CAR_Public/150804.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 4, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 154


                            Headlines


AEROPOSTALE INC: Appeal by Individual Stockholder Pending
AIRMEDIA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ALLIANCE BANCORP: Entered into MOU to Settle Class Action
ANTHEM INC: "Juliano" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL
APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Judge Certifies Tenant Rights Group's Suit

APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces "Stewart" Class Suit in N.D. California
AVANQUEST NORTH: Judge Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement
BANKERS LIFE: Federal Court Decertifies Class of Insurance Agents
BLUE CROSS: S.D. Cal. Won't Hear "Wickens" Lawsuit
BRAVO PET: Recalls Dog and Cat Food Products Due to Salmonella

BROWN PACKING: Recalls Beef Trimmings Due to E. Coli
CANADA: Lost Student Loan Data Class-Action Lawsuit Expanded
CBD ENERGY: "Johnson" Class Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. Texas
CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA: Atty of Traffic Camera Suit to Appeal Denial
CELLADON CORP: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit

CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Securities Lawsuit Goes to E.D.N.C.
CHIPOTLE INC: Calif. Ct. Says No Appeal After Class. Cert. Denial
CORMEDIX INC: Sept. 4 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
CROWDFLOWER: Settles Worker Misclassification Suit for $585,507
CSG COMPANIES: Aussie Lawyer Mulls Class Suit in Queensland

DANIEL ACKER: Sexual Abuse Class Suit Still Pending
DELTA AIRLINES: Accused of Price Fixing Conspiracy in Dallas Suit
DES MOINES, IOWA: Hearing Set for Deal on Franchise Fee Refund
ECHOSPHERE LLC: "Tajonar" Labor Suit to Remain in N.D. Cal.
ENVIVIO INC: Funded Portion of Settlement Into Escrow Account

ERNST & YOUNG: Arbitration Policy Enforceable, Court Rules
FAIR COLLECTIONS: Must Defend Against "Martin" FCRA Lawsuit
FEDEX CORP: Settles Dissident-Contractors' Suit
FLORIDA: Removes "Johnson" Suit to Florida District Court
FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Faces 2 Possible Data Breach Lawsuits

FOOT LOCKER: Still Facing "Pereira" Class Action
FOOT LOCKER: Still a Defendant in Wage and Hour Class Actions
FOOT LOCKER: Still Defending Osberg Class Action
FORD MOTOR: NJ Couple Sues Over Carbon Monoxide Leak
FOREST LAB: Bid to Toll Statute of Limitations Period Denied

FURIEX PHARMA: Court Cuts Fees for Plaintiff Counsel
GENERAL MOTORS CANADA: Judge Dismisses Suit by Ex-Dealers
GENERAL NUTRITION: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
GENERAL NUTRITION: "Reyes" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
GEO GROUP: Allows Suit by Immigrant Detainees to Move Forward

GNC HOLDINGS: "Dore" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
GOLDMAN PHIPPS: Judge Grants Class Certification Bid in "Downing"
GRINDR LLC: Sued Over Lack of Membership Information
HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Worker Files Reimbursement, Minimum Wage Suit
HEALTH NET: Naturopathic Doctors, Patients File Class Suit

HONDA MOTORS: Recalls 4.5-Mil. More Cars Over Defective Airbags
ILLINOIS TOLL HIGHWAY: Judge Dismisses Non-Resident Driver's Case
ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Koetsch" Securities Litigation Ongoing
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Securities Litigation Ongoing
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Gallien Class Action

JIMMY JOHNS: "Watson" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Bedtime Products False Advertising
JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs' Firms Spar Over Forex Suit Lead Role
KELLBRAN CANDIES: Recalls Caramel Popcorn Products Due to Milk
KROGER CO: Recalls Seasoning Products Due to Salmonella

LAMI PRODUCTS: Class Suit Filed Over FLSA Violations
LIFE & MORE: Recalls Fat Burner Gold Capsules Due to Sibutramine
MAGMA DESIGN: Judge Rules in Insurance Coverage Dispute
MAKER'S MARK: Judge Tosses Bourbon False Advertising Claims
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against Remaining "Johnson" Claims

MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defending Against Suit by Lucas and Salerno
MID AMERICA APARTMENT: Judge Narrows Claims in "Schilling" Suit
MIDWEST HEALTH: Judge Narrows Plaintiff's Claim in "French" Suit
MOSES LAKE: Recalls Human and Veterinary Sterile Compounded Drugs
MOUNTAINS RECREATION: Appellate Court Trashed Violator's Appeal

NATURE'S VARIETY: Recalls Dog Food Products Due to Salmonella
NAUTICA RETAIL: Violates ADA, Florida Suit Claims
NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Cir. Revives Shoppers' Class Suit
NEIMAN MARCUS: Hearing Held on Bid for Catalyst Attorneys' Fees
NEIMAN MARCUS: Rubenstein Filed Notice to Appeal Ruling

NEIMAN MARCUS: Marney Zaslav Filed Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Says Child Welfare System Suit Counterproductive
NEW YORK, NY: To Allow Visits to Grave Sites on Hart Island
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: March 2017 New Trial Date for Securities Suit
PANASONIC CORP: Loses Bid to Remove Judge in Discrimination Suit

PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
PETROBAS: Pomerantz LLP Wins Securities Class Action
PHILIP MORRIS: App. Court Ruled on "Skolnick" Smoking Class Suit
QUEENSLAND: Abandon Suit Defense, Flood Victims Urge
RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Judge Certifies Class in Provigil Suit

RESTORATION HARDWARE: Guidance Issued on Use of Discount Coupon
RIDGEWOOD, NJ: Trial Court Judge Erred in Transferring Suit
ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Clerk Sued For Denying Marriage Licenses
SHERIDAN PRODUCTION: "Whisenant" Suit to Remain in W.D. Okla.
SILVER WHEATON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

STORM FINANCIAL: $34MM Deal a Win, Atty Behind Class Suit Says
SUCCESS ACADEMY: Bronx Parents Intervene in Class Suit
SUNBELT RENTALS: All-South Subcontractors' Suit Remanded
TARGET CORP: "Barber" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
TARGET CORP: "Farrell" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL

TARGET CORP: Data Breach Case May Move to Class Action Status
TEVA PARENTERAL: Recalls Adrucil(R) Injections Due to Silicone
TILLY'S INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Christiansen" in August
TILLY'S INC: Defending Against "Rebolledo" Action
TILLY'S INC: Filed Answer to "Whitten" Action

TILLY'S INC: Parties in "Ortiz" Case Discuss Settlement
TIME WARNER: Ordered to Pay $230K to Texas Woman in Robocall Case
TRACFONE: Pays $45-Mil. to Settle Suit Over Deceptive Ads
TRUEBLUE INC: "Smalls" Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina
TUBELITE INC: Fax Sent Not "Advertisement," Says Judge

UBER: Challenges Class Suit Over Employee Certification
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Under Probe for Deceptive Practices
URANERZ ENERGY: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU
VIRGINIA: Solitary-Confinement Suits Head to Supreme Court
WALGREEN CO: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL

WALGREEN CO: "Kardasz" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WALGREEN CO: "Trinidad" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: Gender Discrimination Suit Reinstated
WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Marshall" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL

WAL-MART STORES: "Sparks" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Stevens" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
WEN BY CHAZ DEAN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Case Over Product Ads
WILLIAM WARREN: Removes "Holbach" Suit to Florida District Court
WINDSOR SURRY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cover" Suit

WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Schubert Jonckheer Probes Officers, Directors

* Angeion Expands West Cost Class Suit Presence with Kyle Mason
* Capstone Law APC Hires Class Suit Lawyer, Bevin Pike
* Supreme Court to Consider Effect of Rule 68 in Class Actions


                            *********


AEROPOSTALE INC: Appeal by Individual Stockholder Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Aeropostale, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that an appeal filed by an
individual stockholder of the court order approving the settlement
in a class action lawsuit is pending in the second circuit.

