CAR_Public/150730.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 30, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 151


                            Headlines


1052 LLC: Faces "Vaquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Will Not Be Scheduled Before 2016
ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in Bucio Case Appeal
ABIOMED INC: 1st Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Class Action
ALERE INC: Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Granted in Part

AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Henn" Suit to Nebraska District Court
ANNIE PRICE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
ARS NATIONAL: Info Disclosure Violates FDCPA, Judge Rules
ASCENA RETAIL: Mehigan Case Amended to Include Nationwide Class
ASCENA RETAIL: Cowhey and Mehigan Cases Consolidated

ASCENA RETAIL: Justice Filed Bid to Transfer Traynor-Lufkin Case
ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Class Action Appeal Not Been Set
BAYWOOD HOTELS: Faces "Salas-Pizzaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BEST BUY: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Cal. Over False Gift Cards
BK VENTURE: Faces "Gaskin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
BLUENRGY GROUP: Securities Class Pending v. Officers & Directors
BRAZOS ROCK: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Galindo" Suit Says
BROOKDALE HOSPITAL: "Eka" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Illegally Uses Consumers Internet, Suit Says

CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Judge Tosses Defamation Claim v. Creditors
CALVARY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Monaghan" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
CERNER CORPORATION: Faces "Letterman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COLE COUNTY, MO: Limits Detainees Clothing, "Ingram" Suit Claims
CONN'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action Pending

CROSSROADS LLC: Removed "Vanderau" Class Suit to N.D. Alabama
DISH ONE: Named in TCPA Class Suit
DOLE FOOD: CEO Accused of Shortchanging Investors
DFRF ENTERPRISES: Charged in Alleged $15-Mil. Ponzi Scheme
DUNKIN DONUTS: Ex-Employee Files Suit For Overtime Denial

DUPONT CO: Faces 2 Test Trials Over C-8 Contamination
EDISON INT'L: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
EDISON INT'L: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit
EL CAFETERO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
ETSY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit

EXPEDIA: Liable for Sales Tax on Hotel Rooms, Court Rules
FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Against California Class-Action
FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Minsky" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
FINGER ONE: Removed "Doe" Suit to South District California
FIVE BELOW: Lead Plaintiff Filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal

FLOWERS FOODS: 4 Complaints Filed Alleging Misclassification
FORD MOTOR: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Apartheid Cases
FREMONT M: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Payment Packing
GOLD CLUB: Arbitration Agreement Unconscionable in Wage Suit
GRAND & PULASKI: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

HIKO ENERGY: Directed by Atty Gen. to Return $1.25MM to Customers
HOME PROPERTIES: E.D. Pa. Trims "Jarzyna" FDCPA Lawsuit
HUDSON CLOTHING: Falsely Labeled Jeans, "Schulert" Suit Claims
INDIANA: 'Serious Sex Offenders' Fight for Right to Worship
INVENSENSE INC: Facing Five Class Actions by Shareholders

J. C. PENNEY: Defending Against Marcus and Johnson Class Actions
J. C. PENNEY: Filed Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action
J. C. PENNEY: Filed Answer to Employment Class Action
J. C. PENNEY: Court Granted Certification in Spann Case
JACO OIL: Class Settlement Has Initial OK; Final Hearing on 9/25

JBS USA: Court Rules on EEOC Suit Over Muslim Staff Accomodations
JLING INC: Faces "Ji" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KING SUPPLY: Insurer May Intervene in Class Suit, Says 7th Circ.
L'OREAL USA: CA Affirms Class Cert. Denial in Privacy Suit
LAHEY HOSPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime

LIFE OF THE SOUTH: Removed "Carzell" Class Suit to N.D. Georgia
LUXE VALET: Faces "Payton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Motion to Consolidate Pending
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Ex-Scout Sues Over Minimum Wage Violations
MF GLOBAL: Former Execs Ink $64.5MM Tentative Deal with Investors

MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Revives Suit Over Xbox Console Defect
MV TRANSPORATION: "Diabate" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
MY TRADE: "Bourhis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Malakha" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Children Overstaying in Foster Care
NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Banda" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
NRG ENERGY: Removed "Wilens" Suit to Central District California
PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase
PATRIOT LOGISTIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages

PD LONG: Illegally Retains Workers Gratuities, Action Claims
PHOENIX COMPANIES: Settlement in COI Cases Awaits Approval
PIGGLY WIGGLY: Removed "Johnson" Suit to S.C. District Court
PLAINS ALL: Keller and Lieff File Suit Over Refugio Oil Spill
PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Gudelsky" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

RADIANCY INC: Falsely Marketed Hair Removal Device, Suit Claims
SANFORD MEDICAL: Former Patient Files Suit Over ER Charges
SEARS HOLDING: Worker Sues Over Debit Card Mode of Payment
SIGNET JEWELERS: Store-Level Employment Practices Action Ongoing
SIGNET JEWELERS: Investigating Naomi Tapia Matter

SIGNET JEWELERS: Motion to Dismiss Heard by Court of Chancery
SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plantiff Bid Deadline
SRM BEAUTY: Faces "Loh" Suit Over Corporate Funds Mismanagement
SUTTER HEALTH: Removed "McCray-Key" Class Suit to E.D. Calif.
TEIKOKU PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Lidoderm

TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Parties Signed MOU
TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: "Dawsey" Suit Belongs to Federal Court
ULTA SALON: Continues to Defend Employment Class Action
ULTA SALON: Parties Agree to Private Mediation
UNISYS CORP: Emotional Distress Claim Barred, Calif. Judge Says

UNO CAFE: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
VERINT SYSTEMS: Motion to Certify Suit Under Court Consideration
VOLKSWAGEN: Denver Firm Wants Court to Uphold Fee Division Deal
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Named as Lead Counsel
WAL-MART STORES: 6th Cir. Allows Discrimibation Suit to Begin

WESTJET: Quebec Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Accessibility Suit
WILLIAMS CO: Another Law Firm Files Class Suit, Says Andrews
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Motion to Certify for Immediate Appeal
WYETH CANADA: HRT Users Can Claim Compensation from $13MM Fund


                            *********


1052 LLC: Faces "Vaquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Vazquez, and other similarly-situated individuals v. 1052
LLC d/b/a Amarillo, d/b/a Papagayo and Anthony Arrighi, and
Katherine Arrighi, Case No. 1:15-cv-22677-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 16,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bar located at
1052 Ocean Drive, Miami Beach.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Will Not Be Scheduled Before 2016
---------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated expects oral argument will not be
scheduled before 2016 in the case, Augustus, Hall and Davis v.
American Commercial Security Services, ABM said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June
3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015.

The Consolidated Cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American
Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Augustus case")
The Augustus case is a certified class action involving
allegations that we violated certain California state laws
relating to rest breaks. The case centers around whether requiring
security guards to remain on call during rest breaks violated
Section 226.7 of the California Labor Code.

On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary
judgment on the rest break claim, and on July 31, 2012, the
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the "Superior
Court"), entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of
approximately $89.7 million. Subsequently, the Superior Court also
awarded plaintiffs' attorneys' fees of approximately $4.5 million
in addition to approximately 30% of the $89.7 million common fund.

"We appealed the Superior Court's rulings to the Court of Appeals
of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the
"Appeals Court")," the Company said.  "On December 31, 2014, the
Appeals Court issued its opinion, reversing the judgment in favor
of the plaintiffs and vacating the award of $89.7 million in
damages and the attorneys' fees award.  Plaintiffs requested
rehearing of the Appeals Court's decision to reverse the judgment
in favor of plaintiffs and vacate the damages award."

"On January 29, 2015, the Appeals Court denied the plaintiffs'
request for rehearing, modified its December 31, 2014 opinion, and
certified the opinion for publication.  The Appeals Court opinion
held that "on-call rest breaks are permissible" and remaining on
call during rest breaks does not render the rest breaks invalid
under California law.  The Appeals Court explained that "although
on-call hours constitute 'hours worked,' remaining available to
work is not the same as performing work. . . . Section 226.7
proscribes only work on a rest break." The plaintiffs filed a
petition for review with the California Supreme Court on March 4,
2015, and on April 29, 2015, the California Supreme Court granted
the plaintiffs' petition. No date has been set for oral argument.

"We expect that oral argument will not be scheduled before 2016.
We believe that the Appeals Court correctly ruled in our favor,
and we look forward to presenting our arguments to the California
Supreme Court," the Company said.


ABM INDUSTRIES: Oral Argument Not Scheduled in Bucio Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABM Industries Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that oral argument has
not been scheduled relating to the appeal in the consolidated
cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on
April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco (the "Bucio case").

The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations
that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19,
2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to
certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial
court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.

On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider,
which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class
certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying
lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal.

On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on
the class certification issues.

"We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument
relating to the appeal has not been scheduled," the Company said.

"We expect to prevail in these ongoing cases. However, as
litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance
in this regard. If the plaintiffs in one or more of these cases,
or other cases, do prevail, the results may have a material effect
on our financial position, results of operations, or cash flows."


ABIOMED INC: 1st Circuit Affirmed Dismissal of Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABIOMED, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that on February 6, 2015, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, or the First Circuit,
affirmed the dismissal by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, or the District Court, of a previously disclosed
complaint brought by alleged purchasers of the Company's common
stock, on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that
purchased or acquired common stock of the Company between August
5, 2011 and October 31, 2012. The complaint related to two
previously reported complaints that were filed on November 16 and
19, 2012 and alleged that the Company and certain of its officers
violated federal securities laws in connection with disclosures
related to the Company's marketing and labeling of the Impella 2.5
product and sought damages in an unspecified amount. The District
Court consolidated these complaints, and a consolidated amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs on May 20, 2013. On July 8,
2013, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action. The Company does not expect any further activity
related to this matter.


ALERE INC: Motion to Dismiss Lawsuit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------
Alere Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 2) filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that AHM's motion to dismiss
a lawsuit related to theft of a laptop has been granted in part,
but denied as to the plaintiffs' amended CMIA claims.

In September 2012, a password-protected laptop containing
personally identifiable information of approximately 116,000
patients was stolen from an employee of Alere Home Monitoring, or
AHM.  On January 24, 2013, a class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against AHM, asserting claims for damages and other relief under
California state law, including under California's Confidentiality
of Medical Information Act, or CMIA, arising out of this theft. On
October 7, 2014, the class action was dismissed with leave to
amend the complaint. On October 28, 2014, an amended complaint was
filed, and on November 17, 2014 AHM responded by filing another
motion to dismiss. On February 23, 2015, AHM's motion to dismiss
was granted in part, but denied as to the plaintiffs' amended CMIA
claims.


AMERICAN FAMILY: Removed "Henn" Suit to Nebraska District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Rosemary Henn, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Family
Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. CI15-5322, was removed from the
Douglas County District Court to the U.S. District Court
District of Nebraska. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:15-cv-00257-JFB-TDT to the proceeding.

The class suit arises out of the alleged breach of insurance
contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric R. Chandler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ERIC R. CHANDLER
      319 South 17th Street, Suite 522
      Omaha, NE 68102
      Telephone: (402) 933-6858
      Facsimile: (402) 929-7939
      E-mail: ericchandlerlaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
      M. A. Mehr, Esq.
      Philip G. Fairbanks, Esq.
      MEHR, FAIRBANKS LAW FIRM
      201 West Short Street, Suite 800
      Lexington, KY 40507
      Telephone: (859) 225-3731
      Facsimile: (859) 225-3830
      E-mail: edp@austinmehr.com
              mamehr@austinmehr.com
              pgf@austinmehr.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Bartholomew L. McLeay, Esq.
      Brooke H. McCarthy, Esq.
      KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM
      1650 Farnam Street
      Omaha, NE 68102-2186
      Telephone: (402) 346-6000
      Facsimile: (402) 346-1148
      E-mail: bart.mcleay@kutakrock.com
              brooke.mccarthy@kutakrock.com


ANNIE PRICE: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Repair Units Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
Femi Andrades v. Annie Price, Bridget Bradley, and Does 1-30, Case
No. RG15777860 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), is brought on
behalf of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical
injury, over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a
result of the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of
the habitability defects to the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


ARS NATIONAL: Info Disclosure Violates FDCPA, Judge Rules
---------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seal, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
following a Third Circuit ruling last year finding a debtor's
account number on the outside of an envelope violates the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act, a Pennsylvania federal judge has
ruled embedding that number in a bar code is equally problematic
given the advent of smartphone bar-code readers.

The judge determined the use of the bar code increases the risk
that the receiver could be a victim of identity theft.

U.S. District Judge William J. Nealon of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania denied ARS National Services Inc.'s motion for
judgment on the pleadings, holding in his opinion on July 22 that
the debt collector violated Section 1692f(8) of the FDCPA by
including information other than its address on an envelope.

The district court relied on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit's 2014 ruling in Douglass v. Convergent Outsourcing,
which held that "disclosure of the plaintiff's account number
implicated 'a core concern animating the FDCPA -- the invasion of
privacy.'"  It also cited to its own July 15 opinion in Styer v.
Professional Medical Management, which held that disclosure of a
QR code on a debt-collection envelope violated the same section of
the FDCPA.

"The Third Circuit stated that the plaintiff's account number was
'a core piece of information pertaining to [plaintiff's] status as
a debtor and [defendant's] debt-collection effort,'" Judge Nealon
wrote for the court in Kostik v. ARS National Services.
"Moreover, the Third Circuit concluded that 'disclosure [of the
account number] has the potential to cause harm to a consumer that
the FDCPA was enacted to address.'"

The FDCPA was enacted in 1977, Judge Nealon said, "'to eliminate
abusive debt-collection practices by debt collectors, to ensure
that those debt collectors who refrain from using abusive debt-
collection practices are not competitively disadvantaged, and to
promote consistent state action to protect consumers against debt-
collection abuses.'"

Because "bar codes can be easily deciphered by consumers using
widely available free applications for 'smartphones,'" Judge
Nealon said, and an "'account number is not meaningless,'" per the
Third Circuit, ARS violated Section 1692f(8).

Lisa Kostik filed a complaint against ARS on Dec. 1, 2014,
regarding a letter the company mailed to her in December 2013 in
an attempt to collect a debt, Judge Nealon said.  A bar code
appeared below the return address in the envelope window, which,
when scanned, revealed Ms. Kostik's account number.

"By disclosing the bar code to the general public, it increased
the risk that plaintiff would be a victim of identity theft,"
Judge Nealon said.

ARS argued "imposing liability due to the possibility of illegal
action by a third party is 'inappropriate.'"  It also argued the
FDCPA "was not intended to prohibit the disclosure of benign
symbols on any envelope sent by a debt collector as a means of
communicating with a consumer by use of the mails," Judge Nealon
said.

The company conceded that Section 1692f(8) "prohibits any language
or symbol from appearing on a debt-collection envelope," but
argued that courts have found benign symbols not to violate the
act.

The Douglass court, however, held that disclosure of the
plaintiff's account number was not benign because "divulging such
information to the public meant it 'could be used to expose [the
plaintiff's] financial predicament,'" Judge Nealon said.

The Third Circuit further held that the "'account number is not
meaningless -- it is a piece of information capable of identifying
[plaintiff] as a debtor,'" Judge Nealon said, which the FDCPA was
enacted to prevent.

The defendant in Douglass "did not dispute that the plain language
of Section 1692f(8) prohibits 'including [the plaintiff's] account
number on the face of the envelope,'" Judge Nealon said.

Ms. Kostik argued that "'because the bar code contains plaintiff's
account number, under [Douglass] it cannot be benign,'" Judge
Nealon said.

Styer dealt with a QR code included on a debt-collection envelope
that revealed the plaintiff's name, address and account number
when scanned, Judge Nealon said.  The Styer court applied
Douglass, in an opinion Nealon wrote, and determined that
disclosure of the QR code on the envelope was prohibited under
Section 1692f(8).

Applying Douglass and Styer together, Judge Nealon denied ARS's
motion.

Carlo Sabatini of Sabatini Law Firm in Dunmore represents
Ms. Kostik.  Richard Perr of Fineman Krekstein & Harris in
Philadelphia represents ARS.  Neither Mr. Sabatini nor Mr. Perr
returned a call for comment.


ASCENA RETAIL: Mehigan Case Amended to Include Nationwide Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 25, 2015, that the complaint in the
case, Mehigan v. Tween Brands, Inc., was amended a second time
seeking to make the case a nationwide purported class action
lawsuit.

On February 12, 2015, Melinda Mehigan and Fonda Kubiak, both
consumers, filed a purported class action proceeding (the "Mehigan
case") against Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and Tween Brands, Inc.
(doing business as "Justice") in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves
and all similarly situated consumers who, in the case of Ms.
Mehigan in the State of New Jersey, and in the case of Ms. Kubiak
in the State of New York, made purchases at Justice from 2009 to
2015 (the "Alleged Class Period"). The lawsuit alleges that
Justice violated state comparative pricing laws in connection with
advertisements promoting a 40% discount. The plaintiffs further
allege false advertising, violation of state consumer protection
statutes, breach of contract, breach of express warranty, and
unfair benefit to Justice. The plaintiffs seek to stop Justice's
allegedly unlawful practice, and obtain damages for Justice's
customers in the named states. They also seek interest and legal
fees.

On February 17, 2015, the complaint in the Mehigan case was
amended to add five more named individual plaintiffs and to add
the same allegations against Justice in the States of California,
Florida, Illinois and Texas.

On April 8, 2015, the complaint in the Mehigan case was amended a
second time seeking to make the case a nationwide purported class
action lawsuit. As amended, the case covers Justice customers in
47 states. The excluded states are Hawaii, Alaska and Ohio. During
the Alleged Class Period, Justice did not operate any stores in
Hawaii or Alaska. A similar class action lawsuit making
substantially the same allegations as the Mehigan case was settled
in December 2014 in Ohio, although the Company denied any
wrongdoing as part of that settlement.


ASCENA RETAIL: Cowhey and Mehigan Cases Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 25, 2015, that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
consolidated the case, Cowhey v. Tween Brands, Inc., and the case,
Mehigan v. Tween Brands.

On February 17, 2015, Carol Cowhey, a consumer, filed a purported
class action proceeding (the "Cowhey case") against Ascena Retail
Group, Inc. and Tween Brands, Inc. (doing business as "Justice")
in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated consumers who
in the State of Pennsylvania made purchases at Justice during the
Alleged Class Period. The allegations in the Cowhey case are
substantially the same as those in the Mehigan case. The relief
sought in the Cowhey case focuses on remedies available under
Pennsylvania law, which the Plaintiff claims to include treble
damages. On March 19, 2015, Justice removed the Cowhey case to
federal court in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On April 8, 2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania consolidated the Cowhey case and the
Mehigan case. They are now consolidated for all pre-trial purposes
in the federal court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


ASCENA RETAIL: Justice Filed Bid to Transfer Traynor-Lufkin Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 25, 2015, that Justice has filed a
motion to transfer the case, Traynor-Lufkin v. Tween Brands, Inc.,
to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On March 6, 2015, Katie Traynor-Lufkin and three other named
plaintiffs, all consumers, filed a purported nationwide class
action (the "Traynor-Lufkin case") against Tween Brands, Inc.
(doing business as "Justice") in the Court of Common Pleas in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The Traynor-Lufkin case covers Justice
customers in 47 states. As with the Mehigan case, the Traynor-
Lufkin case excludes Hawaii, Alaska and Ohio. During the Alleged
Class Period, Justice did not operate any stores in Hawaii or
Alaska. In December 2014, Justice settled a similar class action
lawsuit in the State of Ohio, although the Company denied any
wrongdoing as part of that settlement. The allegations and damages
sought in the Traynor-Lufkin case are substantially the same as
those in the Mehigan case.

On April 7, 2015, Justice removed the Traynor-Lufkin case to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. On
April 13, 2015, Justice filed a motion to transfer the Traynor-
Lufkin case to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. In seeking the transfer, Justice argued
that there were already two consolidated actions pending in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania and that a forum in Ohio is not
appropriate because no Ohio consumers are involved in the case.
The Eastern District of Pennsylvania has been advised that it is
Justice's intention to seek to consolidate the Traynor-Lufkin case
with the other two presently consolidated before it.


ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Class Action Appeal Not Been Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, that a hearing
for the appeal in a class action lawsuit has not been set.

The Company said, "On October 10, 2013, a putative securities
class action complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc.,
et al., No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against us,
certain of the Company's directors and officers and the
underwriters of the Company November 2012 initial public offering.
The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11 and
12(a)(2), and that the Company and certain of its directors and
officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making
material false and misleading statements and omissions in the
offering's registration statement, and that we and certain of our
directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration
statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC
filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our
ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action
seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between
November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an
unspecific amount."

"On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel. The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM. An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. The plaintiffs
filed briefs in opposition to these motions on July 11, 2014. The
Company replied to the opposition brief on August 11, 2014. On
October 6, 2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing
all claims against Atossa and all other defendants. The Court's
order provided plaintiffs with a deadline of October 26, 2014 to
file a motion for leave to amend their complaint and the
plaintiffs did not file such a motion by that date. On October 30,
2014, the Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3,
2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have
appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed
their opening appellate brief. Defendants' answering brief is due
April 13, 2015. A hearing for the appeal has not been set.

"The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and plans to
defend itself vigorously; however, failure by the Company to
obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the
complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations and financial condition.
Currently, the amount of such material adverse effect cannot be
reasonably estimated, and no provision or liability has been
recorded for these claims as of December 31, 2014. The costs
associated with defending and resolving the lawsuit and ultimate
outcome cannot be predicted. These matters are subject to inherent
uncertainties and the actual cost, as well as the distraction from
the conduct of the Company's business, will depend upon many
unknown factors and management's view of these may change in the
future."


