Scott P. Tift --
stift@barretjohnston.com -- Seth M. Hyatt --
shyatt@barrettjohnston.com -- BARRETT JOHNSTON, LLC, Nashville,
Tennessee, Jocelyn D. Larkin, THE IMPACT FUND, Berkeley,
California, for Appellants.

Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr., GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Los
Angeles, California, Rachel S. Brass -- rbrass@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, San Francisco, California, Mark A.
Perry -- mperry@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
Washington, D.C., Karl G. Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com --
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, Dallas, Texas, for Appellee.


WALGREEN CO: Father of 'Bottle Bill' Sues Over Bottle Redemptions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Pastor, writing for The New York Times, reported that G.
Oliver Koppell has not stopped talking about the "Bottle Bill"
since its long-sought passage in 1982.

Even during Mr. Koppell's failed campaign to unseat State Senator
Jeffrey D. Klein of New York, his bill that turned empties into
loose change was never far from his platform.

Now, less than a year after slipping from public life, Mr.
Koppell, a former Bronx councilman who served as a state
assemblyman and as the state's attorney general, came full circle
with his filing of a class-action suit in State Supreme Court. The
complaint charges that the Walgreen Company has violated the
bottle law, turning away from its Duane Reade stores and even
harassing the people most dependent on the 5-cent redemptions. All
four of the original plaintiffs have struggled with homelessness.

One of them, 49-year-old Avery Wheeler, said he earned a meager
living recycling bottles but "most of the time, they reject them,"
he said of the Duane Reade locations he frequents. To make matters
worse, the homeless shelter where he lives bars him from bringing
his rejected bags inside.

The suit was filed on behalf of "all persons who make a
substantial portion of their income by collecting and recycling
beverage containers" and have been subjected to unlawful refusal
at stores owned by the Walgreen Company, which operates 250 Duane
Reade stores in New York City. The drugstores are frequently
visited by those who gather cans and bottles from the garbage at
night, Mr. Koppell said, because many are open 24 hours and are
legally obligated to redeem at all times. The Walgreen Company
declined to comment on the continuing litigation.

Joshua Johnson, a plaintiff in the class action, is also being
represented by Mr. Koppell in a separate case filed in which he
claims he was assaulted by Duane Reade employees who turned him
away.

The class action seeks monetary compensation for the plaintiffs
but more important, Mr. Koppell said, a permanent injunction
requiring the Walgreen Company to change course.

"It's unbelievable how they blatantly violate the law," he said.

It's hard to fathom how the two original plaintiffs came to find
Mr. Koppell, of all people. Mr. Johnson's domestic partner, Brenda
Gardner, said that after years of making complaints to Walgreen's
corporate office, she searched online for a lawyer and called six
at random before one expressed interest. The seventh? Mr. Koppell.

"For me this is sort of a labor of love in a way," said Mr.
Koppell, who seemed awed by the coincidence. "I mean, it's my
thing."


WESTERN POWER: Class Suit Over Perth Hills Bush Fire Advances
-------------------------------------------------------------
9News.com.au reported that a class action over the bushfire that
destroyed dozens of homes in Perth's Hills region is gaining
momentum, with victims saying they have a strong case against
Western Power.

The blaze started when a rotten and termite-ridden power pole fell
over in January, razing 57 homes, seven outbuildings and about
392ha of bushland.

A further six homes were partially damaged.

Residents pursued the class action after an EnergySafety report
found Western Power contractors should have observed clay deposits
in the privately-owned jarrah pole earlier that month and in July
2013, indicating extensive and prolonged termite activity.

EnergySafety emphasised the duty of care owners of private power
poles had to maintain them, but also noted Western Power's work
practice standards, which state it had "a responsibility to the
customer to notify them of the unsafe condition of a pole and to
make the site safe".

Stoneville and Parkerville Progress Association chairman Greg
Jones said the utility had a duty to inform the landowner, an
elderly lady.

Mr Jones said there were more than enough claimants to make the
class action viable, with about 100 people attending a meeting
with Slater and Gordon lawyers earlier.

He said a much longer version of the EnergySafety report --
requiring a hard drive as it is 128GB -- had been viewed by high-
level QCs who believed the residents had a very strong case.

"There is a reasonable chance of this being successful," Mr Jones
told AAP.

The action could take up to two years to proceed, he said.

Nearly 18 months after losing their homes, about 10 per cent of
the residents are still arguing with their insurance companies.

Others who had their claims settled quickly were up to 15 per cent
out of pocket given a new planning scheme for bushfire-prone areas
had been introduced as a result of the blaze, meaning higher costs
to re-build.

"If this is settled the way it should be settled, it will provide
some closure to people," Mr Jones said.

"Their lives have changed forever. One minute they were sitting in
their home enjoying their surrounds and peace. The next thing,
they're wearing somebody else's clothes, living in somebody else's
accommodation.