In October 2011, Aeropostale, Inc. and former and current senior
executive officers Thomas P. Johnson and Marc D. Miller were named
as defendants in an action amended in February 2012, City of
Providence v. Aeropostale, Inc., et al., No. 11-7132, a class
action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws.
The lawsuit was filed in New York federal court on behalf of
purchasers of Aeropostale securities between March 11, 2011 and
August 18, 2011.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects and failed to disclose that Aeropostale was
experiencing declining demand for its women's fashion division and
increasing inventory.  A motion to dismiss was denied on March 25,
2013.

Aeropostale and the plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement
resolving the claims made in this action, without any admission of
liability, for the amount of $15.0 million, all of which was
funded with insurance proceeds. The settlement received final
court approval on May 9, 2014.

An individual stockholder filed an appeal of the May 9, 2014 court
order approving the settlement, which appeal is now pending in the
second circuit.


AIRMEDIA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds purchasers
of AirMedia Group, Inc. AMCN, American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") from April 15, 2015 through June 15, 2015, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period") of the important August 24, 2015
lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for AirMedia investors under the federal
securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, AirMedia misled investors about the
purported sale of a 5% interest in AirMedia's advertising
subsidiary, AirMedia Group Co., Ltd. ("AM Advertising"), to
Shenzhen Liantronics Co. Ltd., and the valuation of the subsidiary
negotiated in the deal, stating that deal was worth $500 million.
On June 15, 2015, the Company issued an announcement stating that
it had entered into a definitive agreement to sell a 75% equity
interest in AM Advertising to Beijing Longde Wenchuang Fund
Management Co., Ltd. for $344.4 million, a significant reduction
from the value the Company had claimed during the class period.
When the true details entered the market, AirMedia's share price
declined and investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-593.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.


ALLIANCE BANCORP: Entered into MOU to Settle Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12,
2015, that Alliance and WSFS Financial Corporation have entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding with plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of a class action lawsuit.

Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania ("Alliance") and WSFS
Financial Corporation ("WSFS") entered into an Agreement and Plan
of Reorganization , dated as of March 2, 2015 (the "Merger
Agreement"), providing for the merger of Alliance with and into
WSFS, with WSFS as the surviving corporation (the "Merger").
Alliance (SEC File No 0-54246) and WSFS (SEC File No. 333-203572)
filed a definitive proxy statement/prospectus, dated as of May 8,
2015 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with the proposed
Merger.

As described in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus, four purported
shareholder derivative and class action complaints relating to the
Merger were filed. These actions, Parshall v. Stonier (filed on
April 20, 2015 and amended on May 8, 2015), Sloss v. Cirucci et
al. (filed on May 4, 2015), Hewes v. Cirucci et al. (filed on May
4, 2015) and Rubin v. Stonier et al. (filed May 8, 2015) were all
filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County,
Pennsylvania. Subsequently, the four actions were consolidated
into one action under the caption, In Re Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of
Pennsylvania Derivative and Class Action Litigation (Lead Case No.
2015-3606, Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania)
(the "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit named as defendants Alliance (as
nominal defendant), its directors and certain of its officers, and
WSFS (collectively, the "Defendants"). The Lawsuit alleged that
the members of the Alliance board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Alliance shareholders by approving the Merger
for inadequate consideration, approving the transaction in order
to obtain benefits for Alliance directors and officers that are
not equally shared by other Alliance shareholders, entering into
the Merger Agreement allegedly containing preclusive deal
protection terms, and failing to take steps to maximize the value
to be paid to the Alliance shareholders. The Lawsuit also alleged
claims against WSFS for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties, and challenged the adequacy of the
disclosures concerning the transaction in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. The plaintiffs in these actions sought
injunctive relief, rescission, or rescissory damages in the event
the Merger is consummated, damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other and further relief.

On June 11, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, Alliance, WSFS and the other
Defendants entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")
with the plaintiffs ( the "Plaintiffs") regarding the settlement
of the Lawsuit. Pursuant to the MOU, Alliance and WSFS have agreed
to file with the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders
of Alliance the supplemental disclosures provided below in this
Current Report on Form 8-K, and the Plaintiffs have agreed to
release Alliance, WSFS and the other Defendants from all claims
related to the Merger Agreement and the proposed Merger, subject
to approval of the Court. If the Court approves the settlement
contemplated in the MOU, the Lawsuit will be dismissed with
prejudice, and all claims that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith will be
released and barred. Under the terms of the MOU, counsel for the
Plaintiffs and Defendants have agreed to negotiate in good faith
in an effort to agree upon the award of Plaintiffs' attorneys'
fees and expenses to be paid by Alliance, its successor in
interest and/or its insurer. In the event no agreement is reached
among Plaintiffs and Defendants with respect to the award of
attorneys' fees and expenses, then Plaintiffs have reserved the
right to apply to the court for payment of their attorneys' fees
and expenses. The amount of any fees and expense awarded will
ultimately be determined and approved by the Court, and will not
affect the amount of merger consideration to be paid by WSFS. In
the MOU, the parties have agreed to negotiate in good faith to
prepare a stipulation of settlement to be filed with the Court and
other documentation as may be required to effectuate the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties ultimately
will enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the Court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the MOU will
become void in the event that the parties do not enter into such
stipulation or the Court does not approve the settlement.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting
of shareholders of Alliance scheduled for June 18, 2015 in
Havertown, Pennsylvania to vote upon a proposal to adopt the
Merger Agreement. Alliance, WSFS, and the other Defendants deny
all of the allegations in the lawsuits and believe the disclosures
previously included in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are
appropriate under the law. Nevertheless, Alliance, WSFS, and the
other Defendants have agreed to settle the Lawsuit in order to
avoid the costs, disruptions and distraction of further
litigation.

Alliance, WSFS and the other Defendants have vigorously denied,
and continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided
and abetted in the commission of any violation of law or engaged
in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the Lawsuit and
expressly maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently
and scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal
burdens and entered into the MOU solely to eliminate the burden
and expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were
or could have been asserted to rest. Alliance, WSFS and the other
Defendants believe the disclosures in the Proxy
Statement/Prospectus are adequate under law.


ANTHEM INC: "Juliano" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Juliano v. Anthem Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00219, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Jose).  The California
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02635-LHK to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL
No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between
December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015, and resulted in the
electronic theft of personally identifiable information and
personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million
current and former health insurance plan members and employees of
Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald W. Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART AND STEWART PC
          1021 Noble Street, Suite 110
          Anniston, AL 36201
          Telephone: (256) 237-9311
          Facsimile: (256) 237-0713
          E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Greg William Foster, Esq.
          T. Dylan Reeves, Esq.
          STEWART AND STEWART PC
          The Realty Building, Suite 300
          1826 3rd Avenue North
          PO Box 721 (35021)
          Bessemer, AL 35020
          Telephone: (205) 425-1166
          Facsimile: (205) 425-5959
          E-mail: greg@stewartandstewart.net
                  dreeves@stewartandstewart.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          David R. Boyd, Esq.
          COMEY & BOYD
          1800 M St N.W.
          Ste 575 South
          Washington, DC 20036-5869
          Telephone: (202) 822-6340
          E-mail: dboyd@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Allison M. Holt, Esq.
          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          Peter R. Bisio, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th St NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
                  craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
                  peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Cavender C. Kimble, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
          1901 6th Avenue N, Suite 1500
          PO Box 306
          Birmingham, AL 35201-0306
          Telephone: (205) 226-3437
          Facsimile: (205) 488-5860
          E-mail: ckimble@balch.com


APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Judge Certifies Tenant Rights Group's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh O'Leary, writing for Press-Citizen, reported that a district
court judge has certified a class action filed by a tenant's
rights group against Apartments Downtown, Iowa City's largest off-
campus student housing provider.