BAYWOOD HOTELS: Faces "Salas-Pizzaro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan C. Salas-Pizarro and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Baywood Hotels Inc., Mia Hospitality, LLC a/k/a Fairfield Inn and
Suites Miami Airport South, Doral Hospitality, Inc. d/b/a
Fairfield Inn Miami Airport and Natalia Fernandez, Case No. 1:15-
cv-22675-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are Florida corporations, having their main place
of business in Dade County, Florida. They are in the business of
providing hotel and hospitality services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BEST BUY: Faces "Martinez" Suit in Cal. Over False Gift Cards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Martinez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc., Case No.
BC587174 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the consumers who incurred charges for gift cards from the
Defendants, which were falsely, fraudulently, deceptively,
deceitfully, and repeatedly represented and advertised as
discounted gift cards for purchase on the Best Buy website.

Best Buy Enterprise Services, Inc. operates retail stores
throughout the entire state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BK VENTURE: Faces "Gaskin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Kieara Gaskin and Tenia Stuckey, individually, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BK Venture Group Ltd. d/b/a Jaguars 3
and Starlets NYC, KB Venture Group LLC d/b/a Club Lust NY, Kevin
Burch and Martin "Doe", Case No. 1:15-cv-04190 (E.D.N.Y., July 16,
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 adult entertainment clubs in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05539-AT (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy
by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to
significantly decreased competition in the markets for healthcare
financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in
the health services.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance
company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 488-1200
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
              tbrown@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 447-7060
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      60 State Street, 7th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 573-5118
      Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
      E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1068 Virginia Avenue, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30306
      Telephone: (404) 607-8222
      Facsimile: (404) 607-8451
      E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Telephone: (603) 294-1591
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238
      Telephone: (205) 612-0243
      Facsimile: (205) 705-1223
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Debra B. Hayes, Esq.
      Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
      THE HAYES LAW FIRM
      700 Rockmead, Suite 210
      Kingwood, TX 77339
      Telephone: (281) 815-4963
      Facsimile: (832) 575-4759
      E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
              chunter@dhayeslaw.com

         - and -

      Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com
              pprieto@podhurst.com

         - and -

      Dennis Pantazis, Esq.
      Brian Clark, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 Nineteenth Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com
              bclark@wcqp.com

         - and -

      U.W. Clemon, Esq.
      J. Mark White, Esq.
      Augusta S. Dowd, Esq.
      Linda G. Flippo, Esq.
      WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C.
      The Massey Building
      2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 323-1888
      Facsimile: (205) 323-8907
      E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com
              adowd@whitearnolddowd.com
              mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com
              lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com


BLUENRGY GROUP: Securities Class Pending v. Officers & Directors
----------------------------------------------------------------
BlueNRGY Group Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2014, that class action securities suits are
pending against the Company's current and past officers and
directors.

In December 2014, a class action securities suit was filed in a
federal court in the Eastern District of Texas against the Company
and various current and past officers and directors, namely Mr.
William Morro, Mr. Carlo Botto, Mr. Richard Pillinger, Mr. Todd
Barlow, Mr. Gerard McGowan and Mr. James Greer. Mr. Morro,
formerly a non-executive independent director currently serves as
Chairman of the Company's Board and its Managing Director (the
Australian entity equivalent of a CEO); Mr. Botto continues as a
non-executive member of the Board; and Mr. Pillinger is the
Company's CFO. The other parties to the lawsuit are no longer
associated with the Company.

"This lawsuit is still pending with respect to the former officers
and directors and we believe that those parties intend to defend
themselves vigorously," the Company said. The deed of company
arrangement, or DOCA, had the effect of extinguishing the claims
against the Company in this action, however, the possibility
remains that the plaintiffs will endeavor to press their claims in
jurisdictions outside Australia.

"It is impossible to estimate the outcome or the costs to us of
such an action if it were to occur," the Company said.

In December 2014, a different lawsuit was filed in New York State
Supreme Court by one of the holders of Series B Preferred Shares
against the Company and Messrs. Morro, Botto, and McGowan. This
action was withdrawn without prejudice in April 2015, but prior
thereto Mr. Morro and Mr. Botto entered into a settlement with
respect only to themselves in their capacity as directors that
precludes the plaintiff reasserting the suit against them except
in the case that plaintiff is itself sued in connection with
losses suffered on the investment.

"The suit can be reasserted again at any time against Mr. McGowan
or other competent officers or directors or against us. However,
The DOCA had the effect of extinguishing the claims against the us
in this action, but the possibility remains that the plaintiffs
could endeavor to press their claims in jurisdictions outside
Australia. It is impossible to estimate the outcome or cost to us
of such an action were it to occur," the Company said.

Both of these suits are still pending with regard to the current
and former officers/directors and the current officers and
directors plan to defend themselves vigorously. The Voluntary
Administration had the effect of extinguishing the claims against
the Company in these actions.


BRAZOS ROCK: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Galindo" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Iram Galindo, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Brazos Rock, Inc., Case No. 7:15-cv-00108
(W.D. Tex., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours in a
workweek.

Brazos Rock, Inc. owns and operates a construction and services
company that does business in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Debes Jr., Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net


BROOKDALE HOSPITAL: "Eka" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Eka, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals v. Brookdale Hospital Medical Center, Case No.
508780/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the New York State Labor Law.

Brookdale Hospital Medical Center operates a non-profit hospital
located at 101-01 Avenue D, Brooklyn, New York, 11236.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Corey Stark, Esq.
      THE DWECK LAW FIRM, LLP
      10 Rockefeller Plaza, 10111 Floor
      New York, NY 10020
      Telephone: (212) 687-8200
      E-mail: cstark@dwecklaw.com


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Illegally Uses Consumers Internet, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Jensen, individually and on behalf of all others situated v.
Cablevision Systems Corporation and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04188 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015), arises out of
the Defendants' alleged unauthorized use of its customers'
Internet service, specifically by converting the individual
wireless routers it leases to those customers into a public Wi-Fi
network to externalize its infrastructure costs to its residential
Internet customers.

Cablevision Systems Corporation is an American media corporation,
with its principle place of business located at 1111 Stewart
Avenue, Bethpage, NY 11714.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph H. "Hank" Bates, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      2800 Cantrell Rd., Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com

         - and -

      Brian T. Ku, Esq.
      Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
      M. Ryan Casey, Esq.
      KU & MUSSMAN, P.A.
      6001 NW 153rd St., Suite 100
      Miami Lakes, FL 33014
      Telephone: (305) 891-1322
      Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
      E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
              louis@kumussman.com
              ryan@kumussman.com

          - and -

      Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
      Sara D. Avila, Esq.
      MILSTEIN ADELMAN, LLP
      2800 Donald Douglas Loop North
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (310) 396-9600
      Facsimile: (310) 396-9635
      E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com
              savila@milsteinadelman.com


CAESARS ENTERTAINMENT: Judge Tosses Defamation Claim v. Creditors
------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
Manhattan Commercial Division judge on July 20 dismissed a claim
by embattled casino operator Caesars Entertainment that a group of
its creditors defamed the company in statements to the media and
in regulatory hearings.

In January, Caesars' largest business unit, Caesars Entertainment
Operating Company -- which controls Caesars Palace in Las Vegas,
Caesars Atlantic City and at least a dozen other properties --
voluntarily entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

Caesars recently has been in fights with creditors in numerous
courts -- including the Delaware Court of Chancery and the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois -- stemming
from a plan to restructure $18 billion in debt.

In Caesars Entertainment Corporation v. Appaloosa Investment
Limited Partnership, 652392/14, Caesars sued in New York a group
of 30 creditors -- referred to as the Second Lien Holders -- for
tortious interference with prospective business relations
predicated upon defamation claims.

Those claims were based upon statements that the lien holders and
their representatives made in 2014 to gaming boards in Illinois
and Louisiana and in a filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that were critical of the company's plans.

The statements in question include Los Angeles attorney
Sidney Levinson, a Jones Day partner who is representing the lien
holders, telling the Illinois Gaming Board that a proposed CEOC
restructuring plan amounted to an "endless shell game."

Representatives for the lien holders also told the Louisiana
Gaming Control Board that a plan to sell four casino properties in
Las Vegas and New Orleans was a "fraudulent transaction" because
the properties were worth between $1.1 billion and $2.2 billion
more than the $2 billion selling price.

In March 2014, the Second Lien Holders sent a letter to Caesars
alleging the company and its subsidiary had breached their
fiduciary duties because they had improperly transferred assets to
affiliated entities.

Caesars alleged the lien holders knew that the company would be
obligated to disclose the statements contained in the letter in an
8-K filing with the SEC, and that those statements -- along with
the statements their representatives made in the regulatory
hearings in Illinois and Louisiana -- would be disseminated to the
public through the news media.

In their motion to dismiss Caesars' claims with regard to the
statements made at the regulatory hearings, the lien holders
argued that Caesars' defamation claims are barred by New York
Civil Rights Law Sec. 76 -- the so-called anti-SLAPP law, which
stands for Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation -- and
the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.

Citing a 2014 decision from the Appellate Division, Second
Department, in Southampton Day Camp Realty, LLC v. Gormon, 118
AD3d 976, 977, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Shirley
Werner Kornreich wrote in Caesars that the state's anti-SLAPP
statute is designed to "protect citizens facing litigation arising
from their public petitioning."

But she wrote that claims arising from statements made at the
regulatory hearings are barred by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine,
which prevents civil actions against "'petitioning legislatures,
administrative bodies and the courts' even if the defendant's
actions had an 'anticompetitive or otherwise injurious purpose or
effect,'" (see Tuosto v. Philip Morris USA Inc., 2007 WL 2398507,
at *5 [SDNY 2007]).

Caesars argues that its tortious interference claim is still
viable under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine's "sham" exception,
which the Second Department wrote in its 2008 decision in Singh v.
Sukhram, 56 AD3d 187, 192, applies in situations where a party
attempts to use the governmental process as an anti-competitive
weapon.

To apply the "sham" exception, the Second Department wrote, the
claim must survive a two-prong test.  To satisfy the first prong,
a defendant's conduct must be "objectively baseless with no
reasonable expectation of success."  To satisfy the second prong,
a defendant must act with the intent of interfering directly with
the business relationships of a competitor.

If the claim does not satisfy the first prong of the test, the
sham exception cannot apply, the court wrote.

Judge Kornreich wrote in Caesars that the casino chain was
unsuccessful in meeting the first part of the test.  "Under this
standard, it is not enough for CEC to be in the right; the Second
Lien Holders' claims must, essentially, be frivolous."

Caesars made no allegations that the claims that the lien holders
representatives presented at the regulatory hearings had no chance
to influence regulators' decisions, she said.

Additionally, despite the lien holders' statements, both the
Illinois and Louisiana gaming boards voted to approve the Caesars
plans before them.  But the judge said "establishing frivolity
requires more than pointing to a favorable outcome."

"It is axiomatic that not all losing argument are frivolous," she
wrote.

With regard to the statements the lien holders made in a letter to
Caesars that ended up in an SEC filing, Judge Kornreich ruled that
Caesars cannot claim defamation on the letter because the lien
holders did not present the letter to a third party.

Friedman Kaplan Seiler & Adelman partners Eric Seiler, Philippe
Adler and Jason Rubinstein appeared for Caesars.

In addition to Mr. Levinson, Bruce Bennett, another Jones Day
partner also based in Los Angeles, and New York-based Jones Day
associate Alex McBride represented the lien holders.

Just hours after Judge Kornreich handed down her decision,
Caesars announced that it reached a deal with the Second Lien
Holders in which the company would contribute an additional $200
million in convertible notes to the creditors if they vote in
favor of the company's reorganization plan.


CALVARY PORTFOLIO: Faces "Monaghan" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel R. Monaghan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Calvary Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-05524-GBD (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
      SANDERS LAW, PLLC
      100 Garden City PLaza, Ste 500
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 203-7600
      Facsimile: (516) 281-7601
      E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


CERNER CORPORATION: Faces "Letterman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Letterman, S. and Rowland, S. individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Cerner Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00534-BCW (W.D. Mo., July 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked over
40 per week.

Cerner Corporation supplies health care information technology
solutions, services, devices, and hardware to hospitals and
clinics throughout the United States and abroad.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLE COUNTY, MO: Limits Detainees Clothing, "Ingram" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fineola Ingram, Justin Simmons, and Brian Boykin, individually and
on behalf of a class of others similarly situated v. Cole County,
Greg White, and John Wheeler, Case No. 2:15-cv-04156-NKL (W.D.
Mo., July 16, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
limiting pretrial detainees and inmates serving sentences to a
single set of clothing and undergarments.

Cole County is a political subdivision in the State of Missouri.

Greg White is the duly elected, qualified, and acting Sheriff of
Cole County, State of Missouri.

John Wheeler is Chief Deputy of the Cole County Sheriff's
Department.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason H. Ludwig, Esq.
      CARSON & COIL, PC
      515 East High Street, P.O. Box 28
      Jefferson City, MO 65102
      Telephone: (573) 636-2177
      Facsimile: (573) 636-7119
      E-mail: jason.l@carsoncoil.com

         - and -

      Roger G. Brown, Esq.
      ROGER G. BROWN & ASSOCIATES
      216 East McCarty
      Jefferson City, MO 65101
      Telephone: (573) 634-8501
      Facsimile: (573) 634-7679
      E-mail: jclaw@rogerbrownlaw.com


CONN'S INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Conn's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that Defendants' motion to
dismiss a Securities Class Action Litigation is fully briefed and
pending with the Court.

"We and three of our current and former executive officers are
defendants in a consolidated securities class action lawsuit
pending in the Southern District of Texas, In re Conn's Inc.
Securities Litigation, Cause No. 14-CV-00548 (the "Consolidated
Securities Action")," the Company said. "The plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Securities Action allege that the defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts about our business, operations, and prospects. They
allege violations of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and
seek to certify a class of all persons and entities that purchased
or otherwise acquired Conn's common stock and/or call options, or
sold/wrote Conn's put options between April 3, 2013, and December
9, 2014. The complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought."

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss all of these claims.
Defendants filed this motion on December 15, 2014, and
supplemented this motion in April 2015, after the plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint that extended the class period from August
31, 2014, to December 9, 2014. Defendants' motion (including the
supplement to this motion) is fully briefed and pending with the
Court.

The defendants intend to vigorously defend against all of these
claims. It is not possible at this time to predict the timing or
outcome of any this litigation.


CROSSROADS LLC: Removed "Vanderau" Class Suit to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cassandra Jean Vanderau, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cecil Wade
Warren and Crossroads LLC, Case No. 50-cv-15-900243, was removed
from the Marshall County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
Northern District of Alabama (Middle). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01188-JEO to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
      Teresa Ryder Mastando, Esq.
      MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
      301 Washington Street, Suite 302
      Huntsville, AL 35801
      Telephone: (256) 532-2222
      Facsimile: (256) 513-7489
      E-mail: artrip@mastandoartrip.com
              teri@mastandoartrip.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Mac B. Greaves, Esq.
      Sarah C. Blutter, Esq.
      JONES WALKER LLP
      One Federal Place
      1819 5th Avenue North, Suite 1100
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 244-5200
      Facsimile: (205) 244-5400
      E-mail: mgreaves@joneswalker.com
              sblutter@joneswalker.com


DISH ONE: Named in TCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------
Shaun Zinck, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a satellite
television company is being sued for allegedly contacting
consumers on cell phones and violating federal law.

Carrie Couser filed the lawsuit on June 18 in the United States
District Court in California against Dish One Satellite, claiming
the company illegally contacted her on her cell phone and invaded
her privacy.

The lawsuit said Dish One violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, which is in place to "prevent calls and text
messages like the ones" received by Couser.

Couser said she has received numerous phone calls from Dish
looking to sell her services. Couser said at one point a Dish One
worker showed up to her home, but she declined the service. Couser
added she filled out a form in 2012 to receive Dish One television
services, but she never followed through.

The lawsuit contends Dish One obtained Couser's cell phone number
through the form she filled out. However, Couser never gave Dish
One permission to contact her on her cell phone, she says. She
said she has asked Dish One to remove her from the list and to not
call her again, but the company has not complied.

The lawsuit seeks class status for those who received unwanted
calls from Dish One, and is also seeking an unspecified amount in
damages.

Cosuer is represented by Todd M. Friedman and Suren N. Weerasuriya
of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. in Beverly Hills,
Calif.

United States District Court for the Central District of
California case number 5:15-cv-01194.


DOLE FOOD: CEO Accused of Shortchanging Investors
-------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mordock, writing for USA Today, reported that a Delaware
lawsuit alleged Dole Food Co.'s CEO shortchanged shareholders by
more than $1 billion when the company went private in 2013.

Several pension funds claimed Dole CEO David Murdock plotted with
Deutsche Bank AG to reduce the company's value in order to take it
private for less than market value.

Stuart Grant, a Wilmington attorney representing the pension
funds, claimed in court documents that Murdock "manipulated the
company to his advantage." Grant also alleged Murdock's personal
relationship with Deutsche Bank prevented the financial
institution from seeking alternatives to the proposed $1.2 billion
buyout.

Murdock's $13.50-per-share offer was more than $10 below Dole's
stock value, according to court documents. At the time of the
transaction, Murdock, who is worth an estimated $3 billion, owned
about 40% of the company.

The 92-year-old CEO, who is ranked as the 190th richest American
according to Forbes magazine, is accused by the pension funds of
driving Dole's stock price down to acquire the remaining 60%.

A Dole Food spokeswoman did not respond to multiple calls and e-
mail requests for comment.

The CEO faced the accusations in front of Delaware Court of
Chancery Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster III. A decision is
expected to be issued within the next 90 days because of the
Chancery Court's self-imposed rule that all cases must be disposed
in under three months.

Grant told The News Journal he expects a decision late August or
early September.

Bruce Silverstein, an attorney with the Wilmington law firm of
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, did not return phone calls
seeking comment.

Silverstein countered the pension funds' claims. He accused the
plaintiffs of trying to regain control of the company through the
court system. He also argued that there was no evidence Murdock
manipulated the buyout process for his own gain.

David Hennes, an attorney with the New York office of Fried Frank,
defended Deutsche Bank, which worked as an adviser on the deal. He
said the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence the bank committed
any wrongdoing.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit include the City of
Providence, Laborers' Pension Fund and Massachusetts Laborer's
Annuity Fund.

Charles Elson, a professor of corporate governance at the
University of Delaware, said the court could use the case to make
a statement on future transactions in which a company's management
buys out shareholders to privatize the company.

"Management buyouts create value for themselves, not the
shareholders," Elson said. "It's the ultimate conflict of interest
and why the Chancery Court needs to look at this very carefully."

Grant said he didn't know what Laster would do in terms of opining
on management buyouts, but agreed with Elson that management
buyouts often deprive shareholders of fair value.

"There is something inherently wrong with inside management,
knowing all about the company, buying out the company from
shareholders," he said. "There is an incredible informational
disadvantage to shareholders."


DFRF ENTERPRISES: Charged in Alleged $15-Mil. Ponzi Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Newsham, writng for The Boston Globe, reported that federal
regulators allege two Massachusetts men were part of a $15 million
scam that preyed on Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking investors --
a case with echoes of the TelexFree Ponzi scheme.

Seven men, including one from Malden and one from Revere, are
accused of defrauding more than 1,400 investors worldwide with a
series of increasingly fabulous claims about gold mining
investments offered by their company, DFRF Enterprises. The group,
led by Florida resident Daniel Fernandes Rojo Filho, was also the
subject of a class-action lawsuit in Middlesex County about its
alleged scheme earlier.

"Virtually all of the defendants' public statements about DFRF
have been materially false and misleading," the SEC said in its
civil complaint, which was unsealed. "There are no gold mines.
There is no credit line. There is no charity work. There is no
stock registration. There is no insurance."

Judge Patti B. Saris of the US District Court for Massachusetts
issued an emergency restraining order June 30 to prevent the
accused from destroying evidence or soliciting money.

The alleged scheme began in June 2014 and accelerated after the
group began "flooding" YouTube with videos encouraging people to
invest, according to the SEC. The agency alleged DFRF took in
$10.9 million from March through May.

The operation grew through claims of 10 percent monthly returns,
promises that some profits were donated to third-world charities,
and commission payments for recruiting new investors, the SEC
alleged.

Yet Filho and the codefendants allegedly paid out only $1.6
million to investors and spent much of the money on themselves,
the SEC said. Filho is alleged to have siphoned more than $6
million from DFRF, including $1.8 million in cash, $500,000 for
travel, and $2.5 million to acquire a Rolls-Royce, two
Lamborghinis, two Ferraris, two Cadillacs, and a Mercedes.

Wanderley M. Dalman of Revere and Gaspar C. Jesus of Malden were
also charged in the case. Each received more than $50,000 in
payments from DFRF over the past year, according to the SEC's
complaint. The agency said both made false statements about the
company in online videos.

Neither man had a working phone number listed, nor did the federal
docket not specify an attorney for any of the accused.

DFRF, Filho, and an attorney for the company did not immediately
respond to an e-mail or phone calls seeking comment. An unverified
Twitter account that appeared to be affiliated with the company
said Filho was conferring with lawyers and would make a statement.

The SEC allegations come just over a year after the collapse of
TelexFree, a Marlborough company that declared bankruptcy after
taking in about $1 billion from 1.9 million participants.
TelexFree, which had previously been shut down in Brazil, charged
people to sign up and paid them for posting ads online for an
online phone service, even though the ads generated virtually no
sales. The company's founders were charged with criminal fraud
shortly after the scheme collapsed.