"It's just a terrible situation."


WILLOW INC: Sued by Homeowners in Harvey Gated Community
--------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for The Louisiana Record, reported that a
group of more than 300 homeowners have filed a class action
lawsuit against the developers of a Harvey gated community built
over filled in marshland after their homes allegedly experienced
foundation and structural damage that was not covered by insurance
polices.

Blanche Jenkins, on behalf of the proposed class, filed suit
against Willow Inc., National Home Insurance Company -- A Risk
Retention Group and their insurers in the 24th Judicial District
Court on April 14.

The class alleges that in 2000 or 2001 Willow Inc. received
permission from Jefferson Parish to fill in a piece of marshland
and build a subdivision over it. The plaintiffs, who are all
owners of homes that were later built in the Village Green
subdivision, contend that Willow Inc. did not allow enough time
for the property to settle after the marshland was filled in.
Between 2001 and 2007 the class asserts that homes were built and
marketed for Village Green subdivision -- a gated community --
that they purchased. As part of the plaintiffs' purchase agreement
Willow Inc. allegedly provided them with a 10-year guarantee,
backed by insurance, against foundation and structural problems.

However, the plaintiffs allege that before the 10-year warranty
was up they began to experience foundation and structural problems
with their homes, but the defendants failed to provide insurance
payments to reimburse them for the damages because the insurance
contracts only covered flood damage. The class contends they would
have never bought their homes to begin with had they known the
warranty and insurance would not be granted when foundation and
structural damage occurred. Further, the class asserts they did
not realize the warranties provided by the defendants included
arbitration agreements, thus depriving the class of a chance to
settle matters arising from the purchase in court -- which they
maintain is against Louisiana law. The plaintiffs claim
arbitration costs exceed $350,000.

The defendants are accused of breach of contract, fraud, deceit
and misrepresentation.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for reimbursement for
property damage, mental pain and anguish, attorney's fees and
arbitration costs.

The class is represented by James E. Shields of Gretna-based
Shields & Shields APLC.

The case has been assigned to Division D Judge Scott U. Schlegel.

Case no. 748-666.


XOOM CORP: Faces "Beverly" Suit Over Proposed PayPal Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allan Beverly, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Xoom Corp., et al., Case No. 11285-VCG (Del. Ch., July
13, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of
Xoom Corporation, to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Xoom by
PayPal Inc., through an inadequate consideration and unfair price.

Xoom Corporation is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in the
digital consumer-to-consumer international money transfer
business.

PayPal Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides digital money
transfer services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500


* Hausfeld Inks $19.5-Mil. Settlement in Potatoes Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Purchasers of fresh potatoes may be entitled to money from a
settlement in a class-action lawsuit pending in federal court in
Idaho, Hausfeld LLP announced. The settlement provides a cash
payment of $19.5 million and a portion of that amount will be
distributed to those who purchased potatoes directly from
defendants and certain other producers and sellers of potatoes
between June 18, 2006 and June 17, 2015 and who file claim forms
before October 16, 2015. Several thousand potato buyers received
notices and claim forms in the mail, alerting them to the
settlement.

A website, www.PotatoesAntitrustSettlement.com, provides
information about the case and the Settlement, and includes case-
related documents, and claim forms that can be submitted online or
by mail. Class members can also call a toll-free hotline to get
information at 866-985-7589. The amount each class member will
receive will depend on the number of claims made.

The case, titled In re Fresh and Process Potatoes Antitrust
Litigation, was filed in 2010. The plaintiffs allege that
defendants, who include various farms, marketing groups and
cooperatives conspired among themselves and others to fix, raise,
maintain and/or stabilize the prices at which potatoes were sold
in the United States by controlling and restricting the supply of
potatoes. Plaintiffs claimed that Defendants implemented this
price-fixing and supply-management conspiracy by agreeing to take
several coordinated actions including, among other methods: 1)
agreeing to limit the number of acres planted to potatoes; 2)
agreeing to destroy existing Fresh Potato stocks or divert Fresh
Potatoes into processing; 3) and agreeing to limit the flow of
Fresh Potatoes into the fresh market to stabilize or raise potato
prices. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' actions violated the
Sherman Antitrust Act, a federal law that prohibits any agreement
that unreasonably restrains competition. The defendants denied all
of the charges throughout the litigation. The parties agreed to
settle the action to avoid the cost and risk of trial and appeals
that would likely follow a trial.

The Court held a hearing on June 11 to determine whether to grant
preliminary approval to the settlement, and granted preliminary
approval on June 17, 2015. Class members have until October 16,
2015 to make claims, object to the settlement or exclude
themselves from it. Information regarding class members' rights
and options, including a claim form that can be submitted online,
can be found at www.PotatoesAntitrustSettlement.com



                            *********

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.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, 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  * * *