Judge Chad Kepros of Iowa's Sixth Judicial District found that
lease provisions used by Apartments Downtown were illegal, and he
approved the certification of a class action lawsuit that had been
in limbo the past five years.

The decision is a major victory for the Iowa Tenants Project, an
Iowa City-based group that has pursued a number of class-action
and small claims cases against Iowa City-area landlords -- with
Apartments Downtown and its owners, the Clark family, being its
largest adversary.

The group, headed by attorney Christopher Warnock, initially filed
for the class-action lawsuit in December 2010 on behalf of former
tenant Michael Conroy and other renters, alleging the landlord was
charging illegal fees and withholding unreasonable amounts from
security deposits.

In an 11-page ruling, Kepros granted the tenants' request for a
partial summary and declaratory judgment -- meaning the ruling is
based on the existing facts in the case without it going to a
trial, which had been set for November.

Kepros said in the ruling that several lease provisions used by
Apartments Downtown "are illegal and should not have been included
in the standard lease."

Warnock said that, while Apartments Downtown could file an appeal,
the ruling means that thousands of former tenants who rented under
the lease in question will be owed damages. Warnock said that
amount, including the possibility of punitive damages against the
landlord, will be determined at a later bench trial.

"This is huge," Warnock said. "Basically it's the largest student
landlord in Iowa City, and they've fought us tooth and nail, but
they've been found guilty. All the fees they charged illegally,
knowingly or unknowingly, they've got to give that back."

A message left with Apartments Downtown seeking comment was not
returned.

Warnock said the leases challenged by the class action lawsuit
were used by Apartments Downtown from 2010 through 2014, and he
estimates that they covered at least 6,000 tenants in that time.
Warnock said Apartments Downtown has since rewritten its lease.

The class action lawsuit argued that the lease violated tenants'
rights by charging an automatic carpet cleaning fee, whether the
carpet was clean or not; having provisions that shifted
responsibility for repair and maintenance to tenants, including in
common areas of a building; and including a variety of illegal
fees, penalties and other charges.

The judge found in favor of the tenants on all points. On the
carpet cleaning issue, for instance, Kepros wrote that Iowa law
requires that a landlord "provide a tenant with a specific reason
for withholding any of the rental deposit, and also requires the
landlord to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the reason
for withholding any of the rental deposit, with ordinary wear and
tear excepted."

Kepros also ruled that, unless a landlord can show that a tenant
caused damage beyond ordinary wear and tear that resulted from
deliberate or negligent acts, it cannot shift repair and
maintenance responsibilities to a renter.

"Hopefully this will be a wake-up call just for not just the
Clarks, but for all landlords in Iowa City that you need to clean
up your leases and treat your tenants fairly," Warnock said.

Warnock said that once the court rules on the damages, a database
of the names of past Apartments Downtown tenants affected by the
lease in question will be collected. Those tenants will likely be
contacted through mailings and other means to inform them they are
entitled to money, he said.


APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces "Stewart" Class Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Stewart and Neil Stewart, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Applied Materials, Inc., Aetna Life
Insurance Company; Aetna Health of California, Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-02632-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2015) alleges that Aetna
Life breached its duty by supplanting generally accepted treatment
standards in the mental health field with standards that promote
the self-serving, cost-cutting preferences of Aetna Life and its
corporate affiliates.

Ms. Stewart, and her son Neil Stewart, who was diagnosed with
Autism Spectrum Disorder, are residents of San Jose, California.
She is a participant in the "Applied Materials, Inc. Welfare Plan"
and Neil Stewart is a beneficiary of the Stewarts' Plan.  This
non-grandfathered, large group plan is a self-insured healthcare
policy issued by Applied Materials, Inc. in California.

Aetna Life Insurance Company is a corporation with its principal
place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut.  Aetna Health
is a corporation with its principal place of business located in
Walnut Creek, California.  Aetna adjudicates all mental health
care claims for the Plaintiffs' Plans.  Applied Materials, Inc. is
a corporation with its principal place of business located in
Santa Clara, California.  Applied Materials is the Plan Sponsor of
the Aetna medical plans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
          Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
          Andrew M. Kantor, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
          19839 Nordhoff Street
          Northridge, CA 91324
          Telephone: (818) 886-2525
          Facsimile: (818) 350-6272
          E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
                  trozelle@kantorlaw.net
                  akantor@kantorlaw.net


AVANQUEST NORTH: Judge Denies Preliminary Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement in the case JOHNNY BOYD, Plaintiff, v.
AVANQUEST NORTH AMERICA INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-04391-WHO
(N.D. Cal.)

Benson Worley filed a case on August 21, 2012 as the
representative of a class of consumers who bought either Fix-It
Utilities Professional or System Suite PC Tune-up & Repair.
Worley alleged that Avanquest fraudulently induced consumers to
buy the products, which he claimed erroneously diagnose computers
with a host of problems. The complaint alleged that class members
paid around $35.00 for System Suite.

Johnny Boyd ultimately replaced Worley in bringing the causes of
action against Avanquest relating to Fix-It. Boyd alleged
violations of California's unfair competition law, fraudulent
inducement, breach of contract, and breach of the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing.

Avanquest filed four motions to dismiss and two motions to strike.
The court granted in part and denied in part the first of these
motions to dismiss, and denied the second, third and fourth.

After three years of litigation, Boyd seeks preliminary approval
of a class action settlement in a suit against Avanquest. The
proposed settlement agreement would provide class members with a
voucher for Avanquest's AutoSave Essentials software as well as
prospective relief.

Judge Orrick denied the motion for preliminary approval of a class
action settlement. The parties may file a revised motion with a
hearing on two weeks' notice. They should provide a redlined copy
of the revisions from the original motion and agreement. If no
revised motion is filed, the parties shall appear for a case
management conference on September 29, 2015 at 2 p.m., having
filed a joint statement on September 22, 2015.

A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated July 17, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/2E7MB3from Leagle.com.

Johnny Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Samuel Lasser --
samlasser@hotmail.com -- at Law Office of Samuel Lasser; Benjamin
Harris Richman -- brichman@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC

Avanquest North America Inc, Defendant, represented by N. Kathleen
Strickland -- kathleen.strickland@rmkb.com -- Devin C. Courteau --
devin.courteau@rmkb.com -- Justin Ananda Zucker --
justin.zucker@rmkb.com -- Lael D. Andara -- lael.andara@rmkb.com
-- at Ropers Majeski Kohn & Bentley


BANKERS LIFE: Federal Court Decertifies Class of Insurance Agents
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert P. Brosky of BakerHostetler, in an article for Mondaq,
said challenging the classification of workers as independent
contractors continues to be a growing area of focus for
plaintiffs' attorneys. However, as a recent federal case from
Washington demonstrates, the fact-intensive inquiry that is the
hallmark of the independent contractor inquiry is not compatible
with classwide resolution -- particular post-Dukes.

In Rodney v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., Case No. C14-766RSL
(W.D. Wash. June 30, 2015), the plaintiffs were insurance agents
who worked for and were classified by Bankers Life as independent
contractors. The plaintiffs alleged that they were actually common
law employees and, thus, entitled to overtime under Washington's
Minimum Wage Act. The case was originally brought in Washington
state court and certified as a class before Bankers successfully
removed the case to federal court under the Class Action Fairness
Act. Bankers then moved to decertify the class.