Like TelexFree, authorities say DFRF thrived online. A YouTube
channel that posts Spanish and Portuguese DFRF videos has racked
up more than 130,000 views. A Twitter profile purporting to
represent the company has more than 35,000 followers, and it has
tweeted more than 100,000 times. In response to a Globe reporter's
request for comment, it tweeted a link to a video that claimed to
show the company was legitimate, but it showed only that it was a
registered corporation in Massachusetts.

In February, after two men sued the company in Middlesex Superior
Court for taking around $180,000 from them, Filho told the
MetroWest Daily News that he ran a successful gold mining company
and that he was not orchestrating a Ponzi scheme. He said the men
who sued him might have confused his business with TelexFree. He
said he had no ties to TelexFree.

Yet the SEC accused Filho of paying more than $310,000 to one of
TelexFree's top salesmen. The commission's complaint said Filho
made several payments to Sanderley Rodrigues de Vasconcelos, a
TelexFree agent who is currently under home confinement in Florida
after being charged in May for fraud and misuse of visas, permits,
and other documents.

The Middlesex lawsuit has been settled, according to the
plaintiffs' attorney, Evans Carter, who did not disclose the
terms. But Filho's name has surfaced in several other lawsuits. In
2010, authorities sought to confiscate nine vehicles, hundreds of
gold bars, and more than $10 million held in dozens of accounts,
according to media reports and court filings. And the SEC said he
assented to the forfeiture of more than $25 million in 2013.


DUNKIN DONUTS: Ex-Employee Files Suit For Overtime Denial
---------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for PennRecord, reported that a Kittanning
woman filed a class action complaint lawsuit against her former
Pittsburgh-based employer on multiple allegations of federal and
state employment law infringements between 2012 and 2015.

Wendy L. Wachter sued Heartland Restaurant Group, doing business
as Dunkin' Donuts, in the U.S. District Court Western District of
Pennsylvania on June 12, alleging violations of employment law to
recover damages for alleged non-payment of overtime wages.

The plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The suit states that all
employees are entitled to receive premium overtime pay at time and
a half their regular hourly rate for work done in excess of 40
hours weekly.

The plaintiff worked at various Western Pennsylvania locations of
the business from November 2012 through April 2, 2015. Wachter
alleges that she and others in her position of assistant managers
are not exempt from the requirement and that the putative class
members have been unlawfully classified as exempt.

According to court documents, Dunkin' Donuts operates 29 stores in
the western portion of the state, employing at least 10 assistant
managers. The suit estimates the class size to be at least 15
individuals.

Wachter seeks declarative judgment, injunctive action, court
orders to establish plaintiff and counsel as class
representatives, and judgment in the class's favor equal to the
amount of overtime compensation due, plus liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs. Wachter is represented by Charles Saul
and Kyle McGee of Margolis Edelstein in Pittsburgh.


DUPONT CO: Faces 2 Test Trials Over C-8 Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Kary, writing for The Salt Lake tribune, reported that
DuPont Co. can't force people claiming they were harmed by a
chemical once used in Teflon brand products to prove the level of
their individual exposure, but it can refer to dosage levels in
trials later.

DuPont faces two test trials in Ohio in September and November,
chosen from 3,500 lawsuits filed by people who claim to have
developed various diseases as a result of drinking water that was
contaminated by C-8, or PFOA.

A win by the company of the test trials might dissuade others from
pursuing the lawsuits, while a plaintiffs' victory could push
DuPont to settlement talks in the other cases. Any damages awarded
to the plaintiffs will be picked up by DuPont's new spinoff
Chemours Co.

"DuPont is expected to remain a named party" in the lawsuits,
while Chemours has agreed to pay DuPont for liabilities from legal
proceedings relating to its business lines, including the C-8
lawsuits, said a Chemours spokeswoman, Janet Smith.

DuPont spun off the unit that made C-8, including it in Chemours,
which became a new company on July 1. The chemical used to make
the Teflon brand products has been phased out, the company said.

U.S. District Judge Edmund Sargus in Columbus, Ohio, clarified a
past ruling in which he rejected DuPont's request for the
plaintiffs to prove their level of exposure to C-8.

The company already agreed not to contest such issues in a related
2004 settlement that found the chemical is linked to six diseases
including kidney cancer, ulcerative colitis, and thyroid disease,
Sargus said.

"DuPont has contractually agreed to a finding of general
causation," Sargus said in court papers.

His explanation comes 14 years into a case that began as a class
action in 2001 with 80,000 plaintiffs. A 2004 settlement
determined that a panel of independent scientists would study C-
8's links to disease among the group, and only those whose
sickness had "probable links" to C-8 exposure could sue.

After seven years, in 2011 and 2012, the science panel said there
were "probable links" to six diseases including kidney cancer,
thyroid disease and ulcerative colitis. It found "no probable
link" for 40 other diseases.

Under the settlement DuPont agreed not to contest that C-8 was the
general cause of the diseases. Of 80,000 initial plaintiffs, 3,500
filed cases claiming exposure to the six diseases.

DuPont had tried to argue that the dose of C-8 varied among
plaintiffs and, in some low-dosage cases, no statistically
significant associations were found between C-8 and the linked
disease.

"We believe the amount of exposure to PFOA is an important factor
for the jury to consider," Dan Turner, a DuPont spokesman, said in
a statement.

Sargus said nothing prevented the company from making those
arguments at the trials.

Separately, the judge denied DuPont's request to limit class-wide
claims against it based on eight different claims including
product liability, violations of state consumer- protection laws,
and pain and suffering. The judge granted DuPont's request to rule
out some of those claims in individual cases.

The new company, Chemours, inherited 37 active plants globally
that produce materials such as titanium dioxide, a pigment that
adds opaqueness to paints, and fluorochemicals such as Teflon
nonstick coatings. It also has 171 polluted sites.

DuPont investors have been given one Chemours share for every five
DuPont shares they own. Chemours will owe DuPont a $4 billion
dividend for share buybacks, too.

Chemours shares, which have been trading since June 19, last
traded at $15.19, down 27 percent.


EDISON INT'L: 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 California on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of
Edison International ("Edison" or the "Company") (NYSE: EIX)
securities between July 31, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class
Period") alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the Company and certain of its officers (the
"Complaint").

Edison, through its subsidiaries, generates and supplies
electricity.  Southern California Edison ("SCE") is Edison's
largest subsidiary.  SCE is regulated by the California Public
Utilities Commission (the "CPUC").

In October 2012, the CPUC began investigating the closure of two
reactor units of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
("SONGS"), a nuclear power plant in Southern California owned and
operated by SCE.  Following this investigation, Edison reached a
$3.3 billion settlement, pursuant to which Edison would refund
customers for excess charges they had incurred to support the
SONGS units after they were taken offline and never returned to
service.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Edison made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business, operational and compliance policies.  Specifically,
defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) Edison's ex parte contacts with CPUC
decision makers were more extensive than the Company had reported
to CPUC; (ii) that belated disclosure of Edison's ex parte
contacts with CPUC personnel would jeopardize the Company's $3.3
billion SONGS settlement; and (iii) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On May 4, 2015, a SFGate article reported that SCE documents
revealed a previously unreported May 2014 meeting between CPUC and
SCE executives, at which the parties discussed donating millions
of dollars to a UCLA institute where a CPUC executive was an
advisor.

On this news, Edison shares declined $2.87 per share over two days
of trading to close at $59.60 on May 6, 2015.

On June 24, 2015, in response to a report released by Strumwasser
& Woocher on June 22, 2015 which described the ex parte meetings
as "frequent, pervasive, and sometimes outcome-determinative," the
Utility Reform Network recommended SCE be charged with "fraud by
concealment" and urged the CPUC to set aside the SONGS settlement
and reopen its investigation.

On this news, Edison shares declined $1.56 per share to close at
$56.07 on June 24, 2015.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased Edison securities during the Class Period.  If you
purchased Edison securities as described above, and either lost
money on the transaction or still hold the security, 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 September 4, 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.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as an Edison
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3
billion for its clients.  The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.


EDISON INT'L: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers of
Edison International EIX, +0.64% securities from July 31, 2014
through June 24, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover investors' losses by asserting claims under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Edison International class action, visit the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-661.html,or contact
Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or
via email at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for
information on the class action.

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

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Edison International's ex parte contacts with CPUC
decision makers were more extensive than the Company had reported
to CPUC; and (2) belated disclosure of Edison International's ex
parte contacts with CPUC personnel would jeopardize the Company's
$3.3 billion dollar SONGS Settlement. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 4, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-661.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

The Rosen Firm may be reached at:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com


EL CAFETERO: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelino Gonzalez-Uriza, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. El Cafetero Corp., Amparo Ramtrez, and Jorge
A. Valencla, Case No. 1:15-cv-05527-AKH (S.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and bakery located at
124B East Post Road, White Plains, New York 10601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ETSY INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased shares of ETSY, Inc. ("ETSY" or the "Company")
(NasdaqGS: ETSY), during the period between April 16, 2015 and May
10, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) more than 5% of all
merchandise for sale on Etsy's website were either counterfeit or
constituted trademark or copyright infringement; (ii) Brands are
increasingly pursuing sellers on Etsy's platform for trademark or
copyright infringement, jeopardizing the Company's listing fees
and commissions; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, Etsy's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times.

On May 11, 2015, a report in Associated Press stated that Wedbush
Capital Partners analyst Gil Luria said that research indicates
that as many as 2 million items on Etsy may potentially be either
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement.
Additionally, "[i]f Etsy chooses to continue to ignore these
potential violations, we believe it could tarnish its brand with
both buyers and sellers," he wrote.

Following this news, shares of Etsy fell $1.86 or 8.19% to close
at $20.85.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in ETSY you have until July 13, 2015 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.


EXPEDIA: Liable for Sales Tax on Hotel Rooms, Court Rules
---------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Legal Times, reports that online travel
companies such as Expedia and Travelocity are on the hook for more
than $60 million in back sales taxes after a Washington appeals
court ruled on July 23 that the companies are liable for sales tax
on hotel rooms they sell through their websites.

The three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals rejected the
travel companies' argument that the only taxable transaction was
between the customer and the hotel.  The court said that the D.C.
government can tax the difference between the actual cost of the
room, which the hotel receives, and the higher rate the travel
companies charge the customer in order to make a profit.

"[T]he meaning of the statute is clear: by imposing tax on the
'sale or charge . . . for any room . . . furnished to transients
by any hotel,' the sales tax statute is taxing the sales
transaction by which a customer purchases a hotel room in the
District of Columbia," Judge Corinne Beckwith wrote for the court.
"The OTCs' retail margins are a part of that sale."

Last year, the travel companies--Expedia Inc., Hotels.com LP,
Hotwire Inc., Orbitz LLC, priceline.com, and Travelocity.com LP--
and the city reached an agreement on how much money in back sales
taxes the companies would owe if they lost on appeal.  According
to that agreement, the companies will owe more than $60 million
for hotel room sales between 1998 and 2011.

In announcing the agreement last year, the Office of the Attorney
General said that if the city prevailed, the monetary recovery
would be largest ever for the District through a case that was
litigated.

"This is a huge victory for the District's taxpayers, and it
ensures that online travel companies have to follow the same rules
as everyone else," D.C. Attorney General Karl Racine said in a
statement.

Darrel Hieber -- darrel.hieber@skadden.com -- a partner at
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, argued for the online travel
companies.  He also could not immediately be reached for comment.

The District charges a sales tax of 14.5 percent on the gross
receipts of hotel room sales.  The online travel companies argued
that the hotel, which furnished the room, was the only taxable
vendor when it came to sales taxes.  The city countered that the
tax should apply to the sale or charge for any room furnished by a
hotel, even if the seller -- in this case, the online travel
companies -- did not actually furnish the room.

The court found that the city's interpretation of local tax law
was reasonable.  Judge Beckwith wrote that "an examination of the
District's sales tax provisions as a whole lends support to the
District's contention -- and the well-reasoned conclusion of the
trial court -- that the tax is levied on the 'sale or charge' for
the service, rather than on the provision of the service itself."

The court also rejected the online travel companies' argument that
it would be unfair to force them to pay back taxes, given the
city's delay in pursuing legal action.

"It is clear from looking at the OTCs' statements to investors and
to the SEC that the OTCs understood, since at least 2002, that
they might owe sales tax on the full amount of their merchant
model sales," Judge Beckwith wrote.

The ruling was not a total loss for the online travel companies.
The appeals court upheld the trial judge's ruling that the
companies could not be taxed on the "sales tax reimbursement" they
charged to customers, which covered the sales tax that the hotel
owed for the amount of money it received from the sale of the
room.

Judge Theodore Newman joined Judge Beckwith's opinion.  Judge Roy
McLeese III agreed that the travel companies were subject to the
sales tax, but he wrote in a separate opinion that he would hold
the travel companies liable for tax on the full amount of the sale
to the customer, including the "sales tax reimbursement."


FERRELLGAS PARTNERS: Defending Against California Class-Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrellgas Partners, L.P. and Ferrellgas Partners Finance Corp.
are defending against the California Class-Action Litigation, the
Companies said in their Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 1, 2015.

In October 2014, putative class action cases naming the
Partnership and the Operating Partnership as defendants were filed
in California relating to residual propane remaining in the tank
after use. The Partnership and the Operating Partnership believe
they have strong defenses to the claims and intend to vigorously
defend against the consolidated case.  The Partnership and the
Operating Partnership do not believe loss is probable or
reasonably estimable at this time.


FINANCIAL RECOVERY: Faces "Minsky" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Yehoshua C. Minsky, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Financial Recovery Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-04178 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


FINGER ONE: Removed "Doe" Suit to South District California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jane Doe, as an individual and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Finger One, Inc. d/b/a
Goldfinger's Gentlemen's Club, Case No. 37-02015-00017714-CU-BT-
CTL, was removed from the Superior Court, San Diego County,
Central Division to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
California (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-01580-CAB-NLS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq.
      NICHOLAS AND TOMASEVIC LLP
      225 Broadway, 19th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 325-0492
      Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
      E-mail: atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jennifer B. Rubin, Esq.
      MINTZ LEVIN COHEN FERRIS GLOVSKY AND POPEO PC
      3580 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 314-1500
      Facsimile: (858) 314-1501
      E-mail: jbrubin@mintz.com


FIVE BELOW: Lead Plaintiff Filed Notice of Voluntary Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Five Below, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff in a class
action lawsuit has filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
dismissing all claims without prejudice.

A putative class action was filed on January 9, 2015, against Five
Below, Inc. and certain of the Company's current and former senior
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of a class of the
Company's investors who purchased our publicly traded securities
between June 5, 2014 and December 4, 2014. The complaint alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection with various
public statements made by the Company.

By Order entered March 30, 2015, the Court appointed Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as Lead Plaintiff and approved its
selection of counsel. On May 27, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a
notice of voluntary dismissal dismissing all claims without
prejudice.


FLOWERS FOODS: 4 Complaints Filed Alleging Misclassification
------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 25, 2015, that the Company is aware
of four other complaints alleging misclassification claims that
have been filed in four other jurisdictions.

On September 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte
Division) by Scott Rehberg, Willard Allen Riley and Mario
Ronchetti against the company and its subsidiary, Flowers Baking
Company of Jamestown, LLC. Plaintiffs are or were distributors of
th eCompany's Jamestown subsidiary who contend they were
misclassified as independent contractors. The action sought class
certification on behalf of a class comprised of independent
distributors of the Jamestown subsidiary who are classified as
independent contractors.

In March 2013, the court conditionally certified the class action
for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On March
23, 2015, the court re-affirmed its FLSA certification decision
and also certified claims under state law.

At this time, the company is also aware of four other complaints
alleging misclassification claims that have been filed in four
other jurisdictions. The company and/or its respective
subsidiaries are vigorously defending these lawsuits. Given the
stage of the complaints and the claims and issues presented, the
company cannot reasonably estimate at this time the possible loss
or range of loss, if any, that may arise from the unresolved
lawsuits.


FORD MOTOR: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Apartheid Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
victims of apartheid in South Africa cannot sue IBM Corp. and Ford
Motor Co. in New York because they cannot show that the companies'
alleged offending behavior occurred in the United States, a
federal appeals court said on July 27.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against lawsuits
brought 13 years ago against the Armonk, New York-based IBM and
Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford.

In its ruling, a three-judge panel cited a 2013 Supreme Court
ruling severely limiting the legal reach of the 1789 Alien Tort
Statute.  The law was created in part to deal with piracy claims
but in recent decades human rights lawyers have used it to pursue
damages from individuals or companies alleged to have supported
abuses around the world.

In a decision written by Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes, the 2nd
Circuit in Manhattan upheld a decision by Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin last year that tossed out the lawsuits because the
conduct at issue occurred abroad. Close to 80 companies initially
were named in the lawsuits, but the vast majority of those claims
were rejected.

The lawsuits alleged that Ford provided specialized vehicles to
the South African police and securities forces to help enforce
apartheid -- the country's former system of white minority rule --
and shared information with government officials about anti-
apartheid and union activists.  They said IBM designed
technologies that were essential for racial separation under
apartheid.

The 2nd Circuit said the claims against Ford fail because it was
the automaker's South African subsidiary that was alleged to have
assembled and sold specialized vehicles to the government.  The
subsidiary also was accused of providing information to the South
African government about anti-apartheid activities.

The appeals court said Ford could not be held directly responsible
for its subsidiary's actions because well-settled principles of
corporate law treat parent corporations and their subsidiaries as
legally distinct entities.

As for IBM, the 2nd Circuit said it cannot be held liable for the
actions of its South African subsidiary, though the judges noted
that the lawsuits allege that the parent company acted with
knowledge that its acts might facilitate apartheid policies.
Still, it found the allegations fell short of showing IBM acted
purposefully.

"Indeed, plaintiffs do not -- and cannot -- plausibly allege that
by developing hardware and software to collect innocuous
population data, IBM's purpose was to denationalize black South
Africans and further the aims of a brutal regime," the court said.

In a statement, Ford said it agreed with the ruling.

"After 91 years of manufacturing in South Africa, we continue to
be committed to growing our business there and giving back to the
community," the statement read.

Lawyers for other parties in the case did not immediately respond
to messages seeking comment.


FREMONT M: Faces Suit Over Unlawful Payment Packing
---------------------------------------------------
Susan Philips, an individual, and on behalf of herself, and all
others similarly situated v. Fremont M, LLC, d/b/a Fletcher Jones
Motorcars of Fremont, Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA, LLC,
and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case No. RG15778168 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged
illegal pattern and practice of unlawful payment packing,
overcharging consumers for prior loan balance on trade-in vehicles
and failing to refund the overcharge and violating the Single
Document Rule of the Consumers Legal-Remedies Act.

Fremont M, LLC is engaged in the business of buying, repairing and
re-selling used vehicles to the general public, and, taking
vehicles in trade.

Mercedes Benz Financial Services USA, LLC is a financial
institution engaged in the business of buying lease contracts and
collecting payments made by consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Liberty, Esq.
      LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A-1
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (650) 341-0300
      Facsimile: (650) 341-0302


GOLD CLUB: Arbitration Agreement Unconscionable in Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
an arbitration agreement a stripper was allegedly told to sign
right before her shift started was unconscionable because it
barred her ability to bring her wage-and-hour collective and class
actions in the arbitration setting, a Pennsylvania federal judge
has ruled.

In determining whether the arbitration agreement signed by
plaintiff Jessica Herzfeld allowed for class and collective
arbitration, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania had to rely on the thin amount of case
law available since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit ruled in 2014 in Opalinski v. Robert Half International
that district courts must decide if arbitration clauses allow for
class arbitration.

"Due to Opalinski's recent vintage, we have minimal guidance in
deciding whether the 2013 agreement [Herzfeld signed] could be
interpreted to allow for collective FLSA or class arbitration,"
Judge Kearney said in Herzfeld v. 1416 Chancellor.  "As the
Supreme Court has not as yet required the arbitration agreement to
expressly recite an agreement to class arbitration, it is possible
to find an implicit agreement to authorize class arbitration but
such an agreement cannot be 'inferred solely from the fact of the
parties' agreement to arbitrate.'"

Judge Kearney found the agreement Ms. Herzfeld signed with the
Gold Club in Philadelphia did not expressly or implicitly show an
agreement to allow for collective or class arbitration.  The
agreement refers only to arbitration affecting "both parties," and
does not mention parties of any other type. Kearney found there
was thus no meeting of the minds on a "monumental change" to the
agreement such as allowing not just for individual arbitration but
for class arbitration or collective arbitration.  He said a simple
mention in the arbitration agreement of the American Arbitration
Association rules and regulations also does not expand the
agreement to include class or collective actions.

After finding the arbitration agreement did not allow for Ms.
Herzfeld's collective action, Judge Kearney looked to whether it
was unconscionable.

"Courts have viewed the loss of a statutory right to a collective
action permissible, but only in the context of a contractual
waiver," Judge Kearney said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's
ruling in AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

Judge Kearney said Ms. Herzfeld did not waive her collective or
class action right, but rather lost it under operation of law
because the arbitration clause does not recite that right.

"Paradoxically, by not including language addressing a collective
or class action in arbitration, Gold Club is able to now argue
Herzfeld loses her statutory right to a collective action and
ability to bring her class claims in arbitration," Judge Kearney
said.

Because the arbitration agreement does not allow for class or
collective arbitration, an arbitrator would not be able to give
Herzfeld the full scope of Fair Labor Standards Act remedies, he
said.

"Consequently, we find the arbitration provision imposing an
involuntary, unknowing loss of FLSA collective action and class
action rights is substantively unconscionable," Judge Kearney
said.

Gold Club had argued Ms. Herzfeld ratified the arbitration clause
when she took it home for her "mother/attorney's" review and
returned to work for almost a year before filing the suit.  But
Judge Kearney said he was shown no case law that allowed for the
ratification of an unconscionable clause.