On decertification, the court found that the proper test of
whether the plaintiffs were properly classified as independent
contractors was the "economic reality" test. As we have previously
written, this test looks primarily at six non-exclusive factors,
none of which are dispositive. In general, this test is meant to
examine whether a worker is dependent on the business to which he
or she renders service or is in business for himself.

Plaintiffs presented largely undisputed evidence of Bankers'
alleged control over the agents' business, which they argued
allowed the economic-dependence test to be resolved through common
evidence. This included the fact that the agents invested little
in their agencies, were not required to have experience prior to
becoming agents, were "career" agents with Bankers and were a
critical part of Bankers' business model, and that Bankers
dictated agent work hours, sales methods, and schedules.

In response, Bankers provided declaration testimony showing
differences among the class. This included testimony from agents
which showed that some agents were not required to attend weekly
meetings and had control over their schedules, and that differing
managerial styles of the various Bankers district managers led to
different working experiences among the agents.

After examining the evidence, the court concluded that the
plaintiffs had failed to meet the predominance and superiority
requirements for class treatment under Fed. Rule 23. The court
acknowledged that the plaintiffs presented common issues and
common evidence suggesting a common answer as to several factors
of the economic-dependence test. However, the court astutely
recognized that individual experiences will differ even if they
are all under completely uniform policies. This fact, combined
with Bankers' evidence of varying experiences among agents,
compelled the court to conclude that the determination of agent
status would require an individualized inquiry into each agent's
employment experience. Thus, individualized fact questions
predominated over common ones and the class was decertified.

Bottom Line

Determining whether workers are properly classified as independent
contractors often requires a fact-intensive analysis that cannot
be properly resolved on a classwide basis.


BLUE CROSS: S.D. Cal. Won't Hear "Wickens" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Southern District of
California remanded the case of STEVE WICKENS, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross of
California, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross; Anthem Blue Cross Life
and Health Insurance Company, Defendants, CASE NO. 15CV834-GPC
(JMA) (S.D. Cal.)

On February 4, 2015, Anthem, Inc. announced that cyber hackers had
gained unauthorized access to its information technology system
exposing the name, personal information, birthday, Social Security
number, health care ID number, income data, employment data,
street address, email address, and other personal details of about
80 million current and former customers and employees.

Steve Wickens filed a class action complaint against Blue Cross of
California Inc. d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross and Anthem Blue Cross Life
and Health Insurance Company in San Diego Superior Court for state
law causes of action based on defendants' failure to secure and
safeguard plaintiff's personal identifying information. The class
action complaint alleges causes of action for breach of contract,
violation of the California Records Act, violation of the
California unfair competition laws, negligence, invasion of
privacy, public disclosure of private facts, and unjust
enrichment.

Defendants removed the case to the present court under the Class
Action Fairness Act, (CAFA). Plaintiff filed a motion to remand.
On May 7, 2015, defendants filed a motion to stay, or in the
alternative, for an extension of time to respond pending ruling on
transfer motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.

The court denied plaintiff's motion to remand and granted
plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint, and denied
defendants' motion to stay as moot.

On June 19, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended complaint changing
the term "residents" to "citizens" in the class description. The
court set an order to show cause hearing why the case should not
be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Judge Curiel remanded the case to the state court for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Curiel's order dated July 14, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/eChcmjfrom Leagle.com.

Steve Wickens, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Allen Klitzke

Blue Cross of California, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue
Cross and Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company,
Defendant, represented by Michael M. Maddigan --
michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP


BRAVO PET: Recalls Dog and Cat Food Products Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bravo Pet Foods of Manchester, CT is recalling select lots of
Bravo Chicken pet foods for dogs and cats due to concerns of the
possible presence of Salmonella.

The recall was initiated after routine testing by the New York
State Department of Agriculture revealed the presence of
Salmonella spp. Poly A contamination.

All products tested negative by a third party independent
laboratory prior to release for distribution to consumers.

No additional products are affected by this recall. The company
has received no reports to date of illness in either people or
animals associated with these products.

Salmonella can cause serious illness or fatal infection in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal cramping and diarrhea. Consumers exhibiting these signs
after having contact with this product should contact their
healthcare providers. Always use proper caution when handling raw
foods.

The following product is being voluntarily recalled because of the
possible presence of Salmonella.

  Product          Item #     Size    Best Used by   UPC
  -------          ------     ----    ------------   ----
  Bravo Blend      21 - 102   2 lb    12-05-16       829546211028
  Chicken diet for           (32 oz.)
  dogs & cats -              chub
  Chub

105 cases of this product were sold to distributors, retail
stores, internet retailers and directly to consumers in the US.

These products DID NOT test positive for Salmonella, but are also
being voluntarily recalled out of an abundance of caution because
they were manufactured in the same manufacturing facility on the
same day as the product that tested positive.

  Product          Item #     Size    Best Used by   UPC
  -------          ------     ----    ------------   ----
  Bravo Balance    21 - 401   3 lb    12-05-16       829546214012
  Chicken Dinner             (48 oz.)
  for dogs -                  bag
  Patties
  Bravo Balance    21 - 402   2 lb    12-05-16       829546214029
  Chicken Dinner             (32 oz.)
  for dogs -                  chub
  Chub
  Bravo Blend      21 - 508  5 lb     12-05-16       829546215088
  Chicken diet              (80 oz.)
  for dogs & cats -          bag
  Patties

These products were sold to distributors, retail stores, internet
retailers and directly to consumers in the US.

The recalled product should not be sold or fed to pets. Pet owners
who have the affected product at home should dispose of this
product in a safe manner (example, a securely covered trash
receptacle).

To submit a claim, pet owners should return to the store where
they bought the product.

To get a refund at the store where you bought the product:
Customers should return to the store where they purchased the
product and submit the Bravo Recall Claim Form available on the
Bravo website http://www.bravopetfoods.com/consumerrecall.htmlfor
a full refund or store credit. See Bravo Product Claim Form for
details.

More information on the Bravo recall can also be found at
www.bravopetfoods.com, or call toll free (866) 922-9222 Monday
through Friday 9:00 am to 4:00 pm (EST).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455868.htm


BROWN PACKING: Recalls Beef Trimmings Due to E. Coli
----------------------------------------------------
Brown Packing Company, a South Holland, Ill. establishment, is
recalling an undetermined amount of beef (veal) trimmings that may
be contaminated with E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157 Shiga toxin-
producing E. coli (STEC), the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The raw, boneless beef (veal) trimmings were produced from Feb.
21, 2014 through July 17, 2015. The following products are subject
to recall:

  --- Approx. 60-lb. boxes of "DUTCH VALLEY VEAL."

Various weight generically labeled combo bins of fresh of beef
veal trimmings.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
167" inside the USDA mark of inspection printed on boxes. Lot code
numbers printed on product labels will range from "4000" through
"4313" and "5167" through "5365." The products were shipped to
distributors and retail locations in Colorado, Georgia, Illinois,
Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, New Jersey and Ohio.

The problem was discovered by FSIS upon receiving positive test
results for E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157:H7 STEC while performing
verification activities at the establishment and observing other
non-compliances. Additionally, it was learned that those trimmings
were potentially co-mingled with other products and portions of
those products were shipped to other than cooking facilities.

FSIS and the company have received no confirmed reports of
illnesses associated with consumption of these products. Anyone
concerned about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

E. coli O157:H7 and non-O157 STEC are potentially deadly bacteria
that can cause dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps
2-8 days (3-4 days, on average) after exposure the organism. While
most people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney
failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can
occur among persons of any age but is most common in children
under 5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising,
pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these
symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

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

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume beef that
has been cooked to a temperature of 145ø F for steaks and roasts
(with a three-minute rest time) and 160ø F for ground product. The
only way to confirm that beef products are cooked to a temperature
high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer
that measures internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Consumers with questions regarding the recall can contact Mike
Jedlicka, company operations director, at (708) 849-7990. Media
with questions regarding the recall can contact Brian Oedzes,
company vice president, at (708) 849-7990.

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


CANADA: Lost Student Loan Data Class-Action Lawsuit Expanded
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Levitz, writing for The Canadian Press, reported that
the Federal Court of Appeal has ordered the expansion of a class-
action lawsuit brought by thousands of students whose personal
loan data was lost by the federal government.

And the lawyer representing the students says that decision could
have far-reaching implications for other similar cases.

The appeal court overturned a prior decision limiting the avenues
the students had to pursue their case, on the grounds that they
had failed to prove they actually suffered certain kinds of damage
when the data was lost.

A portable hard drive with information on 583,000 Canada Student
Loans Program borrowers from 2000 to 2006 went missing in 2013 and
has still not been found.

But the appeal court overturned the decision, saying that in
negligence and breach of confidence matters the specific details
of damages don't need to be proven before a class action can go
ahead.

Lawyer Ted Charney called the decision pioneering because for the
first time the court has laid down legal markers for certifying
class-action lawsuits around privacy breaches.

The students are also suing for breach of contract and warranty,
and the tort of intrusion upon seclusion -- basically, invasion of
privacy.

The lost files include student names, social insurance numbers,
and dates of birth, contact information and loan balances, as well
as the personal contact information of 250 department employees.
The department has said there's no evidence the data was ever used
fraudulently.

While the appeal court decision may not change the amount of
damages the students could one day win, it does mean there are now
four ways for students to potentially recover damages, Charney
said.

But there also other implications.

"The whole area of privacy class actions and digital litigation
over privacy breaches is in its infancy in Canada," he said.
"This is a pioneering decision in terms of what you need to
establish at certification."

Among the cases that could be impacted is a lawsuit being brought
by users of a medical marijuana program who had their identities
exposed in a government mailing.


CBD ENERGY: "Johnson" Class Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Johnson v. CBD Energy Limited, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00997, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).  The
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01668 to
the proceeding.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who
purchased the common stock of CBD Energy pursuant and traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's public offering, which commenced on
June 13, 2014.  The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
          PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP
          2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 252-1888
          Facsimile: (214) 252-1889
          E-mail: dean@paynemithcell.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Defendants National Securities Corporation and Northland
Securities, Inc. are represented by:

          Paul Richard Bessette, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 3200
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2050
          Facsimile: (512) 457-2100
          E-mail: pbessette@kslaw.com

Movants Shan Zhengjian and Charles McKissick are represented by:

          Michael Charles Smith, Esq.
          SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH LLP
          113 E. Austin St.
          P.O. Box 1556
          Marshall, TX 75671-1556
          Telephone: (903) 938-8900
          E-mail: michaelsmith@siebman.com


CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA: Atty of Traffic Camera Suit to Appeal Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cris Earl, writing for KCRG.com, reported that James Larew was not
even in the country on July 2, when he found out the a federal
judge ruled against the class action suit that he filed against
the city of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and GATSO USA, the company that
installed and operates the city's well-known automated traffic
cameras.

Seven days later, on his first day back on American soil, Larew
spoke outside of his office near downtown Iowa City.

"We're very respectful of the federal court and judicial officers
can have different opinions as to the law from those of us
representing litigants and, at the same time, we can respectfully
disagree with the court," said Larew of Chief Judge Linda R.
Reade's 45-page decision, in which Reade wrote that the camera,
which use images of license plates to detect and fine drivers
speeding in excess of 12 miles per hour, do not violate
fundamental rights of motorists nor is the program
unconstitutional.

Larew argued the case on behind of listed plaintiff Gary Hughes
and 11 others, which was filed on September 2, 2014, just days
after the Iowa Department of Transportation said two sets of
traffic cameras on Interstate 380 were not in compliance with new
regulations, as the cameras were within the minimum 1,000 feet of
a speed limit decrease.

With the setback, what is Larew's next step in any possible class-
action litigation?

"The options that the clients have is whether to appeal it or
not," said Larew. "My sense is that there is a fairly high
likelihood they will instruct us to appeal it to the federal
Circuit Court. However, there were a number of legal issues that
were not raised in that lawsuit, events that have happened since
the lawsuit was filed," said Larew.

Larew stressed three major points that could be explored in any
future actions:

   (1) The Iowa Department of Transportation's ordering of the
removal and moving of two sets of traffic cameras on Interstate
380. On March 17, 2015, the DOT said the city must move the two
sets of traffic enforcement cameras. The March 17 order focused on
the sets of cameras, in both directions, on Interstate 380 north
of downtown. The southbound cameras had already been cited by the
DOT as not in compliance in August 2014 but the more recent
directive claims the northbound cameras on I-380, at J Avenue NE,
were unnecessary because they were beyond the Interstate's crash-
prone S-curve through downtown.

   (2) Larew said the city of Cedar Rapids uses "collection
processes that involve reporting ATE (automated traffic
enforcement) penalties and fines to national credit reporting
agencies". Larew claimed attorneys general of 32 states, including
Iowa, find the practice "wrongful" in that these are not "debts in
the traditional sense". As people may not be aware of the
penalties, Larew argues, these fines should not go to credit
reporting agencies as "they have not been adjudicated by
independent judicial officers."

   (3) The matter of whether the hundreds of thousands of traffic
citations (approximately 90,000 issued during 2014) is public
record also concerns Larew. "The electronic data collected by the
city to implement its ATE penalties concerns hundreds of thousands
of vehicles are public records," Larew claimed in a statement.
Larew said this information should be available to the public with
ease of access and a "cost-effective manner." [Note: KCRG-TV9 does
maintain a database of more than 442,000 tickets given by the
cameras from 2010 through late August 2014]

For the city, ruling reduces down to one what had been a two-front
legal battle. On June 8, the City Council voted to sue the Iowa
Department of Transportation to keep the traffic enforcement
cameras in place. The previous week, Mayor Ron Corbett said that
he favored complying with the DOT's order to turn off cameras at
two I-380 locations and move the sets of two other cameras to new
locations near the S-curve.

Due to the current litigation between the city of Cedar Rapids and
the Iowa DOT, city leaders have been hesitant to grant interview
requests about the speed cameras. Cedar Rapids Police Chief Wayne
Jerman offered this statement to KCRG-TV9:

"We are very pleased with Judge Reade's ruling," wrote Jerman.
"The automated traffic enforcement cameras are critical to
improving the safety of our community for motorists and first
responders. There has been a reduction in serious injury crashes
and there have been no fatalities on the interstate since the
installation of the cameras."

The issues of traffic cameras raised the visibility of Cedar
Rapids. Minneapolis Star Tribune reporter Adam Belz, formerly of
The Gazette, wrote an extensive piece in May 2015 about the city's
cameras, largely with a focus on how more than 16,000 tickets
issued in 2013 and 2014 went to Minnesota drivers.


CELLADON CORP: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, on behalf of
investors of Celladon Corporation ("Celladon" or the "Company")
that held shares between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015 (the
"Class Period"). If you purchased Celladon securities during the
Class Period or you held shares traceable to Celladon's initial
public offering ("IPO") on January 30, 2014, you may, no later
than August 31, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class.