Judge Kearney denied Gold Club's motion to compel arbitration in
the case.

Ms. Herzfeld sued Gold Club under the FLSA on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated.  She is seeking unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours a week and liquidated damages.  She also seeks to bring a
class action on behalf of all Gold Club dancers under the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

Edwin Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- of Carlson Lynch
Sweet & Kilpela in Pittsburgh represented Ms. Herzfeld and the
putative class.  Bradley J. Shafer and Matthew Hoffer of Shafer &
Associates in Lansing, Michigan, along with Pasquale J. Colavita
of Philadelphia, represented Gold Club.  None of the attorneys
were immediately available for comment.


GRAND & PULASKI: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Villalva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Grand & Pulaski Citgo, Inc., d/b/a Grand & Pulaski
Citgo, and John Scali, Case No. 1:15-cv-06236 (N.D. Ill., July 16,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Grand & Pulaski Citgo, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that
operates a gas station and car wash shop.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy Michael Nolan, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq.
      NOLAN LAW OFFICE
      53 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1137
      Chicago, IL 60604-3207
      Telephone: (312) 322-1100
      E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
              n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net


HIKO ENERGY: Directed by Atty Gen. to Return $1.25MM to Customers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Nearing, writing for Timesunion.com, reported that a
Rockland County energy marketing company is being forced by
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman to return about $1.25 million
to customers because of false claims of lower power bills before
bills actually skyrocketed and for tricking customers into
switching energy accounts.

Hiko Energy LLC, located in Monsey, already has been forced by
regulators in New Jersey and Pennsylvania to return more than $3.8
million to thousands of customers because of similar deceptive and
high-pressure sales tactics.

Schneiderman said his office found Hiko telemarketers and door-to-
door salespeople "lured consumers with false promises of lower
rates, and then fleeced customers with much higher bills; enrolled
new customers without their knowledge or consent; and made it
difficult for customers to cancel their enrollments in a timely
manner."

That included about 25,000 current and former customers from all
parts of the state from 2011 to 2014, including the Capital
Region. Customers who believe they were overcharged by Hiko can
file claim forms online at www.go.bbb.org/ny-hiko or receive a
claim form from Schneiderman's office by calling (212) 358-2857.
All claims must be filed by Aug. 15.

The Times Union reported that Hiko customers filed more than 170
complaints against the company in 2012 with the state Public
Service Commission. Through April, Hiko generated 19 complaints of
deceptive marketing practices to the PSC.

According to Schneiderman's office, Hiko workers also tricked
consumers into providing account numbers which the company used to
transfer their accounts; falsely claimed that they represented
consumers' utilities; and obtained consent to switch utilities
from individuals who were not authorized to provide such consent.

The settlement also requires Hiko to prevent deceptive practices
in the future, retrain sales representatives, record
communications between customers and customer service and sales
representatives, and discipline its workers who violate the law.

Hiko did not immediately respond to an email from the Times Union
seeking comment. The New York case is the latest episode where
state regulators have found the five-year-old energy marketing
company deceived consumers.

In January, New Jersey obtained a $2.1 million settlement with
Hiko that called for $1.85 million to be returned to customers
whose bills jumped after they switched to Hiko from their local
utilities for electric or natural gas supplies.

In May, the company agreed to pay nearly $2 million in refunds and
penalties in Pennsylvania because of similar deceptive practices.
Hiko also agreed to cease accepting new customers in that state
through June 2016, and to change its marketing practices. And in
October 2014, a class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court
in Pennsylvania accused the company of luring customers with a
"bait-and-switch" scheme. The suit claimed that customers,
promised by Hiko that bills would drop, instead saw bills
substantially increase.

"Defendant's sales pitch is in reality false and misleading in
that the rates actually charged to consumers are not competitive
and bear little relation to prevailing market conditions,"
according to the lawsuit. "As a consequence of this scheme,
consumers across the nation are essentially being scammed out of
millions of dollars in exorbitant charges for electricity."

Plaintiffs include "100 or more" Hiko customers in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, Ohio, Illinois, Maryland and Pennsylvania.


HOME PROPERTIES: E.D. Pa. Trims "Jarzyna" FDCPA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
MARIUSZ G. JARZYNA, Plaintiff, v. HOME PROPERTIES, L.P. et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 10-4191 (E.D. Pa.), is brought on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated against Defendant Home
Properties L.P. (Home) and Defendant Fair Collections and
Outsourcing, Inc. (FCO), alleging violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), Pennsylvania's Fair Credit
Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA), Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law (UTPCPL) and Pennsylvania's
Landlord and Tenant Act. Plaintiff also brought a claim of civil
conspiracy under Pennsylvania common law. Plaintiff brought the
following six claims: FDCPA violations, against Home and FCO
(Count I); FCEUA violations, against Home and FCO (Count II);
UTPCPL violations, against Home and FCO (Count III); Landlord and
Tenant Act violations, against Home only (Count IV); civil
conspiracy, against Home and FCO (Count V); and unjust enrichment,
against Home and FCO (Count VI).

District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno in the Memorandum dated June 17,
2015 available at http://is.gd/EGqGR7from Leagle.com, granted in
part the parties' motions for summary judgment:

or the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in
part the parties' motions for summary judgment, as follows:

   a) COUNT I -- FDCPA
      * As to Defendant Home, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is denied, and Home's motion for summary judgment is
granted.

      * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is
denied with respect to the claim that FCO's AV2 and HD1AC letters
lacked the required notice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692g(a).

      * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is granted and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is
denied with respect to the following claims: (1) failing to
identify as a debt collector when leaving voice messages on
Plaintiff's cell phone, in violation of Sections 1692e(11) and
1692d(6); and (2) attempting to collect a debt that Plaintiff did
not owe, in violation of Sections 1692f(1), 1692e(2), and
1692e(10).

      * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is
granted with respect to the following claims: (1) lacking the
required notice on the HD1A letter, in violation of Sec. 1692g(a);
(2) failing to properly verify the disputed debt, in violation
Sec. 1692g(b); and (3) all other claims Plaintiff may have under
the FDCPA.

   b) COUNT II -- FCEUA
      * As to Defendant Home, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is granted with respect to the thirty-day notice fee
claim and denied as to all other claims. Defendant Home's motion
for summary judgment is denied as to the thirty-day notice fee
claim and granted as to all other claims.

      * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is granted and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is
denied to the extent the Court granted summary judgment to
Plaintiff on his FDCPA claims. Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is
denied to the extent the Court denied summary judgment to both
parties on Plaintiff's FDCPA claims. Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary
judgment is granted on all other claims.

   c) COUNT III -- UTPCPL
      * As to Defendant Home, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is granted with respect to the thirty-day notice fee
claim and denied as to all other claims. Defendant Home's motion
for summary judgment is denied as to the thirty-day notice fee
claim and granted as to all other claims.

      * As to Defendant FCO, Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is granted and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is
denied to the extent the Court granted summary judgment to
Plaintiff on his FDCPA claims. Plaintiff's motion for summary
judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is
denied to the extent the Court denied summary judgment to both
parties on Plaintiff's FDCPA claims. Plaintiff's motion for
summary judgment is denied and FCO's cross-motion for summary
judgment is granted on all other claims.

   d) COUNT IV -- Landlord and Tenant Act

      * Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied and
Defendant Home's motion for summary judgment is granted.

   e) COUNT V -- Civil Conspiracy

      * Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is denied,
Defendant Home's motion for summary judgment is granted, and
Defendant FCO's cross-motion for summary judgment is granted.
In addition, Defendant Home's motion for summary judgment on its
Counterclaim is denied and Home's motion for sanctions is denied
without prejudice.

Therefore, the only remaining claims in this case are the
following:

      * Count I (FDCPA), against Defendant FCO: the AV2 and HD1AC
letters lacked the required notice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692g(a);

      * Count II (FCEUA), against Defendant FCO: the AV2 and HD1AC
letters lacked the required notice, in violation of 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1692g(a);

      * Count III (UTPCPL), against Defendant FCO: the AV2 and
HD1AC letters lacked the required notice, in violation of 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1692g(a); and

      * Defendant Home's Counterclaim.

Mariusz G. Jarzyna is represented by:

     Jacob T. Thielen, Esq.
     Joseph A. O'Keefe, Esq.
     O'KEEFE, MILLER & THIELEN, P.C.
     22 E. Main Street
     Fleetwood, PA 19522
     Tel:(610)944-1959

The Defendant is represented by:

     Candidus K. Dougherty, Esq.
     SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
     5100 Tilghman Street, Suite 230
     Allentown, PA 18104
     Tel: (610) 395-5903


HUDSON CLOTHING: Falsely Labeled Jeans, "Schulert" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maya Schulert, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hudson Clothing, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00276-JDL (D.
Me., July 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of
Hudson jeans, that were falsely marketed and labeled as "Made in
USA".

Contrary to the "Made in USA" claim, however, the Jeans were
manufactured or produced from component parts that were
manufactured outside of the United States.

Hudson Clothing, LLC is a California limited liability company
that operates retail clothing stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Edmond Mittel, Esq.
      Michael P. Asen, Esq.
      MITTELASEN, LLC
      PO Box 427
      Portland, ME 04112
      Telephone: (207) 775-3101
      Facsimile: (207) 871-0683
      E-mail: rmittel@mittelasen.com
              masen@mittelasen.com

         - and -

      Erica C. Mirabella, Esq.
      MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
      132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 580-8270
      Facsimile: (617) 583-1905
      E-mail: erica@mirabellaLLC.com

         - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NE
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      Facsimile: (202) 589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      John Donboli, Esq.
      DEL MAR LAW GROUP, LLP
      12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
      San Diego, CA 92130
      Telephone: (858) 793-6244
      Facsimile: (858) 793-6005
      E-mail: jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com


INDIANA: 'Serious Sex Offenders' Fight for Right to Worship
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tricia Harte, writing for WNDU.com, reported that two registered
sex offenders are fighting for their religious rights after a new
Indiana law effectively bans them from certain places of worship.

Indiana Code 34-42-4-14 prevents "serious sex offenders" from
attending religious worship when the place of worship is
considered "school property," even though school is not in session
during the time services occur. Violation of the code is a felony.

On July 1, 2015, the ACLU of Indiana filed suit, challenging the
state's statute.

Ken Falk, legal director for the ACLU of Indiana said many people
are concerned by the new law because it prohibits them from going
onto school property even if their child is attending that school.
Even more concerning, Falk said, is when that ban extends to
religious institutions considered to be "school property."

"I think that whenever you are banning someone from a place of
worship, that is very, very serious," Falk explained.

The lawsuit, filed in Elkhart Superior Court claims: "Banning sex
offenders from, for example, church, because there are students on
the same grounds on, is irrational and violates the due process of
the law protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States
Constitution. It also violates Indiana's newly enacted Religious
Freedom Restoration Act."

According to Falk, the ACLU of Indiana is seeking to have the case
certified as class action. The complaint lists two registered sex
offenders, John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, as the primary plaintiffs.


INVENSENSE INC: Facing Five Class Actions by Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------
Invensense, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 29, 2015, that the Company is facing five class
action lawsuits filed by shareholders.

On January 7, 2015 a purported shareholder filed a class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California against the Company and two of the Company's current
and former executives (the "Securities Case"). Jim McMillan,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
InvenSense, Inc., et al. The complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making materially false
and misleading statements regarding our business results between
July 29, 2014 and October 28, 2014, and seeks unspecified damages
along with plaintiff's costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees.

A second complaint, William Lendales v. InvenSense, Inc. et al.,
was filed on January 12, 2015, by a different purported
shareholder, in the same court, setting forth substantially the
same allegations.

A third complaint, Plumber & Steamfitters Local 21 Pension Fund v.
InvenSense, Inc., et al., was filed on January 16, 2015, by a
different purported shareholder, in the same court, setting forth
substantially the same allegations.

A fourth complaint, William B. Davis vs. InvenSense, Inc., et al.,
was filed on January 29, 2015, by a different purported
shareholder, in the same court, setting forth substantially the
same allegations.

A fifth complaint, Saratoga Advantage Trust Technology &
Communications Portfolio v. InvenSense et al., was filed on March
11, 2015.

The Company has undertaken an evaluation of these complaints. In
light of the unresolved legal issues, while a loss is reasonably
possible, the amount of any potential loss cannot be estimated. At
this stage, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and, accordingly, cannot estimate the potential financial
impact on the Company's business, operating results, cash flows or
financial position.


J. C. PENNEY: Defending Against Marcus and Johnson Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. is defending against the Marcus and
Johnson class action securities litigation, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2,
2015.

The Company, Myron E. Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah are
parties to the Marcus consolidated purported class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler
Division.

"The Marcus consolidated complaint is purportedly brought on
behalf of persons who acquired our common stock during the period
from August 20, 2013 through September 26, 2013, and alleges
claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder," the Company said. "Plaintiff claims that the
defendants made false and misleading statements and/or omissions
regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects
that caused our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices.  The consolidated complaint seeks class certification,
unspecified compensatory damages, including interest, reasonable
costs and expenses, and other relief as the court may deem just
and proper."

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed in
November, 2014. Plaintiff has moved to amend the consolidated
complaint to include the members of the purported class in the
Johnson case.

Also, on August 26, 2014, plaintiff Nathan Johnson filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company, Myron E.
Ullman, III and Kenneth H. Hannah in the U.S. District Court,
Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of persons who acquired our securities other
than common stock during the period from August 20, 2013 through
September 26, 2013, and alleges claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Plaintiff's lawsuit generally
mirrors the allegations contained in the Marcus lawsuit, and seeks
similar relief.

On November 11, 2014, defendants filed an unopposed motion to
consolidate this lawsuit with the Marcus lawsuit. On November 18,
2014, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of lead plaintiff.
On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff in the Marcus lawsuit
filed an opposition to the plaintiff's motion for appointment of
lead plaintiff.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend them," the Company said.  "While no assurance
can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we
believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources."


J. C. PENNEY: Filed Motion to Dismiss ERISA Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss ERISA
Class Action Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015.

The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation,
Inc., and certain present and former members of Corporation's
Board of Directors have been sued in a purported class action
complaint by plaintiffs Roberto Ramirez and Thomas Ihle,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, which
was filed on July 8, 2014 in the U.S. District Court, Eastern
District of Texas, Tyler Division. The suit alleges that the
defendants violated Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) by breaching fiduciary duties relating to the
J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock
Ownership Plan (the "Plan"). The class period is alleged to be
between November 1, 2011 and September 27, 2013.

Plaintiffs allege that they and others who invested in or held
Company stock in the Plan during this period were injured because
defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements and/or
omissions regarding the Company's financial condition and business
prospects that caused the Company's common stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices. The complaint seeks class
certification, declaratory relief, a constructive trust,
reimbursement of alleged losses to the Plan, actual damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on November 7,
2014.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit and we intend to
vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final
resolution of this action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Filed Answer to Employment Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. has filed an answer to the Employment
Class Action Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015.

The Company's wholly owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation,
Inc., is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Tschudy
v. JCPenney Corporation filed on April 15, 2011 in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated the California Labor Code in connection
with the alleged forfeiture of accrued and vested vacation time
under its "My Time Off" policy. The class consists of all JCP
employees who worked in California from April 5, 2007 to the
present. Plaintiffs amended the complaint to assert additional
claims under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act on
behalf of all JCP employees who worked in Illinois from January 1,
2004 to the present.

After the court granted JCP's motion to transfer the Illinois
claims, those claims are now pending in a separate action in the
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, entitled
Garcia v. JCPenney Corporation. The lawsuits seek compensatory
damages, penalties, interest, disgorgement, declaratory and
injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs. Plaintiffs in
both lawsuits filed motions, which the Company opposed, to certify
these actions on behalf of all employees in California and
Illinois based on the specific claims at issue.

On December 17, 2014, the California court granted plaintiffs'
request for class certification. The Illinois court denied without
prejudice plaintiffs' motion for class certification pending the
filing of an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs recently filed their amended complaint in the Illinois
lawsuit and the Company has answered.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend these lawsuits. While no assurance
can be given as to the ultimate outcome of these matters, we
believe that the final resolution of these actions will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


J. C. PENNEY: Court Granted Certification in Spann Case
-------------------------------------------------------
J. C. Penney Company, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the court granted
plaintiff's request for certification in the case, Spann v. J. C.
Penney Corporation, Inc.

The Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, J. C. Penney Corporation,
Inc., is a defendant in a class action proceeding entitled Spann
v. J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. filed on February 8, 2012 in the
U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The lawsuit
alleges that JCP violated California's Unfair Competition Law and
related state statutes in connection with its advertising of sale
prices for private label apparel and accessories. The lawsuit
seeks restitution, damages, injunctive relief, and attorney's fees
and costs.

On May 18, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's request for
certification of a class consisting of all people who, between
November 5, 2010 and January 31, 2012, made purchases in
California of JCP private or exclusive label apparel or
accessories advertised at a discount of at least 30% off the
stated original or regular price (excluding those who only
received such discount by using coupon(s)), and who have not
received a refund or credit for their purchases.

"We believe this lawsuit is without merit and we intend to
continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. While no assurance can
be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe
that the final resolution of this action will not have a material
adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position,
liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


JACO OIL: Class Settlement Has Initial OK; Final Hearing on 9/25
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Linda De Santos sought and obtained preliminary approval
of the class settlement with Defendants in the case, LINDA DE
SANTOS, Plaintiff, v. JACO OIL COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 1:14-CV-0738-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff initiated an action by filing a
complaint against Jaco "individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated," including "other prospective, current, and
former employees." Plaintiff alleged Jaco's actions violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, California's Investigative Consumer
Reporting Agencies Act, and California's Consumer Credit Reporting
Agencies Act. The parties engaged in private mediation with Carl
West, who proposed a settlement in the amount of $300,000.  After
accepting the proposal, the parties executed a memorandum of
understanding on May 12, 2015.  The parties finalized the proposed
settlement on June 10, 2015. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed the
motion for preliminary approval of class settlement on June 22,
2015.

In the motion, Plaintiff sought: (1) conditional certification of
a settlement class; (2) preliminary approval of the settlement
terms; (3) appointment of Plaintiff as the class representative;
(4) appointment of Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP as Class
Counsel; (5) approval of the class notice and related materials;
(6) appointment of ILYM Group, Inc., as the claims administrator;
and (7) scheduling for final approval of the settlement.

Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California in the Order
dated July 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/G9A1wUfrom
Leagle.com, granted preliminary approval of the class settlement
as fair, adequate and reasonable. The Court appointed Linda De
Santos as class representative, Shanberg, Stafford & Bartz LLP as
class counsel and ILYM Group, Inc. as class administrator.

The Court also ruled that:

     -- The Class Representative enhancement request for Plaintiff
is granted preliminarily up to the amount of $5,000, subject to a
petition and review at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.
Class Members and their counsel may support or oppose this
request, if they so desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness
Hearing;

     -- Class Counsel's request for fees of not to exceed 33 1/3%
of the gross settlement amount and costs up to $8,500 is granted
preliminarily, subject to counsel's petition for fees and review
at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing. Class Members and
their counsel may support or oppose this request, if they so
desire, at the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing;

     -- The petition for attorneys' fees and for class
representative enhancement fee are due no later than August 21,
2015;

     -- Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed
$12,500;

     -- A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement
shall postmark the Request for Exclusion no later than September
11, 2015;

     -- Any objections to or comments on the Settlement Agreement
must be filed with the Court and mailed to the Claims
Administrator no later than September 11, 2015;

     -- A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for September
25, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located at
510 19th Street, Bakersfield, California.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shane Carson Stafford, Esq.
     SHANBERG, STAFFORD AND BARTZ LLP
     The Atrium
     19200 Von Karman Ave # 400
     Irvine, CA 92612
     Tel: (949)622-5444

Jaco Oil Company is represented by David Cooper, Esq. --
dcooper@kleinlaw.com -- Connie M. Parker, Esq. --
cparker@kleinlaw.com -- KLEIN DENATALE GOLDNER COOPER ROSENLIEB &
KIMBALL, LLP


JBS USA: Court Rules on EEOC Suit Over Muslim Staff Accomodations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado denied JBS USA, LLC's Motion
for Summary Judgment and Brief in Support  in the case captioned,
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, and IRAQ
ABADE, et al., Plaintiffs-Intervenors, and MARYAN ABDULLE, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors, v. JBS USA, LLC, d/b/a JBS Swift &
Company, Defendant, Case No. 10-CV-02103-PAB-KLM (D. Colo.).

The case stemmed from a conflict between JBS and several hundred
Muslim employees at the JBS beef processing facility in Greeley,
Colorado who sought accommodation from JBS for their religious
beliefs. The employees and JBS were unable to come to an
agreement, leading to the suspension and termination of a large
number of Muslim employees after the Ramadan in 2008.

On August 30, 2010, Equal Opportunity Employment Commission filed
the lawsuit, claiming that JBS discriminated against its Muslim
employees on the basis of religion by engaging in a pattern or
practice of retaliation, discriminatory discipline and discharge,
harassment, and denying its Muslim employees reasonable religious
accommodations.  EEOC proposes two accommodations that it claims
would permit the Greeley plant's Muslim employees to timely pray
in accordance with their religious beliefs.  EEOC requests (1)
that a regular break be moved to coincide with required prayer
times or (2) that Muslim employees be permitted to leave the line
for ten to fifteen minutes at their required prayer times as an
unscheduled break.