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

The lawsuit alleges that Celladon made false and misleading
statements about MYDICAR, the Company's leading investigational
drug for treating heart failure. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that: (1) the success in the CUPID1 trial of MYDICAR was
not indicative of any success in the CUPID2 trial since the CUPID1
trial was extremely small and (2) Celladon's top executives were
aware of the limitations of the CUPID1 trial in predicting the
success of the CUPID2 trial.  As a result, Celladon executives
caused Celladon securities to trade at artificially inflated
prices by improperly concealing the limitations of the CUPID1
trial.

On April 27, 2015, the truth about Celladon's cover-up began to be
revealed when the Company announced that the trial failed to show
a significant treatment effect.

As a result of this news, Celladon's stock price fell 80% and
closed at $2.64 per share, wiping out millions of market value and
causing millions in losses for investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 31, 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, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn --
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter --
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

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


CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: Securities Lawsuit Goes to E.D.N.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Alison J. Nathan of the Southern District of New
York granted defendants' motion to transfer the case entitled In
re CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION Securities Litigation, NO. 15-CV-506
(AJN) (S.D.N.Y.)

ChannelAdvisor Corp. is a Delaware corporation based in
Morrisville, North Carolina. Defendants Scot Wingo, David Spitz,
and John Baule are the executive officers, who live in and around
Morrisville, North Carolina.

Plaintiffs filed a putative securities class action suit against
the defendants alleging that the defendants made public statements
about ChannelAdvisor's revenue guidance for the fourth quarter of
2014 that were false and misleading because they failed to
disclose that, ChannelAdvisor's shift in customer base away from
smaller clients to larger clients posed a risk to the company's
financial performance and larger clients were given a discount
that results in lower revenue for the company.

Defendants moved to transfer the suit to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Judge Nathan granted the request.
A copy of Judge Nathan's memorandum and order dated July 2, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/uu9Zl6from Leagle.com.

Justin Dice, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com --
Erica Lauren Stone -- estone@rosenlegal.com -- at THE ROSEN LAW
FIRM PA; Lyle Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP

David A. Garcia, Consolidated Plaintiff, represented by Francis
Paul McConville -- Jeremy Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com
-- Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- at
Pomerantz LLP; Lyle Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- at Cooley
LLP

Channeladvisor Corporation, Defendants, represented by Lyle
Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- Dana Moss -- dmoss@cooley.com --
George Edward Anhang -- ganhang@cooley.com -- at Cooley LLP


CHIPOTLE INC: Calif. Ct. Says No Appeal After Class. Cert. Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Cheng and Alexandria Witte of FordHarrison, in an article
for JD Supra, said that in a case of first impression, the
California Court of Appeals recently held that, unlike cases where
only class allegations are asserted, California's "death knell"
doctrine does not apply to cases where class certification is
denied and representative claims under California's Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA) move forward. See Munoz v. Chipotle
Mexican Grill, Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC447232
(June 30, 2015).  The court's decision means the plaintiffs cannot
appeal the denial of class certification until after litigation of
their representative PAGA claims.

Background

In Munoz, a group of former nonexempt, hourly employees brought a
putative class action against Chipotle, primarily claiming
Chipotle failed to reimburse them and other similarly-situated
employees for out-of-pocket purchases of nonslip work shoes, and
failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements. They also
made derivative representative claims under PAGA. The plaintiffs
asked the trial court to certify two subclasses: (1) an unpaid
wages subclass of Chipotle nonexempt California employees for
failure to reimburse out-of-pocket expenses for nonslip work shoe
purchases and for unpaid minimum wages resulting from wage
deductions to cover those purchases, and (2) a noncompliant wage
statement subclass for Chipotle nonexempt California employees.
The plaintiffs did not seek to certify their PAGA claim. The trial
court denied the plaintiffs' class certification motion, and the
plaintiffs appealed the order under California's "death knell"
doctrine.

Denial of Class Certification Is Only Appealable When Individual
Claims Remain

In appealing the order denying class certification, the plaintiffs
argued that California's "death knell" doctrine applied, rendering
the order readily appealable. Unlike typical intermediate appeals,
which require a court order permitting appellate review, the
"death knell" doctrine permits immediate review of denials of
class certification motions. The underlying premise of this
doctrine is that such appeals must be permitted because otherwise
the plaintiffs would have no financial incentive to pursue the
case to final judgment for the sake of preserving the right to
appeal denial of class certification after final adjudication of
the entire case. Essentially, denial of class certification is "in
legal effect a final judgment" and readily appealable, even
pending litigation.

Prior to Munoz, no Court of Appeal had looked at whether the
"death knell" doctrine applied when the plaintiff brought both
class claims and representative claims under PAGA. In a case of
first impression, the Court of Appeals in Munoz found that even
though the trial court denied certification on all class claims,
the remaining representative PAGA claims precluded application of
the "death knell" doctrine. The appellate court reasoned that
because the plaintiffs still sought to prosecute their action
under PAGA on behalf of all current and former "aggrieved"
employees -- all of whom were putative class members prior to the
class certification ruling -- the plaintiffs' individual claims
were not the only claims left in the case and, as such, the
plaintiffs still had an incentive to continue litigation.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal dismissed plaintiffs' appeal as
procedurally defective, although it did not rule on the merits of
the appeal itself, and awarded costs to the defendant.

Bottom Line for Employers

The Munoz opinion essentially precludes intermediate appeals of
class certification denials when PAGA claims are still in play,
requiring plaintiffs to move forward with their case rather than
delaying the case mid-litigation and forcing employers to spend
significant time and money on appeals.


CORMEDIX INC: Sept. 4 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody ("SS&B") announces that a class action
lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of persons who purchased or
acquired the shares of CorMedix, Inc. ("CorMedix") between March
12, 2011 and June 29, 2015 (the "Class Period").

If you purchased CorMedix securities during the Class Period you
may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in the action by
September 4, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
concealed from the investing public that: (1) CorMedix's
announcements regarding its partnership discussions and imminent
Phase 3 trials for its sole product, Neutrolin, were materially
false and misleading; (2) clinical studies touted by CorMedix were
misleading and overstated its effectiveness; (3) CorMedix
overstated the cost effectiveness of Neutrolin compared to
currently established medical protocols; (4) CorMedix's market
claims for Neutrolin were overstated; (5) CorMedix stock achieved
an unsustainable valuation by using undisclosed paid stock
promoters; (6) CorMedix insiders enriched themselves at the
expense of shareholders by selling stock at inflated prices; and
(7) as a result of the foregoing, CorMedix's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times and its
stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.

SS&B is also investigating whether allegations in the class action
were also breaches of fiduciary duties by the officers and
directors of CorMedix.  SS&B's investigation relates to
allegations in news reports that CorMedix has used undisclosed,
paid stock promoters to increase the value of its shares, which
SS&B believes may have been a waste of corporate assets that also
exposed CorMedix to potential liability.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Michael J. Klein, Esq. at Stull,
Stull & Brody by e-mail at CRMD@ssbny.com, by calling toll-free 1-
800-337-4983 x147, or by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing to
Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017. You
can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com.

Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for
violations of securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty on
behalf of defrauded investors over the past 40 years and has
obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous
occasions.  Stull, Stull & Brody has offices in New York and
Beverly Hills.  The Stull, Stull & Brody website (www.ssbny.com)
has additional information about the firm.

Attorney advertising.  Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.  This press release may be considered Attorney
Advertising in some jurisdictions under applicable laws and
ethical rules.


CROWDFLOWER: Settles Worker Misclassification Suit for $585,507
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Johnson, writing for Staffing Industry Analysis, reported
that CrowdFlower agreed to pay $585,507 to settle a class action
lawsuit brought by crowdsourced workers who claim they were
misclassified as independent contractors and paid less than the
legal minimum wage, according to court records.