On August 8, 2011, the Court issued an order bifurcating this
case.  The claims before the Court during Phase I are (1) EEOC's
claim that JBS engaged in a pattern or practice of denying Muslim
employees reasonable religious accommodations, (2) EEOC's
retaliation pattern or practice claim, and (3) EEOC's
discriminatory discipline and discharge pattern or practice claim,
insofar as the latter two claims are based on the events taking
place during Ramadan 2008.

JBS filed its motion on March 31, 2014.  JBS seeks summary
judgment on all three of EEOC's Phase I claims.

District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado

In his Order dated July 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/exXXka
from Leagle.com, Judge Brimmer, among other things, held that EEOC
has raised a genuine dispute of material fact as to the
effectiveness and facial reasonableness of its proposed
accommodations.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Diane Smith King, Esq.
     Kimberly Jo Jones, Esq.
     KING & GREISEN, LLP
     1670 York St
     Denver, CO 80206
     Tel: (303)298-9878

          - and -

Todd John McNamara, Esq. -- tjm@18thAveLaw.com -- MCNAMARA ROSEMAN
& KAZMIERSKI, LLP

Defendant is represented by Andrew Wayne Volin, Esq. --
avolin@shermanhoward.com -- Brooke A. Colaizzi, Esq. --
bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Heather Fox Vickles, Esq. --
hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Kelly K. Robinson, Esq. --
krobinson@shermanhoward.com -- Raymond Myles Deeny, Esq. --
rsiebert@shermanhoward.com -- Walter Vernon Bernie Siebert, Esq.
-- wsiebert@shermanhoward.com -- SHERMAN & HOWARD, L.L.C.


JLING INC: Faces "Ji" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Junjiang Ji, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated v.
Jling Inc. d/b/a Showa Hibachi, Jannen of America, Inc. d/b/a
Showa Hibachi, John Zhong E Hu, and Jia Ling Hu, Case No. 2:15-cv-
04194 (E.D.N.Y., July 16, 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 in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


KING SUPPLY: Insurer May Intervene in Class Suit, Says 7th Circ.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman of Robinson+Cole, in an article for JD Supra, said
that liability insurers are sometimes faced with a difficult
scenario: Their insured has been sued in a class action with
potentially large stakes. The insurer believes they have no duty
to defend and a denial of coverage is appropriate. But the result
of declining to defend the insured is likely to be a "collusive"
class action settlement in which the named plaintiffs, on behalf
of the class, agree to a large judgment, with only a relatively
small portion of it (if any) collectible against the insured, and
the remainder collectible only against the insurer that has denied
coverage. A likely scenario where this type of scenario may occur
is where the insured has little assets in comparison to the
potential liability. The insurer may be confident that its denial
of coverage will be upheld. But it cannot be certain of that. And
if a court rules that coverage exists, the insurer could be stuck
with a very large class action settlement, unless it can challenge
the appropriateness of that settlement.

One approach an insurer can take in this scenario is move to
intervene in the underlying class action. That motion, however,
may need to be filed early in the case, according to a recent
Seventh Circuit decision. In CE Design Ltd. v. King Supply Co.,
No. 12-2930, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11117 (7th Cir. June 29, 2015),
the plaintiff filed a class action under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") against King Supply, which was insured
under CGL and commercial umbrella policies. The insurers denied
coverage based primarily on exclusions for TCPA claims. After
class certification, King Supply agreed to a $20 million
settlement (the policy limits), with only $200,000 (1% of the
judgment) executable against King Supply. After the proposed
settlement agreement was filed, but before it was approved, the
insurers moved to intervene in the case. They also sought a
declaratory judgment on coverage separately in a state trial
court, and eventually prevailed.

The district court held that the insurers' motion to intervene was
untimely, and the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Judge Posner's opinion
for the Seventh Circuit concluded that the insurers "should have
begun worrying when the suit was filed rather than almost three
years later" because "[a]lmost all class actions are settled, and
. . . a class action settlement may be the product of tacit
collusion between class counsel and a defendant." Id. at *7. Judge
Posner wrote that "[a] prospective intervenor must move to
intervene as soon as it 'knows or has reason to know that [its]
interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the
litigation.'"

Judge Posner's opinion further noted that "even if the insurers
had filed a timely motion to intervene, their interest might well
have been deemed too contingent on uncertain events to justify
granting their motion." Id. at *11. Judge Posner suggested that
insurers might be better off either defending the insured under a
reservation of rights, or simply relying on their declaratory
judgment action to vindicate their rights. Judge Hamilton wrote a
concurring opinion concluding that the insurers lacked the type of
interest that would justify intervention because their rights were
contingent on whether their coverage decision was correct.

So what is an insurer faced with this quandary to do? Defend under
a reservation of rights and incur substantial class action defense
costs until the coverage issue is resolved in a declaratory
judgment action (if the court will decide that before the
underlying case is resolved)? Move to intervene early in the
underlying action to protect against a collusive settlement? Or
play the odds that the coverage decision will ultimately be
upheld? Not an easy call to make. But intervening later in the
case is unlikely to succeed, at least in the Seventh Circuit.


L'OREAL USA: CA Affirms Class Cert. Denial in Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Anne Harwood Egerton of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Three in the Order dated July 20, 2015
available at http://is.gd/KE5REPfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the
denial of class certification in the case, ALLEN ADJAMIAN,
Plaintiff and Appellant, v. L'OREAL USA S/D, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, Case No. B257403.

The Appeals court said Adjamian has shown no prejudicial error,
and that substantial evidence supported the trial court's finding,
by a preponderance of the evidence, that individual issues
predominated on the question of liability.


Adjamian, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
filed a class action complaint against L'Oreal USA S/D, Inc.,
owner and operator of Kiehl's Since 1851 retail stores. Adjamian
alleged Kiehl's store employees requested personal identification
information (PII) from customers in connection with credit card
transactions in violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of
1971.

On appeal, Adjamian contended (1) the trial court erroneously
construed Civil Code section 1747.08, subdivision (a)(2) and
denied class certification based on its erroneous construction of
the statute, and (2) he presented sufficient evidence of a policy
or practice by Kiehl's of violating the statute.

Plaintiff is represented by Jason M. Wucetich, Esq. --
jason@wukolaw.com -- Dimitrios V. Korovilas, Esq. --
dimitri@wukolaw.com -- WUCETICH & KOROVILAS

Defendant is represented by Dennis S. Ellis, Esq. --
dennisellis@paulhastings.com -- Katherine F. Murray, Esq. --
katherinemurray@paulhastings.com -- Nicholas J. Begakis, Esq. --
nickbegakis@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS LLP


LAHEY HOSPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------
Ethan Hartley and Jennie oemig, writing for Wicked Local, reported
that exhausted nurses who work at Lahey Health's Beverly Hospital
and Addison Gilbert Hospital in Gloucester are sounding the alarm
and taking action to address potentially unsafe patient care
conditions at their facilities.

A press release from the Massachusetts Nurses Association states
that, between January and May, the Department of Public Health
reported more than 50 instances of mandatory overtime at the two
facilities, more than any hospital in the Commonwealth.

According to the release, the mandatory overtime is in direct
violation of a 2012 state law that prohibits the dangerous
practice as an alternative to providing safe RN staffing.

The release goes on to state that each of the official reports
includes a rationale provided by the employer for its use of
forced overtime. In each of these cases, the rationale provided by
Lahey management is in direct violation of the law.

The nurses are going public with their concerns as the use of
mandatory overtime has increased steadily at both facilities.

Dan Marra, a hospital spokesperson, said the number one priority
of Beverly Hospital and Addison Gilbert Hospital is the safety and
well-being of patients and colleagues.

"Beverly and Addison Gilbert Hospitals take their legal
obligations seriously and it is the Hospitals' position that they
are in compliance with the mandatory overtime law," he said. "We
remain committed to and value our partnership with our
Massachusetts Nurses Association (MNA) colleagues and will
continue to collaborate with them on staffing and other concerns
raised."

The MNA filed a class action grievance with hospital management
over this issue on May 8. That grievance has been rejected by
hospital management, which denies any wrongdoing and refuses to
change its practices.

As a result, the nurses and MNA plan to submit the issue to
arbitration in the hopes of changing management's behavior and
improving patient safety.

The MNA release stated that nurses at both facilities recently
completed an internal audit. The audit revealed that, in just
three and a half months (Jan. 25 through May 2), RNs had filed 54
forms documenting the illegal use of mandatory overtime. That
equates to the hospital violating the law -- and staffing its
units inappropriately as a result -- once every 1.8 days.

"Fifty-four incidents of violating the state's mandatory overtime
law in a mere 98 days is terrifying," said Jeanine Burns, RN and
chairperson of the MNA bargaining unit at Addison Gilbert
Hospital.

Burns said mandating a nurse to work overtime is indicative of
management consistently understaffing the hospitals; it also means
exhausted nurses who have literally been awake for too many hours
in a row are delivering patient care.

"But what is even more worrisome is that we know there were many,
many more instances of mandatory overtime that nurses never
reported over the same time period," Burns said.


LIFE OF THE SOUTH: Removed "Carzell" Class Suit to N.D. Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Marquetta Carzell, Luella
Carter, and Gladys Chege, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Life of the South Insurance Company and Life
of the South Insurance Company, Case No. 2015cv261693, was removed
from the Superior Court of Fulton County to the U.S. District
Court Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-02535-WSD to the proceeding.

The class suit arises out of the alleged breach of insurance
contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward Adam Webb, Esq.
      Matthew C. Klase, Esq.
      WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
      Suite 480, 1900 The Exchange, SE
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (770) 444-0773
      E-mail: eadamwebb@hotmail.com
              mattklase@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
      Suite 808, 2000 L Street, N.W.
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
              jkaliel@tzlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Alexander Bunnen Feinberg, Esq.
      MAYNARD COOPER & GALE
      1901 Sixth Avenue North
      2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza
      Birmingham, AL 35203-2602
      Telephone: (205) 254-1858
      E-mail: afeinberg@maynardcooper.com


LUXE VALET: Faces "Payton" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Payton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Luxe Valet, Inc. and Does 1-50 inclusive,
Case No. BC588462 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay all minimum, regular and
overtime wages due in violation of the California Labor Law.

Luxe Valet, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is in the business
of providing valet services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Motion to Consolidate Pending
------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a motion to
consolidate Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797 and Thomas et al.,
v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160 is
pending.

On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On March
16, 2015, a second amended complaint in this same action was filed
against the Company, certain of the Company's current directors
and former and now-former officers, and a stockholder of the
Company on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons
other than the defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's
securities between February 1, 2012 and March 12, 2015. The second
amended complaint asserts claims for (i) alleged violations of
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company's current
directors and former and now-former officers, (ii) alleged
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the
Company's current directors and former and now-former officers,
and (iii) alleged violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the
Exchange Act by a stockholder. The action, Thomas et al., v.
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-cv-1160, is
pending in the Northern District of California.

On April 21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company, certain of the Company's current
directors and former and now-former officers, a shareholder of the
Company, and certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of
the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of a putative class
consisting of all persons other than the defendants who purchased
or acquired the Company's securities between February 1, 2012 and
February 12, 2015, including all purchasers of the Company's
common stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration
statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's
February 6, 2013 public stock offering. The complaint asserts
claims for (i) alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act by the Company, certain of the Company's current directors and
former and now-former officers, and certain financial firms that
acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings,
(ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act by the
Company, certain of the Company's former and now-former officers,
a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial firms that
acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings,
(iii) alleged violations of Section 15 of the Securities Act by
the Company, certain of the Company's former and now-former
officers, and a shareholder of the Company, (iv) alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company's
former and now-former officers, (v) alleged violations of Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act by the Company, certain of the Company's
former and now-former officers, and a shareholder of the Company.
The action, Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797, is pending in the
Northern District of California.

A motion to consolidate Okla. Police Pension & Retirement Sys. v.
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:15-cv-01797 and
Thomas et al., v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et al., No. 3:14-
cv-1160 is also pending.

At this time, the Company is unable to estimate any reasonably
possible loss, or range of reasonably possible losses, with
respect to the matters described above. This is primarily because
these matters involve complex legal and factual issues subject to
uncertainty. There can be no assurance that these matters will be
resolved in a manner that is not adverse to the Company.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Ex-Scout Sues Over Minimum Wage Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Calcaterra, writing for HardballTalk, reported that Major
League Baseball is being sued for underpaying employees in
violation of federal labor laws and for colluding in order to keep
salaries low and to limit job opportunities.

In the past it was major league players, but they're now well-paid
and normally not colluded against. In the past couple of years
we've seen multiple lawsuits filed by minor leaguers and stadium
employees over their being forced to work for low wages and no
overtime.

Now, via Nathan Grow at FanGraphs, is word that a former scout has
sued for making less than minimum wage, not getting overtime
despite working far more than 40 hours a week and for clubs
colluding with one another and agreeing to not compete for
scouting talent in violation of the federal antitrust laws. You
can read the entire complaint here. It's a class action filed by
Jordan Wykoff. One of his attorneys is Garrett Broshuis, the same
guy representing the minor leaguers in their labor law case.

Grow has a good and thorough analysis of the complaint, including
some talk about how baseball's antitrust exemption is narrow, and
is even more narrowly construed by New York courts, where this
case is filed, than California courts where the minor league case
and some other high-profile cases involving the antitrust
exemption have been filed and, ultimately, lost.


MF GLOBAL: Former Execs Ink $64.5MM Tentative Deal with Investors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McCoy, writing for USA Today, reported that former MF Global
Holdings chief executive Jon Corzine and other ex-officials who
worked with him have reached a $64.5 million tentative settlement
with investors who sued them over the failed brokerage's 2011
bankruptcy implosion.

Disclosed by a filing in Manhattan federal court, the agreement in
the class-action lawsuit would close one of the last major
lawsuits involving claims brought by investors of the now-defunct
brokerage that was based in New York City.

The collapse, Wall Street's largest since the 2008 failure of
Lehman Bros., was triggered in part by $6 billion in badly-timed
investments on debt of Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain and other
European nations. The investments were part of a strategy in which
Corzine, a former U.S. senator, New Jersey governor and Goldman
Sachs chief executive, planned to transform MF Global into an
investment bank.

But as the European economy weakened, MF Global was hit by margin
calls and credit downgrades by rating agencies concerned about the
brokerage's increasing debts. MF Global officials used more than
$1.6 billion in customer funds to cover liquidity shortfalls in a
failed attempt to head off the bankruptcy filing that ultimately
came in October 2011.

Combined with $74.9 million in approved settlements with several
underwriting defendants in another case and a proposed $65 million
settlement with auditing firm PricewaterhouseCoopers in a third,
the tentative settlement would raise the investors' recovery to
$204.4 million.

The new settlement, like the PwC agreement, requires federal court
approval.

The $204.4 million combined total represents 18% of the amount
that lead plaintiffs the Virginia retirement system and the
Canadian province of Alberta estimated as the maximum damages that
could be reasonably recovered.

"These are excellent recoveries in the face of the risks
plaintiffs faced and the inability of MF Global to contribute to
any settlement given its bankruptcy," attorneys for the group
wrote in memorandum of law filed in federal court.

Separately, thousands of former MF Global customers have recovered
$6.7 billion, the amount court trustee James Giddens said they
were owed by the failed brokerage.


MICROSOFT CORP: 9th Cir. Revives Suit Over Xbox Console Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SETH BAKER; MATTHEW DANZIG; JAMES JARRETT; NATHAN
MARLOW; MARK RISK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, Case
No. 12-35946 (9th Cir.), Plaintiffs appeal from the stipulated
dismissal with prejudice of their lawsuit and from the order
striking their class allegations.

The case stemmed from an alleged design defect in the Xbox console
that gouges game discs. Plaintiffs alleged that the Xbox optical
disc drive was unable to withstand even the smallest of
vibrations, and that during normal game playing conditions discs
spin out of control and crash into internal console components,
resulting in scratched discs that were rendered permanently
unplayable.

In striking the class allegations, the district court deferred to
an earlier class certification denial order involving a similar
putative class -- In re Microsoft Xbox 360 Scratched Disc Litig.,
No. C07-1121, 2009 WL 10219350 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2009).  In that
case, Judge Coughenour denied class certification on the basis
that individual issues of fact and law predominated over common
issues of fact and law.  Judge Coughenour relied heavily on the
reasoning from another district court decision, Gable v. LandRover
N. Am., Inc., No. CV07-0376, 2008 WL 4441960 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 29,
2008), rev'd, Wolin, 617 F.3d at 1176.

Plaintiffs initially petitioned for an interlocutory appeal, which
was denied. The parties subsequently stipulated to dismiss the
case with prejudice, and the district court approved the
stipulation.

On appeal, Plaintiffs contended that (1) whether the Xbox was
defectively designed and (2) whether such design defect breached
an express or an implied warranty were both issues capable of
common proof.

Circuit Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson of the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit in the Opinion dated July 20, 2015
available at http://is.gd/bZZtmFfrom Leagle.com, reversed the
district court's decision striking the class allegatons from the
complaint and remanded the action for further proceedings.  The
Ninth Circuit said the district court misapplied the law as
established in Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., LLC, 617 F.3d
1168, 1173 (9th Cir. 2010), constituting an abuse of discretion.

The Ninth Circuit reversed the Gable decision ten months after
dismissal of Scratched Disc Litigation.

Paintiffs are represented by Benjamin Gould, Esq. Mark A. Griffin,
Esq. -- mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com -- Amy C. Williams-Derry, Esq.
-- awilliams-derry@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP, and

     Paul L. Stritmatter, Esq.
     Brad J. Moore, Esq.
     STRITMATTER KESSLER WHELAN COLUCCIO
     413 8th St
     Hoquiam, WA 98550
     Tel: (206)965-9877

          - and -

     Robert L. Esensten, Esq.
     WASSERMAN, COMDEN, CASSELMAN & ESENSTEN, LLP
     5567 Reseda Blvd # 330
     Tarzana, CA 91356
     Tel: (818)705-6800

Defendant is represented by Stephen M. Rummage, Esq. --
steverummage@dwt.com -- Frederick B. Burnside, Esq. --
fredburnside@dwt.com -- John Goldmark, Esq. --
johngoldmark@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP


MV TRANSPORATION: "Diabate" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marion Diabate sought to be the lead plaintiff in a collective
action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a class
action under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (MWA), and Wage
Payment and Collection Law (WPCL). She alleged that her former
employer, MV Transportation, Inc. (MV), a company providing
paratransit services, failed to pay required wages and overtime
for certain pre- and post-shift activities and for work performed
during periods of time designated as uncompensated meal breaks.

District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the Opinion
dated July 20, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6W4s1Nfrom
Leagle.com, granted in part the motion for conditional
certification of the FLSA collective action and denied motion for
class certification because Diabate failed to establish
predominance.

The case is captioned, MARION DIABATE, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MV TRANSPORTATION,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-857 (E.D. Pa.).

Marion Diabate is represented by:

     Amy Galer, Esq.
     Joshua P. Rubinsky, Esq.
     BRODIE & RUBINSKY
     121 S Broad St #800
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Tel: (215)925-1470

MV Transportation is represented by Robert William Pritchard, Esq.
-- rpritchard@littler.com -- Sarah Bryan Fask, Esq. --
sfask@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON


MY TRADE: "Bourhis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julien Bourhis, and other similarly situated individuals v. My
Trade LLC d/b/a NOD d/b/a Jaavan d/b/a M Patio Furniture, Mohamed
Hadj-Merabet, and Sebbah Y. Hadj-Merabet a/k/a Yamina Sebbah, Case
No. 1:15-cv-22674 (S.D. Fla., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of selling furniture throughout
Miami-Dade and Broward Counties, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Netali Peles, Esq.
      EXECUTIVE LAW PRACTICE
      801 Brickell Avenue, Suite 913
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (786) 253-1173
      E-mail: netali@elpglobal.com

         - and -

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage Holdings Inc.
("Nationstar" or the "Company") (NYSE: NSM) on behalf of investors
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between February 27,
2014 and May 4, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors
that purchased during the Class Period have until August 1, 2015,
to file a motion seeking appointment as a lead plaintiff in the
class action.

Nationstar generates revenues primarily through its loan servicing
business. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the
Company misled investors into believing that Nationstar was
improving its profitability as a result of increased servicing
revenue on its expanding loan portfolio. Unbeknownst to investors,
Nationstar allegedly engaged in unethical and allegedly illegal
behavior in connection with servicing the loan portfolio. The
complaint alleges Nationstar had been overcharging borrowers and
illegally enhancing its profits through illicit practices, such as
charging for repeated, unnecessary inspections, which resulted in
additional late payment fees, and pressuring mortgagors to carry
out expensive modifications and refinances on their mortgages. On
May 5, 2015, Nationstar issued disappointing first quarter 2015
financial results in part related to enforcement actions by
government regulators to limit the Company's allegedly unethical
and/or illegal business practices. The Company reported a net loss
of $48.3 million, on revenues that had fallen 15% year-over-year.
On this news, shares of Nationstar fell by over $6.60 to close at
$19.51 per share on May 5, 2015.

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

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


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Malakha" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Morris Malakha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01562 -DMS-
MDD (S.D. Cal., July 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne A. Sinnett, Esq.
      SINNETT LAW, APC.
      3919 30th St.
      San Diego, CA 92104
      Telephone: (619) 752-0703
      Facsimile: (619) 330-2120
      E-mail: ws@sinlegal.com


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Suit Over Children Overstaying in Foster Care
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Yee, writing for The New York Times, reported that Elisa,
16, has been in foster care for more than two-thirds of her life,
moving through so many foster homes that she has lost track of
them all -- including four in the past two years. She was sexually
abused in one, punched by her foster mother in another and
hospitalized for depression, bipolar disorder and post-traumatic
stress disorder after several more. She has been on the verge of
adoption twice, only to see it fall through each time.