A judge approved the settlement with the crowdsourcing firm on
July 2 after rejecting an earlier settlement effort.

Crowdsourcing involves taking large tasks or a big project and
breaking them down into small tasks that online workers can
complete in a few minutes without using any special skill. The
most common CrowdFlower task is verifying business listings,
according to the lawsuit.

There are an estimated 19,992 class members in the lawsuit,
according to court records. Settlements class members are to
receive will range from $2.09 to $3,230.49 based on their earnings
under CrowdFlower. However, Christopher Otey and Mary Greth will
receive $6,000 and $5,000, respectively, for serving as named
plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Class members include all US-based CrowdFlower workers who
performed $5 or more in tasks through Amazon Mechanical Turk's
crowdsourcing site from Oct. 26, 2009, through approval of the
settlement.


CSG COMPANIES: Aussie Lawyer Mulls Class Suit in Queensland
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hamish Broome, writing for Northern Star, reported that a Northern
Rivers lawyer is considering a class action against CSG companies
in the Darling Downs region of Queensland on behalf of landowners
who feel they have been adversely impacted by the industry.

Mullumbimby solicitor Cameron Bell said he was in discussions with
several residents of the region over their grievances.

"We would be looking at 15 to 20, in terms of people who would be
interested in joining us," Mr Bell said.

"The people I've spoken to just don't seem to be happy with the
way (land access) negotiations with the companies have proceeded
until now.

"I have had the opportunity to look at proposed agreements put
forward to these affected landowners, and they're not good
agreements."

"They're totally inadequate, and none of these agreements would
necessarily stand up (in court), they're based on misinformation
and lack of transparency."

"They're just about protecting the company.

"People are getting peeved off about that and they're actually
wanting something done."

Mr Bell successfully represented Tara resident John Jenkyn
(pictured) in Chinchilla Local Court over a charge of using a
carriage service (Facebook) to menace, which was struck out by the
court after Mr Bell showed the allegations were without substance.

On November 9 year Mr Jenkyn had posted a "rant" on a public
Facebook page which became the subject of a complaint to police by
gas company QGC.

Mr Bell said this was a case of QGC "effectively trying to
criminalise someone they're not getting along with".

"My client vented his frustration on Facebook, and the next thing
the police are being phoned by staff at QGC saying 'we're being
threatened'."

He said the courtroom win was a "significant moral victory".

During his work on the case, Mr Bell said he had heard from
several others who were upset with the industry.

Mr Bell said he was now talking with a Brisbane lawyer experienced
in class actions.

If a case went ahead it might well implicate the Queensland
Government because mandatory baseline testing was "overlooked" and
authority given for operations to proceed, Mr Bell said.

Companies had since become adept at denying any wrongdoing, which
was made easier by the fact no baseline data was available.

Mr Bell said while people had mobilised successfully on the
Northern Rivers against CSG, the Darling Downs was a "different
story" which "strikes you on another level".

He said the case would need funding to collect the expert evidence
needed to ground a successful action.


DANIEL ACKER: Sexual Abuse Class Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Neal Wagner, writing for Shelby County Reporter, reported that a
lawsuit pending against a longtime Alabaster teacher who pleaded
guilty in 2012 to sexually abusing more than 20 girls during his
teaching tenure likely will move forward in U.S. District Court
after early 2016, according to court documents.

In February, District Court Judge Virginia Hopkins issued an order
extending multiple deadlines in a lawsuit brought against Daniel
Acker Jr. and the Shelby County Board of Education in February
2014.

As a result of the deadline extensions, the plaintiffs and the
defendants have until Nov. 2 to file discovery motions, and have
until Jan. 11, 2016, to file dispositive motions. Dispositive
motions seek to settle or dispose portions of or all of a lawsuit.

Acker was sentenced to 17 years in prison in May 2012 after he
pleaded guilty to eight counts of sexually abusing underage girls
during his more than 20-year teaching tenure in Alabaster.

The lawsuit was brought against Acker and some past and present
members of the Shelby County Board of Education by one of Acker's
former students, Kristin Hurt, and six other unnamed plaintiffs.

In August 2014, Hopkins denied a request by the original
plaintiffs' attorney to grant the case class-action status,
opening it to "Any current or former female student during the
time period that Dan Acker (Jr.) worked for (the) Shelby County
School Board who was either injured, sexually harassed, abused or
molested by Dan Acker (Jr.), or who witnessed such conduct or who
was exposed to a sexually hostile education environment through
Acker's conduct."

Hopkins denied the class-action request, claiming the victims
sought in the class-action request did not have enough in common
to join into a single lawsuit.

Hopkins said Acker's victims can still file separate lawsuits
"outside of the class-action format."

In January 2015, attorneys for the Shelby County Board of
Education and former members Lee Doebler and Steve Martin argued
the defendants should be removed from the lawsuit due to the
statute of limitations in the matter and because state agencies
are immune from such lawsuits.

According to court documents, June 1 was the deadline for more
plaintiffs to be added to the lawsuit, leaving the final count at
seven plaintiffs.


DELTA AIRLINES: Accused of Price Fixing Conspiracy in Dallas Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A group of airline customers has filed a federal class-action
lawsuit in Dallas accusing four major U.S. airlines of violating
antitrust laws by conspiring to artificially inflate airfares in
order to reap huge profits.

The lawsuit filed July 8 says Texas-based Southwest Airlines
(NYSE: LUV) and American Airlines (NASDAQ: AAL), Atlanta's Delta
Airlines (NYSE: DAL) and Chicago's United Airlines (NYSE: UAL)
conspired to restrict capacity by limiting routes and the number
of available seats in order to charge artificially high prices.

"The defendants are so intent on raising profits that they appear
to have colluded to gouge customers' pocketbooks and keep airfares
sky high," says Dallas attorney Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest
LLP, who represents the plaintiffs. "Agreeing to restrict capacity
to keep your profits high marks the very definition of an
antitrust violation."

The lawsuit describes a series of economic conditions that should
have resulted in more available airline seats and lower ticket
prices, including increasing public demand for airline seats and
the fact that airlines paid at least $1.50 per gallon less for jet
fuel in 2014 compared to 2013. Instead, the supply of seats has
remained virtually flat and airline fares skyrocketed at an
inflation-adjusted rate of 13 percent from 2009 to 2014, the
lawsuit says.

Filing follows announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice
that it is investigating the airlines' tactics. Similar lawsuits
on behalf of airline customers have been filed in New York,
Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. Mr. Burns and Burns
Charest have moved to transfer and consolidate all the civil cases
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
where lawsuit was filed.

The case is Cumming, et al. v. American Airlines, Inc., et al.,
No. 3:15-cv-02253.

Burns Charest is a Dallas and New Orleans-based trial law firm
with a national practice representing consumers and businesses.
The firm represents clients in large, complex class actions;
antitrust claims; oil and gas royalty disputes; environmental
pollution cases; and asbestos exposure claims.


DES MOINES, IOWA: Hearing Set for Deal on Franchise Fee Refund
--------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Rodgers, writing for The Des Moines Register, reported that
a court hearing is expected to be the final step before Des Moines
utility ratepayers receive notice of how much they'll be refunded
from a $40 million judgment against the city for years of
collecting an illegal franchise fee.

Beaverdale neighborhood resident Lisa Kragnes sued the city in
2004, alleging Des Moines was violating state law by tacking a fee
on to ratepayers' MidAmerican Energy bills to raise revenue. The
lawsuit was certified as a class action on behalf of all
ratepayers. In 2012, the Iowa Supreme Court upheld a district
court's ruling ordering the city to refund millions to residents.

Kragnes' attorneys in September 2013 asked for almost $15 million
in attorney's fees that would be paid from the same pool as
residents' refunds. The amount represented the standard one-third
amount that attorneys typically take in such lawsuits.