Thierry, who is 3, has been in foster care for more than half his
life, ever since his mother took out an order of protection
against his father, who had choked her and threatened to kill her.
But 21 months after New York City child welfare workers took him
from his home while his mother was at work, the courts have yet to
determine whether there was any cause to separate them.

After four years in the foster care system, Alexandria, 12, had
already been shuffled between eight foster homes. Her foster
parents for the past four years volunteered to adopt her, but the
city did not legally free her for adoption in time, leaving her in
limbo.

Running through these cases, according to a federal class-action
lawsuit being filed against the child welfare agencies of New York
City and New York State, is a common thread of delay,
mismanagement and incompetence that keeps children in an often
harmful foster care system for months or years longer than
necessary.

The lawsuit alleges that the city's Administration for Children's
Services fails to provide the services, planning and caseworker
training to help children find permanent families before they
suffer irreparable harm -- all part of a lack of urgency, child
welfare advocates say, that permeates the system.

"Foster care is supposed to be a temporary system," said Marcia
Robinson Lowry, a veteran child welfare litigator who has filed
class-action lawsuits aimed at reforming foster care systems
around the country, and who leads a group filing the new lawsuit.
"Children are not supposed to grow up thinking that the state is
its parent; they should be raised by families. What pervades the
New York City system, which I haven't seen anyplace else, is that
there is no sense of urgency whatsoever. And there's no
accountability."

The lawsuit is also being filed by the office of the city's public
advocate, Letitia James, and lawyers from Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

According to the suit, in 2013 city children in foster care spent
more than twice as much time in the system as children in the rest
of the country; New York City was among the slowest jurisdictions
in reuniting foster care children with their parents; and it took
longer for foster children to be adopted in the city than in the
rest of the state and in every other state.

These delays have persisted even as the city's foster care
population has fallen to around 11,100, less than a third of the
total in 1999.

The shortcomings have been well documented, with similar
statistics appearing in the annual Mayor's Management Report,
federal audits and independent reports in recent years. Ms. Lowry
oversaw a report in 2009 that called attention to the system's
problems and prompted the commissioner of the children's services
agency at the time, John B. Mattingly, to make several changes
aimed at reducing the time children spent in state custody. But
Ms. Lowry said little or no progress had been made since then.

In an interview, Gladys Carrion, the current commissioner of the
agency, said the foster care system had taken "substantial
strides" toward reform. The de Blasio administration has increased
the department's budget by $100 million over the past two years,
she said, allowing her to hire hundreds of additional workers,
introduce new services for parents based on the science of
childhood development, and better assess the needs of children
placed in foster care.

"No one can dispute the fact that I am an advocate, that I've been
a reformer, that I took this job with instructions from the mayor
to improve our system," Ms. Carrion said. "We are working very,
very hard."

The administration has already taken steps the lawsuit calls for,
she said, including establishing a training institute for foster
care caseworkers and reducing their caseloads to a maximum of 12
children. It is also smoothing out bureaucratic bottlenecks that
an internal analysis found were contributing to delays; that is
speeding up the processing of birth certificates and adoption
subsidy applications.

Ms. Carrion's "heart is in the right place, but there are
longstanding structural deficiencies that the city has made no
meaningful progress toward addressing in the last 18 months," said
Ms. James, the public advocate, who issued a report on outlining
many of the problems mentioned in the lawsuit.

"The foster care system is broken, plain and simple, and we
desperately need to fix it," she said.

Striking as the statistics are, some child welfare advocates
questioned whether they were skewed because New York, unlike most
other states, allows children to stay in foster care until age 21,
and because even when children are released back to their parents
for trial periods, they remain on the system's books until they
are permanently discharged. Ms. Lowry, however, said the data was
already calculated to take these differences into account.

But everyone agrees that the longer children linger in foster
care, the more disastrous it is for their futures. Developmental
and learning disabilities hold them back in school. Mental health
problems creep in. It becomes harder for them to form
relationships with adults, making them harder to adopt.
Psychological harm is often compounded by physical or sexual
abuse: In 2013, the lawsuit says, New York had more instances of
substantiated maltreatment of children in foster care than all but
two other states or territories.

New York City outsources the day-to-day care of foster children to
29 nonprofit agencies that oversee placements and services. But
the lawsuit criticizes the Children's Services Administration,
saying it failed to supervise the agencies properly. Taken
together, the plaintiffs argue, the system's problems violate
foster children's constitutional rights as well as several state
and federal laws that set timelines for steps in the process of
placing children in foster care.

There is a consensus that money and staffing are in short supply,
meaning that caseworkers have been responsible for many more
children than they should be, children often have several
different caseworkers and the courtrooms of Family Court, where
the cases are heard, are chronically clogged.

But delays are embedded in every step, children's advocates say.
The system is supposed to prioritize returning children to their
parents, yet agencies often fail to provide the right services,
like addiction treatment or parenting classes, that parents need
before their children can return.

Deciding whether a child's removal from a parent's care was
warranted often takes 10 months or more for judges in Family
Court, where advocates say judges start late, caseworkers show up
unprepared or without paperwork, and monthslong adjournments are
routine.

And though federal law requires the adoption process to begin
after children have been unable to return to their birth parents
for 15 of the preceding 22 months, the city often fails to start
the process or to seek adoptive parents until after the child is
legally freed for adoption, leaving children in limbo even longer.
Ms. Carrion said the agency was already striving to plan for
adoptions earlier in the process.

"Everyone talks about how we should work with a child's sense of
time and have a sense of urgency for getting kids home, and that's
just not the way it works," said Prof. Christine Gottlieb, co-
director of the Family Defense Clinic at the New York University
School of Law, who represents parents. "Everybody says that if
kids can go home safely, they should go home, but we just don't
see it. They simply don't hold caseworkers accountable for
speeding things up."

Professor Gottlieb and other longtime advocates for parents
praised the suit for its potential to draw attention to the
system's problems, but cautioned that it could put pressure on
city officials to improve statistics by having more children
adopted rather than by helping parents regain custody of their
children or never lose it in the first place.

She and Lauren Shapiro, the director of the family defense
practice at Brooklyn Defender Services, said the administration
already had an overly punitive culture that focused on holding
parents to certain standards instead of helping them be better
parents.

But Ms. Shapiro called the lawsuit shortsighted, saying it could
force the administration to focus on complying with a legal
settlement instead of continuing to collaborate with advocates on
improvements.

"I have a question about whether this is a really good use of
resources in terms of how to address the problems, because we have
been successful in working with them," Ms. Shapiro said. "We don't
have time to file lawsuits -- we're representing the clients --
but we're also the ones who are seeing what's happening on a day-
to-day basis."


NORTHSTAR LOCATION: Faces "Banda" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Basya Banda, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Northstar Location Services, LLC., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04157 (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


NRG ENERGY: Removed "Wilens" Suit to Central District California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jeffrey Wilens, on behalf of
himself and all persons similarly situated v. NRG Energy Inc., NRG
Residential Solar Solutions LLC and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case
No. 30-02015-00793961 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-01128 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey Wilens
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kevin S. Asfour, Esq.
      K&L GATES LLP
      10100 Santa Monica Boulevard 7th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 552-5000
      Facsimile: (310) 552-5001
      E-mail: kevin.asfour@klgates.com


PACIFIC SUNWEAR: "Pfeiffer" Case in Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc. is currently in the discovery
phase of the case, Charles Pfeiffer, individually and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees vs. Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
and Pacific Sunwear Stores Corp., Superior Court of California,
County of Riverside, Case No. 1100527, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015.

On January 13, 2011, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company under California's private attorney general
act alleging violations of California's wage and hour, overtime,
meal break and rest break rules and regulations, among other
things. The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of damages and
penalties. The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations
regarding the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses.
The Company is currently in the discovery phase of this case.


PATRIOT LOGISTIC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas McLaughlin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Patriot Logistic Services LLC and OceanAir, Inc., Case
No. SUCV2015-02134 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs, and any other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing freight delivery
services throughout Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hillary Schwab, Esq.
      FAIR WORK, P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617) 607-3261
      Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
      E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com


PD LONG: Illegally Retains Workers Gratuities, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Servius, Erver Michel, and Joseph Remy, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. PD Long Island Hotel
Associates, LLC, Dow Pre II LLC, Murray Lee Dow II, Mark Rosinsky,
Charles Anderson, Stephen R. Griffin, Reed E. Dow, Robert Levy,
and Lynn Decastro, Case No. 604593/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 16,
2015), seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities owed to the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated persons who are presently
or were formerly employed at the Defendants' hotel and catering
venues located in New York.

The Defendants own and operate hotels and catering venues in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


PHOENIX COMPANIES: Settlement in COI Cases Awaits Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, that the
Settlement Agreement in the Cost of Insurance Cases remains
subject to the approval of court.

The Phoenix Companies, Inc. ("Phoenix") previously announced in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities Exchange
Commission on May 1, 2015 (the " May 1, 2015 Phoenix Form 8-K")
that Phoenix Life Insurance Company and PHL Variable Insurance
Company, wholly-owned direct and indirect subsidiaries of Phoenix
(together, the "Companies"), reached an agreement (the
"Settlement") as of April 30, 2015 with SPRR, LLC, Martin
Fleisher, as trustee of the Michael Moss Irrevocable Life
Insurance Trust II, and Jonathan Berck, as trustee of the John L.
Loeb, Jr. Insurance Trust (the "Plaintiffs"), to resolve two
previously disclosed class actions (the "Class Actions") against
the Companies relating to certain cost of insurance ("COI") rate
adjustments made in 2010 and 2011 with respect to certain policies
issued by the Companies.

On May 29, 2015, the Companies executed an agreement with the
Plaintiffs (the "Settlement Agreement"), which memorializes and
formalizes the terms of the Settlement. The Settlement Agreement
was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The Settlement Agreement remains subject to
the approval of such court.


PIGGLY WIGGLY: Removed "Johnson" Suit to S.C. District Court
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Bill T. Johnson, Dale Miller,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Piggly
Wiggly of Sumter Inc., Piggly Wiggly Wheaton St Inc., and Piggly
Wiggly Carolina Company Inc., Case No. 2015-CP-14-305, was removed
from the Clarendon County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S.
District Court District of South Carolina (Charleston). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-02805-DCN to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica Stokes Benson, Esq.
      Stephen Lewis Goldfinch Jr., Esq.
      GOLDFINCH WINSLOW
      11019 Tournament Boulevard, Suite 202
      Murrells Inlet, SC 29576
      Telephone: (843) 357-9301
      Facsimile: (843) 357-9303
      E-mail: jessica@goldfinchwinslow.com
              stephen@goldfinchwinslow.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Andreas Neal Satterfield Jr., Esq.
      Donald Christopher Lauderdale, Esq.
      William Robert Gignilliat IV, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS PC
      15 South Main Street, Suite 700
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Telephone: (864) 232-7000
      Facsimile: (864) 235-1381
      E-mail: sattera@jacksonlewis.com
              lauderdc@jacksonlewis.com
               rob.gignilliat@jacksonlewis.com


PLAINS ALL: Keller and Lieff File Suit Over Refugio Oil Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, which represented those affected by the Exxon Valdez oil
spill, have filed a class action lawsuit against Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. (NYSE:PAA) and Plains Pipeline, L.P.,
stemming from the Refugio State Beach oil spill in Santa Barbara.

The class action complaint, filed on behalf of fishers, fish
buyers, and other affected businesses, alleges the Texas-based
companies negligently operated the 10-mile-long, 24-inch-wide oil
pipeline, Line 901, causing a rupture that discharged over 100,000
gallons of crude oil onto beaches and into the Pacific Ocean,
creating a slick that stretched for miles, contaminating several
State Marine Conservation Areas along the way, and forcing the
closure of beaches, fishing grounds, and shellfish operations.

"In Santa Barbara, those environmental impacts translate to
profound economic impacts. In the short term, the oil from
Defendants' ruptured pipeline closed fishing grounds and shellfish
areas, and caused many canceled reservations from tourists who
otherwise would be spending their money on hotels, restaurants,
kayaking or surf trips, and fishing charters," the complaint says.

"Santa Barbara values and relies on clean beaches and clean
oceans," said Matthew Preusch, an attorney in Keller Rohrback's
Santa Barbara office. "This spill threatens that."

The complaint was filed on behalf of Keith Andrews, Tiffani
Andrews, Sarah Rathbone, Josh Chancer, Joseph Viens, Cort Pierson,
and Weihai Zhueng.

Keith and Tiffani Andrews fish for a variety of species, but their
primary source of income is trawling for sea cucumbers in the
waters off of Refugio State Beach. The Andrews fish for sea
cucumbers almost exclusively in the waters that were closed
because of the oil spill. That now tainted area is the best
habitat for sea cucumbers.

Sarah Rathbone is the owner and sole member of Community Seafood
LLC. Community Seafood is a "boat to table" business: it buys
fresh fish from local fishermen and delivers it directly to
consumers, who purchase weekly or bi-weekly "shares." The week
following that spill, Ms. Rathbone did not deliver any shares to
her customers due to concerns over oil contamination. Those
roughly 350 cancelled shares led to lost revenue of over $6,500
for Community Seafood and Ms. Rathbone.

Josh Chancer is a history teacher at Pacifica High School in
Oxnard. In order to augment his public school salary, Mr. Chancer
is a commercial fisherman during the summer months. For Mr.
Chancer, the timing and location of Plains' oil spill could not
have been worse: it happened in precisely the waters he routinely
fishes at precisely the time he routinely fishes.

Joseph Viens owns several ATMs at state parks and beaches along
the Gaviota Coast. He makes money from these ATMs by charging
people a small service fee to withdraw cash. When Plains spilled
oil from its pipeline at Refugio State Beach, Mr. Viens's business
ground to a halt.

Cort Pierson is a fisherman who works on a variety of fishing
boats that sail from Santa Barbara, most recently as an urchin
diver. The oil spill closed one of the most productive sea urchin
fishing grounds in the entire region, and the area in which, but
for the oil spill, Mr. Pierson would have been fishing for weeks.

Weihai Zhueng purchases sea cucumbers every day from several
different fishing boats during the sea cucumber season in Santa
Barbara. As a result of the oil spill and the resulting fishing
grounds closure, Mr. Zhueng has found there are fewer sea
cucumbers for him to buy, and Mr. Zhueng's past buyers and
potential buyers are already asking Mr. Zhueng about the quality
and safety of sea cucumbers caught here.

"The purpose of this lawsuit is to repair the damage done to local
fisherman and businesses, and to hold Plains accountable for all
the harm it has wrought on the Santa Barbara community," said
Robert Nelson, a partner in LCHB's San Francisco office.

Plains is no stranger to oil spills. The company has accumulated
175 safety and maintenance infractions since 2006. The Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration shows Plains' rate
of incidents per mile of pipe is more than three times the
national average.

"In short, Plains has an ugly tradition of operating pipelines
that fail. The communities through which it transports oil suffer
the consequences," the complaint alleges.

If you would like to learn more about the complaint, please
contact attorneys Matthew Preusch or Daniel Mensher at (800) 776-
6044 or via email at info@kellerrohrback.com.

A copy of the complaint is available at krcomplexlit.com.

Keller Rohrback represented fishermen, landowners, and businesses
located in Prince William Sound in their action against Exxon to
recover damages caused by the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. A federal
jury awarded a $5 billion judgment in favor of Keller Rohrback
clients. Additional claims against the pipeline owner were settled
for $98 million.

Keller Rohrback has also handled environmental litigation
involving home heating oil, contaminated drinking water,
contaminated sediments, landfill leachate, metal smelting and
finishing wastes, tank farms, chemical plants, gas stations, and
major manufacturing concerns.

Keller Rohrback, with offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New York, and
Santa Barbara, serves as lead and co-lead counsel in class actions
throughout the country. The firm's Complex Litigation Group is
proud to offer its expertise to clients nationwide, and our trial
lawyers have obtained judgments and settlements on behalf of
clients in excess of seven billion dollars.

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a sixty-plus attorney
law firm with offices in San Francisco, New York and Nashville. It
is among the largest law firms in the United States that only
represent plaintiffs. Since its founding in 1972, Lieff Cabraser
has litigated and resolved hundreds of class action lawsuits and
thousands of individual cases.

The two firms previously filed cases related to the spill on
behalf of Stace Cheverez and affected fisherman, and Mark Hicks,
the owner of local tour company Captain Jack's.


PROFESSIONAL CLAIMS: Faces "Gudelsky" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Gudelsky, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Professional Claims Bureau, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-04164 (E.D.N.Y., July 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


RADIANCY INC: Falsely Marketed Hair Removal Device, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Mouzon, Sarah Coe, Jan Steich, Patricia Bennett, Rosalie
Tecktiel, Alice Largen, Lorrie Hurst, Rachel Dondero, Michele
Uram, Kris Steinbauer, Juanita Humbertson, Al Oliveria, Nancy
Moore, and Stanley Moore, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Radiancy Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01142
(D.D.C., July 16, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
purchasers of the no!no!(TM) Hair removal device, that were
falsely marketed by the Defendants as capable of permanent or
"long term" hair removal by "suppressing" hair growth.

The product at issue is a device containing a heated wire that
merely singes the hair off of a user's body and not the hair
follicle or suppresses the hair's ability to regrow.

Radiancy Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and has its headquarters
and principal place of business in Orangeburg, New York. Radiancy
is a leading developer and manufacturer of home-use and
professional aesthetic and dermatological devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Joseph Pizzirusso, Esq.
      Stephanie Berger, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeldllp.com
              sberger@hausfeldllp.com

         - and -

      Aaron M. Levine, Esq.
      Brandon J. Levine, Esq.
      AARON LEVINE & ASSOCIATES
      1111 16th Street N.W., Suite 400
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202)833-8040
      Facsimile: (202)833-8046
      E-mail: aaronlevinelaw@gmail.com

         - and -

      Patrick A. Malone, Esq.
      PATRICK MALONE & ASSOCIATES
      1111 16th Street N.W., Suite 400
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202)742-1500
      Facsimile: (202)742-1515
      E-mail: pmalone@patickmalonelaw.com


SANFORD MEDICAL: Former Patient Files Suit Over ER Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Welker, writing for Inforium, reported that a former patient
in the Sanford Medical Center emergency room is suing the hospital
system for what he alleges are gross overcharges leveled on him
and all other uninsured patients treated in Sanford's ERs, saying
the hospital charges higher rates for people who don't carry
health insurance.

According to a lawsuit filed in Cass County District Court, Dustin
Limberg of Fargo went on Jan. 22 to the Sanford ER, where he
signed a contract stating he was responsible for all charges for
services provided by the hospital.

Those charges, his lawsuit claims, are based on Sanford's
"Chargemaster" rates, a list of costs for services the hospital
keeps in order to negotiate with health insurance companies and
governmental entities such as Medicare for various procedures, lab
work, diagnostic tests and other items the hospital provides.

While those entities get to negotiate lower rates, people like
Limberg don't, the lawsuit states, and the rates on the list are
several times higher than what the entities pay.

Limberg came out of the ER with a $2,062 bill, which he alleges
was "grossly excessive, unfair, and unconscionable for the
services provided."

Limberg's lawsuit states the Chargemaster list isn't mentioned in
the contract, and no one from the hospital gave him payment
pricing information before he received care or let him look at the
Chargemaster list.

He also alleges he was under duress at the time he signed the
contract to pay whatever the hospital charged for the ER visit.

The lawsuit seeks class action status for what it estimates may be
thousands of other uninsured patients who were similarly
overcharged.

Sanford spokesman Darren Huber said they are not aware of the
lawsuit at this time.

Limberg's attorney, Mike Miller of Solberg, Stewart Miller in
Fargo, said his client didn't have any bigger motivation behind
the lawsuit than resolving the overcharges.

"It's a problem we feel should be addressed, and that's why we
brought this lawsuit," he said.

Miller said there are other ongoing cases with allegations similar
to Limberg's that have achieved class action status in courts in
New Jersey, West Virginia and California.

He believed Limberg's is the first of its kind in this region.


SEARS HOLDING: Worker Sues Over Debit Card Mode of Payment
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse news Service, reported that
Kmart pays workers with debit cards to hold back wages, make money
on the float, and split fees with Citibank, disgruntled employees
say in a class action.

Donte D. Winfrey Sr. sued Kmart aka Sears Holding Corp. in
Superior Court on June 26. He claims that Kmart has paid workers
for at least 4 years with debit cards from Citibank, and that it
costs employees 50 cents per transaction to get their wages.

Kmart employees have had to pay the fees "hundreds of thousands if
not millions" of times, Winfrey says.

Citibank is not a party to the complaint.

Winfrey called the debit card system "fraudulent" because fees and
other deductions imposed by the bank deprive employees of their
full wages.

In addition to the 50-cent fee per withdrawal, he and his fellow
workers are subjected to limitations that prevent them from
getting all their wages at once.

Winfrey claims Kmart and Citibank set up the scheme so they could
use employees' wages "as a 'float' for investment and financial
purposes."

The 21-page lawsuit never defines "float," which presumably refers
to the fact that Kmart and/or the bank earn interest on the wages
during the time they hold them.

Winfrey claims Kmart also fails to clearly make overtime wages on
pay stubs and does not fully reimburse people for travel expenses
and mileage when they are given temporary assignments at other
stores.

A Kmart spokesman told Courthouse News the company had not been
served and could not comment on the case.

Winfrey seeks class certification, an injunction, restitution,
disgorgement, and punitive damages for unfair business practices,
failure to comply with the Private Attorneys General Act and other
violations of the California Labor Code.

He is represented by Michael W. Parks with Schimmel & Parks of
Sherman Oaks, who did not immediately reply to a request for
comment.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Store-Level Employment Practices Action Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited continues to defend a lawsuit alleging
that US store-level employment practices are discriminatory, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended May 2, 2015.

In March 2008, a group of private plaintiffs (the "Claimants")
filed a class action lawsuit for an unspecified amount against
SJI, a subsidiary of Signet, in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York alleging that US store-level
employment practices are discriminatory as to compensation and
promotional activities with respect to gender. In June 2008, the
District Court referred the matter to private arbitration where
the Claimants sought to proceed on a class-wide basis. The
Claimants filed a motion for class certification and SJI opposed
the motion.

A hearing on the class certification motion was held in late
February 2014. On February 2, 2015, the arbitrator issued a Class
Determination Award in which she certified for a class-wide
hearing Claimants' disparate impact declaratory and injunctive
relief class claim under Title VII, with a class period of July
22, 2004 through date of trial for the Claimants' compensation
claims and December 7, 2004 through date of trial for Claimants'
promotion claims. The arbitrator otherwise denied Claimants'
motion to certify a disparate treatment class alleged under Title
VII, denied a disparate impact monetary damages class alleged
under Title VII, and denied an opt-out monetary damages class
under the Equal Pay Act.

On February 9, 2015, Claimants filed an Emergency Motion To
Restrict Communications With The Certified Class And For
Corrective Notice. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants'
emergency motion on February 17, 2015, and a hearing was held on
February 18, 2015. Claimants' motion was granted in part and
denied in part in an order issued on March 16, 2015.

Claimants filed a Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Title VII
Claims for Disparate Treatment in Compensation on February 11,
2015. SJI filed its opposition to Claimants' Motion for
Reconsideration on March 4, 2015. Claimants' reply was filed on
March 16, 2015. Claimants' Motion was denied in an order issued
April 27, 2015. Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for Conditional
Certification of Claimants' Equal Pay Act Claims and Authorization
of Notice on March 6, 2015.

SJI's opposition was filed on May 1, 2015 and Claimants' reply was
due on June 5, 2015. SJI filed with the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York a Motion to Vacate the Arbitrator's
Class Certification Award on March 3, 2015. Claimants' opposition
was filed on March 23, 2015 and SJI's reply was filed on April 3,
2015. SJI's motion was heard on May 4, 2015.

On April 6, 2015, Claimants filed Claimants' Motion for
Clarification or in the Alternative Motion for Stay of the Effect
of the Class Certification Award as to the Individual Intentional
Discrimination Claims. SJI filed its opposition on May 12, 2015.
Claimants' reply was filed on May 22, 2015.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Investigating Naomi Tapia Matter
-------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited is investigating the underlying
allegations of the Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation matter and
intends to vigorously defend its position against them, said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2,
2015.

Prior to the Acquisition, Zale Corporation was a defendant in
three purported class action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale
Delaware, Inc., d/b/a Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23,
2013 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Bernardino; Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on
July 3, 2013 in the US District Court, Southern District of
California; and Melissa Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was
filed on October 7, 2013 in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles. All three cases include
allegations that Zale Corporation violated various wage and hour
labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of current and former
Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's employees. The lawsuits
seek to recover damages, penalties and attorneys' fees as a result
of the alleged violations.

Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company has
reached a tentative agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts
matters for an immaterial amount. The deadline to opt-out of the
proposed settlement was January 26, 2015 and final approval of the
settlement was granted on March 9, 2015.

The Company is investigating the underlying allegations of the
Naomi Tapia v. Zale Corporation matter and intends to vigorously
defend its position against them. At this point, no outcome or
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation is able to be estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Motion to Dismiss Heard by Court of Chancery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant's motion to dismiss Litigation Challenging the Company's
Acquisition of Zale Corporation was heard by the Court of
Chancery, Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015.

Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the
Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation were filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al.,
C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et
al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp.
et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale
Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v.
Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014
(collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions was brought
by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale
Corporation stockholders.

The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014
(the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as
defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors
of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary
of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders
in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger
agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to
an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher
bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation
directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy
statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the
Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches
of fiduciary duty. On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction to prevent the
consummation of the merger.

On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the
prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation's
former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a
defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation
directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no
longer names as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company's
merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint seeks, among
other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees. The defendant's motion to dismiss
was heard by the Court of Chancery on May 20, 2015.

At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated.


SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plantiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that a securities class action has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who purchased shares of
Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the "Company") during the period
between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014, inclusive (the
"Class Period") including the Company's two registered public
offerings on March 27, 2014.

If you purchased Solazyme securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than August 24, 2015, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, and in the
Registration Statements and Prospectuses for the Offerings,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose adverse information about Solazyme's
construction progress, development and production capacity at its
renewable oils production facility located in Moema, Brazil.

On November 5, 2014, the Company disclosed that it would "narrow
[its] production focus to smaller volumes of higher value
products" due to continued issues generating consistent power and
steam. Following this disclosure, Solazyme's stock price declined
$4.35, over 58%, to close at $3.14 per share on November 6, 2014.
Similarly, the market price of Solazyme's notes declined by
$235.00 per note, over 30%, to close at $540.00 on November 7,
2014, the next session in which the Notes traded.

                 About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms. In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability. All of the Firm's legal endeavors
are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and consumer
protection and always fight "for the people."


SRM BEAUTY: Faces "Loh" Suit Over Corporate Funds Mismanagement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sook Yin Loh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SRM Beauty Corp., et al., Case No. 706111/2015 (N.Y.
Sup Ct., July 16, 2015), alleges that the majority shareholders
and officers of SRM, have engaged in self-dealing, embezzlement
and misappropriation of corporate funds, in that among other
things, they have failed to account for large amounts of cash
transactions, have refused repeated requests by Sook Yin Loh for
access to and inspection of the books and records of SRM' s
corporate and financial affairs, and in that the amounts stated as
gross receipts is in consistent with and does not match the volume
of purchases and business done.

SRM Beauty Corp. owns and operates cosmetic and perfume stores
with its principal place of business in the County of Queens,
State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifford S. Nelson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHEAL H. JOSEPH, PLLC
      203 East Post Road
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 574 8330
      Facsimile: (914) 358-5379

The Defendant is represented by:

      Lawrence Lo, Esq.,
      132 Greenpoint Ave. steb1
      Brooklyn, NY 01122
      Telephone: (718) 383-5230


SUTTER HEALTH: Removed "McCray-Key" Class Suit to E.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Joyce McCray-Key, individually and
on behalf of all similarly-situated persons v. Sutter Health
Sacramento Sierra Region and Sutter Solano Medical Center, Case
No. 34-2015-00179352, was removed from the Sacramento County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court Eastern District of
California (Sacramento). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-01514-JAM-CKD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq.
      BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Boulevard
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (213) 599-8255
      Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
      E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

         - and -

      Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Esq.
      PETER R. DION-KINDEM, P.C.
      21550 Oxnard St., Suite 900
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 883-4900
      Facsimile: (818) 883-4902
      E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Cara Yewleh Chee, Esq.
      Thomas E. Geidt, Esq.
      GRUBE BROWN & GEIDT LLP
      601 Montgomery St., Suite 1150
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 603-5007
      Facsimile: (415) 840-7210
      E-mail: yewlehchee@gbgllp.com
              tomgeidt@gbgllp.com


TEIKOKU PHARMA: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Suit Over Lidoderm
--------------------------------------------------------------
On April 22, 2015, a group of indirect purchaser plaintiffs
composed of retail establishments -- Walgreen Plaintiffs --
brought a First Amended Complaint against defendants Endo
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Teikoku Pharma USA, Teikoku Seiyaku Co.,
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis, plc, formerly known as
Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Watson Laboratories, Inc. in
this multidistrict antitrust litigation relating to a settlement
agreement entered into by defendants that resolved a patent
dispute over the drug Lidoderm.  The FAC asserted that: (i) the
Lidoderm Settlement is an unreasonable restraint on trade that
violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act; (ii) by entering into the
Lidoderm Settlement, defendants conspired to expand monopoly power
by intentionally forestalling the introduction of generic Lidoderm
in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act; (iii) defendant Endo
exercised monopoly power over the relevant market by intentionally
excluding competitors and charging artificially high prices for
Lidoderm; and (iv) defendant Endo attempted to monopolize the
relevant market by entering into the Lidoderm Settlement with the
other defendants.

In the motion, Defendants argued that (i) the Walgreen Plaintiffs
lacked statutory standing as indirect purchasers of Lidoderm, (ii)
the assignments of claims from Lidoderm wholesalers were invalid
and failed for lack of Article III standing, and (iii) any valid
assignments of claims should be joined with those of the group of
direct purchaser plaintiffs.

District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California in the Order dated
July 17, 2015 available at http://is.gd/fdo7v8from Leagle.com,
struck the Walgreen Plaintiffs' claims insofar as they were
brought as indirect purchasers, with leave to amend and denied the
remainder of defendants' motion to dismiss.  The judge said the
Walgreen Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring claims on their
own behalf as indirect purchasers and have not adequately pleaded
that they are entitled to injunctive relief.  He added that the
assignments of the right to bring antitrust claims are valid and
the partial assignment of claims does not require the Court to
dismiss or stay the Walgreen Plaintiffs' claims at this stage of
the litigation.

The case is captioned, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL
1776 & PARTICIPATING EMPLOYERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. TEIKOKU PHARMA USA, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 14-MD-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are represented by Andrew Michael Purdy, Esq. --
apurdy@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph R. Saveri, Esq. --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Ryan James McEwan, Esq. --
rmcewan@saverilawfirm.com -- JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC., Daniel
C. Girard, Esq. -- dcg@GirardGibbs.com -- GIRARD GIBBS LLP, David
S. Nalven, Esq. -- davidn@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP

Defendants are represented by Karen Hoffman Lent, Esq. --
karen.lent@skadden.com -- Sean M. Tepe, Esq. --
sean.tepe@skadden.com -- Steven C. Sunshine, Esq. --
steve.sunshine@skadden.com -- SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER AND FLOM
LLP


TOBIRA THERAPEUTICS: Class Action Parties Signed MOU
----------------------------------------------------
Tobira Therapeutics, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 2, 2015,
that the parties in a class action lawsuit related to the merger
with Regado Biosciences, Inc., have signed a memorandum of
understanding setting forth the terms of a proposed settlement.

On May 4, 2015, Regado Biosciences, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(Regado), completed its business combination with Tobira
Therapeutics, Inc. (Private Tobira) in accordance with the terms
of an Agreement and Plan of Merger and Reorganization, dated as of
January 14, 2015, as amended on January 23, 2015 (the Merger
Agreement) by and among Regado, Landmark Merger Sub Inc., Private
Tobira, and Brent Ahrens, as the Company's stockholders' agent.

On February 2, 2015, a purported stockholder of Regado filed a
putative class-action lawsuit (captioned Maiman v. Regado
Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10606-CB) in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware (the "Court"), challenging the proposed
stock-for-stock Merger of Regado with Tobira ("Proposed Merger").
On February 25, 2015, a second, related putative class action
(captioned Gilboa v. Regado Biosciences, Inc., C.A. No. 10720-CB)
was filed in the Court challenging the Proposed Merger. On May 4,
2014, the Proposed Merger was consummated and Tobira became a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Regado and changed its name to Tobira
Development Inc. ("Private Tobira"). The complaints name as
defendants: (i) each member of Regado's Board of Directors, (ii)
Regado, (iii) Private Tobira, and (iv) Landmark Merger Sub Inc.
Plaintiffs allege that Regado's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Regado's stockholders by, among other things, (a)
agreeing to merge Regado with Private Tobira for inadequate
consideration, (b) implementing a process that was distorted by
conflicts of interest, and (c) agreeing to certain provisions of
the Merger Agreement that are alleged to favor Private Tobira and
deter alternative bids. Plaintiffs also generally allege that the
entity defendants aided and abetted the purported breaches of
fiduciary duty by the directors.

On March 25, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
assigned lead counsel for plaintiffs (captioned In re Regado
Biosciences, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
10606-CB). On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, a motion for expedited proceedings and a motion
for preliminary injunction.

On April 20, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to resolve the
litigation (subject to approval by the Court) and signed a
memorandum of understanding setting forth the terms of a proposed
settlement to provide additional disclosures related to the Merger
Agreement and cover Court awarded fees. On April 23, 2015, as part
of the proposed settlement, Regado provided additional disclosures
to its stockholders.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company has accounted this matter as a
contingency because it is unable to reasonably estimate an amount
and/or a range of loss until the Company is made aware of Court
fees awarded to the plaintiffs under the proposed settlement, if
any, as administered under settlement law. The Company maintains
D&O insurance and tail coverage with deductibles of $2.0 million
and $1.5 million respectively, and expects to evaluate and/or
recognize the impact, if any, in its financial statements as of
June 30, 2015.


TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: "Dawsey" Suit Belongs to Federal Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
In April 2014, Daniel Dawsey was involved in an auto accident
while insured by The Travelers Indemnity Company. Dawsey filed a
putative class action in Pierce County Superior Court, in
Washington state, alleging that Travelers failed to inform and pay
its automobile policyholders for the diminished value under its
Uninsured Motorist Property Damage policy coverage. Dawsey claimed
that Travelers' failure to pay for the loss was a breach of the
insurance contract, and that Travelers' conduct violated the
Washington Consumer Protection Act, RCW 19.86.

Travelers removed under the Class Action Fairness Act [28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1332(d), 1446, and 1443], claiming that Dawsey's claims meet
CAFA's $5 million amount in controversy requirement.

Dawsey now seeks to remand the case, arguing that his proposed
class action against did not meet the CAFA's $5 million
jurisdictional threshold. He claimed that he sought only limited
relief on behalf of 900 class members, and that the average loss
per member was only $1,460. He estimated that the compensatory
damages total only $1,314,000. His total estimate was based on
compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and the costs of the suit.

District Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington in the Order dated
July 16, 2015 available at http://is.gd/aEczUtfrom Leagle.com,
denied Plaintiff's motion to remand finding that the amount in
controversy met the $5 million threshold since the inclusion of
attorney's fees would succeed in placing the amount in controversy
in the case at over $5 million.

The case is, DANIEL DAWSEY, individually and as the representative
of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE TRAVELERS
INDEMNITY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-05188-RBL (W.D.
Wash.).

Daniel Dawsey is represented by:

     Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN
     1703A Dock St
     Tacoma, WA 98402
     Tel: (253)302-5955

The Travelers Indemnity Company is represented by Anna Shiran,
Esq. -- anna.shiran@dentons.com -- Mark L. Hanover, Esq. --
mark.hanover@dentons.com -- DENTONS US LLP, Marilee C. Erickson,
Esq. -- merickson@rmlaw.com -- REED MCCLURE


ULTA SALON: Continues to Defend Employment Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., continues to defend a
putative employment class action lawsuit, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015.

"On March 2, 2012, a putative employment class action lawsuit was
filed against us and certain unnamed defendants in state court in
Los Angeles County, California. On April 12, 2012, the Company
removed the case to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California," the Company said.

On August 8, 2013, the plaintiff asked the court to certify the
proposed class and the Company opposed the plaintiff's request and
is waiting for the court to issue a decision. The plaintiff and
members of the proposed class are alleged to be (or to have been)
non-exempt hourly employees. The suit alleges that Ulta violated
various provisions of the California labor laws and failed to
provide plaintiff and members of the proposed class with full meal
periods, paid rest breaks, certain wages, overtime compensation
and premium pay. The suit seeks to recover damages and penalties
as a result of these alleged practices.

The Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously
defending the matter.


ULTA SALON: Parties Agree to Private Mediation
----------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action lawsuit against Ulta Salon, Cosmetics &
Fragrance, Inc., have agreed to private mediation, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 4, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended May 2, 2015.

"On December 4, 2013, a putative employment class action lawsuit
was filed against us in the Superior Court of California, Santa
Clara County and was removed to the U.S. Northern District Court
of California on January 8, 2014," the Company said. It seeks
class action certification for claims involving payment of wages
using an ATM card; allegedly failing to provide accurate and
complete wage statements; allegedly failing to pay all minimum and
overtime wages; and allegedly failing to pay meal and rest break
premiums due to Ulta's exit inspection practice.

On August 29, 2014, the court stayed the exit inspection portion
of the litigation, thus the case is proceeding with respect to the
paycard-related claims. The issue in this class action is whether
Ulta was required by law to obtain employee consent to use pay
cards for purposes of supplemental and final pay, and whether the
pay statements issued in conjunction with pay cards complied with
California's Labor Code provision. The suit seeks to recover
damages and penalties as a result of these alleged practices. The
Company denies plaintiff's allegations and is vigorously defending
the matter. The parties have agreed to private mediation, which is
set for September 2, 2015.


UNISYS CORP: Emotional Distress Claim Barred, Calif. Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
ruled on Defendant's motion for summary judgment and Plaintiff's
motion for partial summary judgment and request for temporary stay
in the case captioned, FADI SABA, Plaintiff, v. UNISYS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-01310-WHO (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Fadi Saba filed suit against Unisys, his former
employer, after he was terminated in 2013. He brought two causes
of action for wrongful termination in violation of a fundamental
public policy, arguing that Unisys terminated him (i) in
retaliation for a prior lawsuit that he brought against Unisys for
California Labor Code violations and (ii) for reporting Unisys's
concealment of its failure to back up files for one of its
clients, a government contractor that was subject to a hold order
from the U.S. Department of Justice. He also stated a cause of
action for wrongful termination in violation of the California
Family Rights Act (CFRA), arguing that Unisys terminated him in
retaliation for taking family leave on several occasions, and a
claim under California law for intentional infliction of emotional
distress (IIED).

District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court of California in the Order dated July 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/AdVVJ3from Leagle.com, granted Unisys's motion for
summary judgment finding that the IIED claim was barred by
workers' compensation exclusive remedy provisions, denied Saba's
motion for partial summary judgment because it failed on its
merits, and denied as moot Saba's request for a temporary stay.


Fadi Saba is represented by:

     Charles Jerome Wisch, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES J. WISCH
     425 California St # 200
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415)788-1945

UNISYS Corporation is represented by Eric Meckley, Esq. --
emeckley@morganlewis.com -- Nancy Villarreal, Esq. -
nvillarreal@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS AND BOCKIUS LLP


UNO CAFE: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Pena Bustamante, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Uno Cafe & Billiards Inc. d/b/a Uno Cafe &
Billiards/Amor Karaoke & Bar, Rosana K. Lee, Ken Lee, John Doe
Park, and John Doe Kim, Case No. 1:15-cv-04192-FB-RML (E.D.N.Y.,
July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a pool hall and karaoke bar located
at 78-01 Roosevelt Avenue, Jackson Heights, New York 11372.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse S. Barton, Esq.
      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: jbarton@faillacelaw.com
              faillace@employmentcompliance.com


VERINT SYSTEMS: Motion to Certify Suit Under Court Consideration
----------------------------------------------------------------
Verint Systems Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that plaintiffs have filed
summations on the plaintiffs' motion to certify the suit as a
class action, which are under consideration by the District Court.

The Company said, "On March 26, 2009, legal actions were commenced
by Ms. Orit Deutsch, a former employee of our subsidiary, Verint
Systems Limited ("VSL"), against VSL in the Tel Aviv Regional
Labor Court (Case Number 4186/09) (the "Deutsch Labor Action") and
against CTI in the Tel Aviv District Court (Case Number 1335/09)
(the "Deutsch District Action"). In the Deutsch Labor Action, Ms.
Deutsch filed a motion to approve a class action lawsuit on the
grounds that she purports to represent a class of our employees
and former employees who were granted Verint and CTI stock options
and were allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during our previous extended filing delay period. In the
Deutsch District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Deutsch is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise Verint and CTI stock options as a result of alleged
negligence by CTI in its financial reporting. The class
certification motions do not specify an amount of damages."

"On February 8, 2010, the Deutsch Labor Action was dismissed for
lack of material jurisdiction and was transferred to the Tel Aviv
District Court and consolidated with the Deutsch District Action.

"On March 16, 2009 and March 26, 2009, respectively, legal actions
were commenced by Ms. Roni Katriel, a former employee of CTI's
former subsidiary, Comverse Limited, against Comverse Limited in
the Tel Aviv Regional Labor Court (Case Number 3444/09) (the
"Katriel Labor Action") and against CTI in the Tel Aviv District
Court (Case Number 1334/09) (the "Katriel District Action"). In
the Katriel Labor Action, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a
class of plaintiffs who were granted CTI stock options and were
allegedly damaged as a result of the suspension of option
exercises during CTI's previous extended filing delay period. In
the Katriel District Action, in addition to a small amount of
individual damages, Ms. Katriel is seeking to certify a class of
plaintiffs who were allegedly damaged due to their inability to
exercise CTI stock options as a result of alleged negligence by
CTI in its financial reporting. The class certification motions do
not specify an amount of damages.

"On March 2, 2010, the Katriel Labor Action was transferred to the
Tel Aviv District Court, based on an agreed motion filed by the
parties requesting such transfer.

On April 4, 2012, Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel filed an uncontested
motion to consolidate and amend their claims and on June 7, 2012,
the District Court allowed Ms. Deutsch and Ms. Katriel to file the
consolidated class certification motion and an amended
consolidated complaint against VSL, CTI, and Comverse Limited.
Following CTI's announcement of its intention to effect the
Comverse share distribution, on July 12, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion requesting that the District Court order CTI to set
aside up to $150.0 million in assets to secure any future
judgment. The District Court ruled that it would not decide this
motion until the Deutsch and Katriel class certification motion
was heard. Plaintiffs initially filed a motion to appeal this
ruling in August 2012, but subsequently withdrew it in July 2014.

"Prior to the consummation of the Comverse share distribution, CTI
either sold or transferred substantially all of its business
operations and assets (other than its equity ownership interests
in us and Comverse) to Comverse or unaffiliated third parties. On
October 31, 2012, CTI completed the Comverse share distribution,
in which it distributed all of the outstanding shares of common
stock of Comverse to CTI's shareholders. As a result of the
Comverse share distribution, Comverse became an independent public
company and ceased to be a wholly owned subsidiary of CTI, and CTI
ceased to have any material assets other than its equity interest
in us.

"On February 4, 2013, we completed the CTI Merger. As a result of
the CTI Merger, we have assumed certain rights and liabilities of
CTI, including any liability of CTI arising out of the Deutsch
District Action and the Katriel District Action. However, under
the terms of the Distribution Agreement between CTI and Comverse
relating to the Comverse share distribution, we, as successor to
CTI, are entitled to indemnification from Comverse for any losses
we suffer in our capacity as successor-in-interest to CTI in
connection with the Deutsch District Action and the Katriel
District Action.

"Following an attempt to mediate the dispute, on July 1, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a notice with the District Court informing it
that the mediation process had been unsuccessful. As a result, the
parties have filed summations on the plaintiffs' motion to certify
the suit as a class action, which are under consideration by the
District Court."


VOLKSWAGEN: Denver Firm Wants Court to Uphold Fee Division Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that one of
the three law firms appointed counsel for a class action lawsuit
filed against Volkswagen and Audi over oil sludge buildup in
engines and related warranties argues it is entitled to the
largest share of the $15.5 million awarded in attorneys fees.

In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts June 23, Denver-based law firm Irwin & Boesen PC
argues that a fee division agreement signed by it, Philadelphia
firm Berger & Montague PC and Los Angeles-based The McNulty Law
Firm in November 2006 should control the division of any jointly
awarded fees.

In February, the federal court issued an order concerning an award
of fees to all counsel of record. In particular, the court awarded
undivided fees in the amount of $15,468,000 to the "class counsel
as a whole."

The order was the second such award. The first award was reversed
on appeal because it had been calculated based on a "percentage of
fund" basis that an appellate court found to be improper. Based on
the outcome of the appeal, all fee awards made in the order were
determined based on a time accounting.

According to Irwin & Boesen's complaint, the $15,468,000 fee award
to class counsel as a whole was the only fee award that was
enhanced by a multiplier. The court determined that a multiplier
of two was an "appropriate enhancement" to class counsel's pre-
award lodestar of $7,734,000.

Under the lodestar method, an amount is calculated by multiplying
the number of hours reasonably spent on the case times a
reasonable hourly rate. Massachusetts courts are allowed to use
the method.

In this case, the lodestar was calculated based on an across-the-
board one-third reduction of the hours submitted by class counsel
and then multiplied by $500 per hour.

According to court documents, the time devoted to the case by the
three class counsel firms was: 14,600.13 hours by Irwin & Boesen;
4,350.40 hours by McNulty; and 4,241.10 hours by Berger &
Montague.

As such, Irwin & Boesen devoted 63 percent of the total time
making up the lodestar, McNulty devoted 18.7 percent and Berger &
Montague devoted 18.3 percent.

The underlying class action against Volkswagen and Audi dates back
to 2006.

The plaintiffs -- represented by Irwin & Boesen, Berger &
Montague, and McNulty -- accused the automakers of failing to
disclose to consumers that engines in model year 1997 through 2004
Audi vehicles equipped with 1.8 liter turbo-charged engines and
model year 1998 through 2004 Volkswagen Passat vehicles equipped
with 1.8 liter turbo-charged engines are predisposed to the
formation of harmful sludge and deposits.

The class argued that the sludge and deposits led to oil
starvation, causing "very serious" and expensive damage to and/or
"catastrophic failure" of engines.

Volkswagen and Audi eventually agreed, in a settlement approved in
March 2011, to cover 100 percent of sludge-related maintenance
costs for certain makes and model years if they have documentation
of required oil changes.

In anticipation of their eventual appointment as class counsel,
the three law firms entered into a "leadership," or fee division,
agreement in November 2006, according to Irwin & Boesen's
complaint. The agreement provided that any division of the fees
awarded would be based on a time-in basis, not an economic
formula.

Following the federal court's February order, defendants' counsel
was notified of the fee division agreement. At that time, it was
requested that Volkswagen issue separate checks to the three class
counsel firms based on the agreement.

Irwin & Boesen approved the request. Berger & Montague and McNulty
objected to it, arguing the agreement was nullified in a series of
December 2010 emails and the three firms instead should receive
the following: Berger & Montague, 20 percent of any fee award;
McNulty, 40 percent; and Irwin & Boesen, also 40 percent.

"The emails do not expressly or implicitly nullify the Fee
Division Agreement," attorneys for Irwin & Boesen wrote in the
firm's nine-page complaint. "The emails instead refer to a sliding
scale economic formula in which Berger was to receive a maximum of
20 percent of an anticipated percentage of fund fee award.

"The consideration for this formula was Berger's agreement to then
make fee payments to the non-Class Counsel Law firms under
Berger's 'tent.'"

Irwin & Boesen is seeking a declaration that the fee agreement is
binding; that the fees awarded to class counsel as a whole are to
be divided based on the agreement; that all fees awarded to class
counsel as a whole be divided based on the lodestar time
accounting; and that it receive 63 percent of the fees, Berger &
Montague receive 18.3 percent and McNulty 18.7 percent.

Judge William Young, who under a March agreement has exclusive
jurisdiction over any such disputes, is handling the complaint.

Irwin & Boesen has asked the court for a speedy hearing. The firm
argues the denial of its "rightful and substantial" fee award has
created an "undue hardship."


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Robbins Geller Named as Lead Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Ford commenced a securities class action on July 8, 2014
against VOXX International Corporation, Patrick M. Lavelle, and
Charles Michael Stoehr.  Plaintiff alleged that Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and sought to recover losses allegedly incurred as the
result of class members' purchase of VOXX's common stock.

On April 13, 2015, Magistrate Judge Anne Y. Shield issued a Report
and Recommendation (R&R) issued her R&R recommending that the
Court enter an order: (1) appointing the Union Funds as lead
plaintiffs in this case, and (2) appointing Robbins Geller as lead
counsel.

District Judge Joanna Seybert of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York in the Memorandum & Order
dated July 16, 2015 available at http://is.gd/wCytZMfrom
Leagle.com, adopted in its entirety Judge Shield's R&R, finding it
comprehensive, well-reasoned and free of clear error. The Court
appointed the Union Funds as lead plaintiffs and Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP as lead counsel in the case.

The Union Funds consist of:

     * the Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund;

     * IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund; and

     * Plumbers Local No. 98 Defined Benefit Pension Fund

The case is captioned, BRIAN FORD, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. VOXX INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, PATRICK M. LAVELLE, and CHARLES MICHAEL STOEHR,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-4183 (JS)(AYS)(E.D.N.Y).

Plaintiffs are represented by Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. --
SRudman@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP

Defendants are represented by John A. Neuwirth, Esq. --
john.neuwirth@weil.com -- Caroline Jane Hickey, Esq. --
caroline.neuwirth@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP


WAL-MART STORES: 6th Cir. Allows Discrimibation Suit to Begin
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals over-turned a Tennessee
federal district court ruling, thereby allowing plaintiffs in a
gender discrimination regional class action to initiate their suit
against Wal-Mart. The ruling does not certify the class, but
allows the court action to begin. Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC serves as counsel for the plaintiffs.

"We applaud the court for allowing these hard-working women to
join together to pursue their claims of pay and promotion
discrimination against Wal-Mart," said Joseph M. Sellers of Cohen
Milstein. Cohen Milstein is co-counsel in the case. "Wal-Mart's
persistent pattern of gender discrimination can be devastating for
women and their families," David Garrison of Barrett Johnston, the
firm that filed the original suit in Tennessee.

The complaint -- Phipps, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. -- seeks
to end Wal-Mart's discriminatory practices for female employees
and to receive punitive damages for the women in the class.
Plaintiffs charge that Wal-Mart discriminated against female
employees in stores throughout its Region 43, which centers in
Tennessee and also includes parts of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia,
and Mississippi. Cohen Milstein is co-counsel filed the original
class action against the giant retailer.

The named plaintiffs in the Region 43 case are Cheryl Phipps, of
Covington, Tenn., employed by Wal-Mart for 11 years; Bobbi
Millner, of Jackson, Tenn., employed by Wal-Mart for 26 years; and
Shawn Gibbons, a Wal-Mart employee since 1993. The named
plaintiffs seek to represent thousands of current and former women
employees-with the exception of store managers and pharmacists-of
Wal-Mart stores in Region 43. The class includes women who worked
at Wal-Mart stores and were subject to pay and promotion
discrimination at any time since Dec. 26, 1998.

Phipps v. Wal-Mart is the third regional discrimination case
lodged against Wal-Mart since the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2011
reversed a lower court ruling on the national class action against
the retailer and issued new guidelines for class actions and Title
VII Civil Rights Act employment discrimination cases. In October
2011, two regional complaints were filed -- Dukes, et al. v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, and Odle, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., in U.S.
District Court, Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national
leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one
of the premier firms in the country handling major complex cases,
Cohen Milstein, with 80 attorneys, has offices in Washington,
D.C., New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.,
and Denver, Colo. More information can be found at
www.cohenmilstein.com

Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, LLC fights on behalf of
individuals and organizations on a wide range of legal matters. A
substantial part of the practice is class action litigation,
representing investors, consumers and employees in both state and
federal court in Tennessee and across the country. These cases
usually involve violations of federal securities law, the
Employment Retirement Income and Security Act of 1974 (ERISA),
federal antitrust law, state consumer and antitrust law,
employment discrimination and derivative litigation. For more
information, visit www.barrettjohnston.com


WESTJET: Quebec Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Accessibility Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos P. Martins and Andrew W. Macdonald of Bersenas Jacobsen
Chouest Thomson Blackburn LLP, in an article for International Law
Office, reported that the Quebec Superior Court recently rejected
a motion brought by WestJet seeking to have a previously certified
class action dismissed on the basis that the Canadian
Transportation Agency (CTA) had exclusive jurisdiction over the
subject matter of the suit.

Background

In October 2013 the Quebec court certified a class action in that
province for the recovery of compensatory, moral and punitive
damages against WestJet. The class was composed of:

     persons residing in Quebec who were functionally disabled by
reason of their obesity or otherwise and who were required to pay
additional fees for an extra seat for an attendant and/or for a
seat adapted to their condition on a WestJet flight; and

     all persons in Quebec who were required to pay fees for a
seat on a WestJet flight when acting as an attendant for a
disabled person.

The backdrop to the class action was a January 2008 decision of
the CTA (Decision 6-AT-A-2008) in which WestJet (along with Air
Canada and Air Canada Jazz) was prohibited from charging a fare
for any additional seat required by persons who were disabled by
reason of their obesity. By virtue of the CTA's decision, all
passengers who required additional seating to accommodate their
disability, including where they were required to be accompanied
by an attendant, became entitled to an extra seat at no additional
cost.

The CTA's decision in that case was based on the Supreme Court's
2007 decision in Council of Canadians with Disabilities v Via
Rail.(2)

Applicable law

To understand WestJet's position, the Canada Transportation Act
must be considered. Section 5 of the act declares that the
objectives of Canada's national transportation policy are most
likely to be achieved when, among other conditions, "the
transportation system is accessible without undue obstacle to the
mobility of persons, including persons with disabilities".

In order to achieve the national transportation policy's
objectives, the act grants the CTA broad powers, including "all
the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in a superior
court". In addition, Part V of the act grants specific powers to
the CTA with regard to persons with disability.

In its 2008 decision the CTA determined that additional fees
charged by carriers to persons who were disabled by reason of
their obesity constitute an undue obstacle to the mobility of
persons with disabilities under Section 172 of the act. Section
172(3) gives the CTA the power to "require the taking of
appropriate corrective measures or direct that compensation be
paid for any expense incurred by a person with a disability
arising out of the undue obstacle, or both" where it has
determined that there is an undue obstacle.

In that decision the CTA did not direct that any compensation be
paid, instead ordering only that certain corrective measures be
implemented within 12 months of the date of the decision.

Decision

WestJet based its argument that the CTA had exclusive jurisdiction
over the subject matter of the class action in part on the Via
Rail decision. In Via Rail the Supreme Court held that Section 172
of the act:

"is a clear example of a provision that reflects 'a conscious and
clearly-worded decision by the legislature to use a subjective or
open-ended grant of power [which] has the effect of widening the
delegate's jurisdiction and therefore narrowing the ambit of
judicial review of the legality of its actions'."

However, as the judge noted, Via Rail was a judicial review
application of a decision of the CTA. Via Rail involved an
application to the CTA in which the design of a particular kind of
rail carriage was alleged to constitute an undue obstacle for
persons with disabilities. The CTA ruled against Via Rail, which
applied for judicial review of that decision all the way to the
Supreme Court.

It was in that context that the Supreme Court recognised the high
degree of expertise of the CTA in transportation matters and
notably, relating to the impact of the design and construction of
rail carriages, on the conditions of travel of persons with
disabilities.

Further, the judge specifically pointed to the Supreme Court's
finding that Section 172 "is a jurisdiction-granting, not a
jurisdiction-limiting, provision".

Having reviewed the act and the powers that it confers on the CTA,
the Quebec court reviewed the status of superior courts in Canada.
These courts are courts of inherent jurisdiction and of original
general jurisdiction. As provided in the Quebec Code of Civil
Procedure, the superior court "hears in first instance every suit
not assigned exclusively to another court by a specific provision
of law".

Exclusive jurisdiction may be granted to an administrative
tribunal explicitly or implicitly. What must be examined is the
intention of the legislature. However, as the judge noted, even
where an intention to grant exclusive jurisdiction over a given
matter to a tribunal can be deduced, the superior courts may
retain jurisdiction over questions relating to that matter.

The class action that WestJet was seeking to have dismissed sought
damages for members of the class. In the court's view, the powers
conferred on the CTA under Section 172 did not grant it exclusive
jurisdiction over applications regarding undue obstacles for
persons with disabilities in Canada's transportation system.

It was noted that, with respect to Part V of the act relating to
passengers with disabilities, Section 170 provides that the CTA
"may make regulations"; and that Section 172(1) provides that the
CTA "may, on application, inquire into a matter". The judge found
that if Parliament had intended -- even implicitly -- to grant
exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the transport of
persons with disabilities, it would have employed a term other
than 'may'. The Supreme Court's holding in Via Rail that the CTA
had jurisdiction and recognising its expertise did not amount to a
finding of exclusive jurisdiction.

In its January 2008 decision the CTA ordered non-monetary remedies
for the future and chose not to award damages to the applicants.
The court found that the evidence suggested that the CTA has
adopted a "global and reparative" mission for transportation in
Canada and, generally speaking, appears not to award monetary
damages even where it has the power to do so.

The court held that this application of the law by the CTA aligns
well with the goals articulated in Section 5 of the act. The judge
held that the evidence suggested that the CTA's focus is on the
future and improving the transportation system for all Canadians,
rather than on the compensation or indemnification of any single
traveller.

WestJet's final argument was that allowing the class action to
proceed would encroach on federal jurisdiction over aviation
because it would affect its tariff. This argument was rejected,
with the court finding that it was wrong to claim that WestJet's
tariff would be affected if, at the end of the day, WestJet were
ordered to pay damages for its past actions -- even if such an
award might cause the carrier to change its tariff for the future.

In all the circumstances, the court concluded that the CTA did not
possess exclusive jurisdiction over the claim for damages. The
class action certified in 2013 will therefore proceed.


WILLIAMS CO: Another Law Firm Files Class Suit, Says Andrews
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced
that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on
behalf of stockholders of The Williams Companies, Inc. ("Williams"
or the "Company") seeking to challenge misconduct by the Company's
board of directors in rejecting Energy Transfer Equity's recent
proposal to acquire Williams for $64.00 per share.

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

On June 21, 2015, Williams announced that the Company rejected a
$48 billion ($64.00 per share) takeover proposal from Energy
Transfer Equity after several months of negotiations. In the
Company's announcement, it disclosed that the proposal
"undervalues Williams" even though the Company's stock was trading
around $48.00 per share at the time. Energy Transfer's proposal
represented a significant 32% premium to Williams' trading price.
On June 22, 2015, The New York Times Dealbook revealed that
Williams' board of directors had self-interested motives to not
pursue a value-maximizing deal with Energy Transfer Equity.
Specifically, the article disclosed that one of the reasons that
Williams' board of directors rejected Energy Transfer's offer was
because the proposal required the Company to abandon its highly-
conflicted, previously announced acquisition of subsidiary
affiliate Williams Partners L.P.

On July 1, 2015, a Williams shareholder represented by another law
firm filed a class action complaint challenging the conduct of
Williams' board of directors in approving the Company's
acquisition of Williams Partners L.P. The complaint was filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 11236.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in
the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. For more information please visit
our website at www.andrewsspringer.com. This notice may constitute
Attorney Advertising.


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Motion to Certify for Immediate Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., World Acceptance has filed a motion asking the Court to
certify its May 18, 2015 order for immediate appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the Company said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 2, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2015.

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint
alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in
various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of
federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a
Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received the CID from
the CFPB. The complaint seeks class certification, unspecified
monetary damages, costs and attorneys' fees. The Company believes
the complaint is without merit.

On June 25, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. On August 12, 2014, lead plaintiff Operating Engineers
Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund filed an
amended complaint. The amended complaint contains similar
allegations to the original complaint, but expands the class
period and includes additional allegations that the Company's loan
growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in
the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting
treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
September 16, 2014. On May 18, 2015, the Court issued an order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2015, the
Court granted the Company's consent motion for an extension of
time for the Company to answer the amended complaint to until July
1, 2015.

On May 28, 2015, the Company filed a motion asking the Court to
certify its May 18, 2015 order for immediate appeal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1292(b), and to stay proceedings pending the
resolution of that appeal, on grounds that the Court's decision
involves a controlling question of law over which there is
substantial ground for difference of opinion and an immediate
appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
litigation. In the event that this motion is disallowed, or if the
Court's decision is not reversed on appeal, then the Company
intends to answer the complaint, denying all liability, and to
defend the action vigorously.


WYETH CANADA: HRT Users Can Claim Compensation from $13MM Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ormsby, writing for The Star, reported that more than 1,000
Canadian women who claimed they were not properly warned of breast
cancer risks by the manufacturers of popular menopause drugs --
made in part from estrogen extracted from the urine of pregnant
mares -- can now request compensation from a $13.6-million
settlement fund.

Dianna Stanway, the leading claimant in a decade-long class action
suit against drug manufacturer Wyeth Canada (now a division of
pharmaceutical giant Pfizer), said her legal battle was about
accountability, not cash.

"I really wasn't in it for the money," said the 69-year-old
Stanway from her home in Sechelt, B.C. "It was the point that (the
menopause medications) caused cancer and people should know."

Stanway, who said she is now cancer-free, alleged in 2004, when
the class action was launched, that she developed breast cancer
after using the menopause drug Premarin in combination with the
hormone progestin for about eight years. As of June 29, class
action members have one year to make a compensation claim from the
$13.65-million fund central to the settlement.

The number of claimants in the class action more than tripled,
from about 300 to 1,100 after a Star story detailing the Stanway
case was published last August.

The case, filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia, was
set to go to trial last October after 10 years of litigation. On
the eve of trial, the two sides came to a proposed settlement with
the help of a mediator, who assisted with details of the recently
finalized agreement.

Wyeth Canada, in agreeing to the settlement, made no admission of
fault. Previously, the company told the Star that its products are
"safe and effective when used as directed" and they do not cause
breast cancer.

Of the $13.65-million compensation fund, $4,550,000 goes to class
action counsel Klein Lawyers (and other law firms hired to help
Klein Lawyers) based on a signed contingency fee retainer of 33.33
per cent, according to Justice Miriam Gropper's written reasons
for approving the settlement.

Additional funds were to be paid to cover taxes, disbursements and
administrative costs, bringing the total legal bill to $5,096,00.

Wyeth Canada is the maker of two popular hormone replacement
therapy medications, Premarin and Premplus. The drugs are
prescribed by physicians as a way to relieve menopausal symptoms
such as hot flashes, night sweats and vaginal dryness.

In a prepared statement sent to the Star, Wyeth Canada said the
company "does not admit to any liability or wrongdoing as part of
this agreement."

"In accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement, the
lawsuit has been dismissed without costs, and the litigation has
come to an end," the statement continued.

The Pfizer subsidiary also stated:

"Hormone therapy medicines are an important treatment option for
many women with symptoms of menopause. It is widely accepted that
science cannot determine what caused or contributed to any
individual woman's breast cancer except in rare circumstances
where genetics play a role. Wyeth acted responsibly by conducting
or supporting many studies on hormone therapy's benefits and
risks, and providing accurate, science-based warnings on the
Premarin and Premplus labels."

Justice Gropper noted in her reasons for approving the class
action settlement that the average age of the claimants was 71,
that a total of 35 witnesses were expected to testify at trial and
that plaintiff's lawyers estimated that there would have been more
than trial exhibits.

"I find (the settlement) is fair and reasonable and in the best
interests of the class members as a whole, particularly in the
light of the risks and costs inherent in (pursuing) the litigation
to completion and the age of the class members," Justice Gropper
wrote in her conclusion.

Claimants must be able to prove to the claims administrator,
Deloitte LLP, that they were prescribed and ingested Premplus or
Premarin in combination with progestin between Jan. 1, 1977, and
Dec. 1, 2003, and were thereafter diagnosed with breast cancer to
be eligible for compensation.



                            *********

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  * * *