But Polk County District Judge Joel Novak awarded only $7 million,
writing that the fee award had to be fair to taxpayers as well as
the attorneys. The Iowa Court of Appeals upheld Novak's ruling in
January, and the Iowa Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal.

"We understood going into the appeal that it would be an uphill
battle," Brad Schroeder, one of Kragnes' attorneys, said in a news
release. "At the same time, we knew that if we let the fee award
stand without any action that others might decide it isn't worth
taking on City Hall if the standard for fees is different from
other class cases where the defense, in this case the city, is
proved to have broken the law for several years."

The hearing at the Polk County Courthouse will mostly be for
signing off on housekeeping items like the wording of the refund
notices and claim forms that will be sent to residents, Schroeder
said. Each refund notice will specify an exact amount that each
ratepayer is eligible to receive, he said.

It may still be months before each ratepayer receives a refund
notice, Schroeder said. Administration of the notices and claims
is being handled by Minneapolis-based Rust Consulting.


ECHOSPHERE LLC: "Tajonar" Labor Suit to Remain in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the Southern District of
California denied plaintiff's motion to remand in the case JOSE
TAJONAR, Plaintiff, v. ECHOSPHERE, L.L.C., et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 14CV2732-LAB (RBB) (N.D. Cal.)

Jose Tajonar filed a class action complaint alleging various
violations of California's labor codes, including: (1) failure to
provide meal periods (Cal. Lab. Code Section 226.7); (2) failure
to timely pay final wages (Cal. Lab. Code Section 203); and (3)
failure to provide accurate and compliant wage statements (Cal.
Lab. Code Section 226).

Defendants, including DISH Network California Service Corporation,
removed the action on November 11. Tajonar filed a motion to
remand.

Judge Burns denied the motion to remand.  A copy of Judge Burns's
order dated July 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/pwynB7from
Leagle.com.

Jose Tajonar, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas D Rutledge --
thomasrutledgelaw@gmail.com -- at Law Office of Thomas D Rutledge

Defendants, represented by Marlene Muraco -- mmuraco@littler.com
-- at Littler Mendelson


ENVIVIO INC: Funded Portion of Settlement Into Escrow Account
-------------------------------------------------------------
Envivio, Inc. has funded into an escrow account its portion of the
settlement in a class action lawsuit of approximately $1.0
million, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015.

On October 5, 2012 a complaint captioned Wiley v. Envivio, Inc.,
et al. CIV-517185 was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of San Mateo, naming as defendants the Company, each of its
directors, its chief executive officer, its chief financial
officer, and certain underwriters of its IPO. The lawsuit purports
to be a class action on behalf of purchasers of shares issued in
the IPO and generally alleges that the registration statement for
the IPO contained materially false or misleading statements. The
complaint purports to assert claims under the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On October 19, 2012 a similar complaint captioned Toth v. Envivio,
Inc. et al. CIV-517481 was filed in the same court. On November 2,
2012 defendants removed the cases to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California where they were
assigned case numbers 12-cv-05637-CRB and 12-cv- 05636-CW. A
similar complaint was filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on December 20, 2012
entitled Thomas v. Envivio, Inc., et al. C 12-06464. The Wiley and
Toth actions were subsequently remanded to the San Mateo Superior
Court, where they are now pending, and the Thomas case was
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

On February 28, 2014, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California entitled
Gary Silverberg v. Envivio, Inc. et al., Civil No. 14-cv-00933-
PJH. The complaint purports to be on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between April 25, 2012 and
September 7, 2012. It names as defendants the Company and the
Company's chief executive officer and chief financial officer, and
seeks unspecified damages and other relief for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. On June 25, 2014, the Silverberg case was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

In November 2014, the Company and the named defendants reached an
agreement in principle to settle the actions without any admission
of any wrongdoing by the Company or any of the named defendants.
The parties subsequently entered into a formal settlement
agreement, which must be approved by the court before becoming
final. The agreement required the Company to contribute
approximately $1.0 million toward the settlement.

On March 16, 2015, the Company funded into an escrow account its
portion of the settlement of approximately $1.0 million, and the
remaining settlement payment will be covered by the Company's
director and officer insurance providers. The settlement payment
will be released from escrow subject to and upon final court
approval of the settlement.


ERNST & YOUNG: Arbitration Policy Enforceable, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that a
New Jersey appeals court ruled July 23 that three former employees
of auditing giant Ernst & Young must have their age discrimination
claims sent to arbitration because they agreed to alternative
dispute resolution by staying on the job.

In a published ruling, the three-judge Appellate Division panel
upheld language in Ernst & Young's employment policy that said its
employees demonstrated their acceptance of a mandatory arbitration
policy by remaining company employees.

"We conclude EY's ADR policy . . . is valid and enforceable," said
Appellate Division Judge Jerome St. John in Jaworski v. Ernst &
Young.  Judges Marie Lihotz and Marianne Espinosa joined in the
ruling.

The plaintiffs -- Paul Jaworski, Alexander Haggis and
Robert Holewinski -- filed suits alleging that Ernst & Young
violated the state's Law Against Discrimination by firing them
because of their age.

Mr. Jaworski, 61 when fired, was the finance director of the
company's Global Financial Group and had worked for Ernst & Young
for 13 years, according to the court's opinion.  Mr. Haggis was 57
when he was fired.  He had been the manager of accounting and had
worked at the company for 17 years.  Mr. Holewinski, 55 when
fired, was the associate director of finance in Ernst & Young's
Global Infrastructure Group.

In 2002, Ernst & Young adopted what it called its Common Ground
Program.  As part of the program, employment disputes were to be
first handled through mediation and then, if that was not
successful, through arbitration.  The program barred employees
from filing lawsuits, according to the opinion.

The program was amended several times in the following years.
However, employees were continually told that continuing with
their employment for a certain period of time was an
acknowledgement and acceptance of the program's arbitration
requirements, the opinion said.

After being fired, the plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in Hudson
County Superior Court and challenged the enforceability of the
mandatory arbitration requirement.  Judge Mary Costello upheld the
requirements of the program and ordered the parties into
arbitration.  The plaintiffs appealed.

Their attorney, Christopher Lenzo, said he would ask the state
Supreme Court to hear another appeal.

Employment agreements such as the one at Ernst & Young create a
"legal fiction" that an employee actually agrees with the terms,
said Mr. Lenzo, of Lenzo & Reis in Morristown.  "Employees who
have to work for a living have to choose between their jobs or a
jury trial.  This is not voluntary.

"This is yet another example of a self-serving decision by the
judiciary to keep its dockets low," Mr. Lenzo added.

Ernst & Young's attorney, Robert Szyba, of the New York office of
Seyfarth Shaw, did not return a call seeking comment.

In their appeal, the plaintiffs claimed that the arbitration
language constituted an illusory agreement because Ernst & Young
retained the right to unilaterally modify its terms.  They also
argued that they never agreed to arbitration if they were fired,
that the program violates their constitutional right to a jury
trial and that it was unconscionable because it imposed
substantial forum costs on the plaintiffs that they would not face
if their claims were heard in court.

Judge St. John said the appeals court rejected the first argument
because employers need flexibility to adapt to changes in the law
and should not be forced to negotiate changes with each individual
employee.  And, he said, it was clear that Ernst & Young gave
adequate notice to employees about changes in its policies.
The appeals court rejected the second of the plaintiffs' arguments
by noting that the program said all disputes must be settled
through arbitration.

Regarding the claim that the program's requirements violated the
plaintiffs' constitutional right to trial by jury, the appeals
court cited the state Supreme Court's ruling from last year in
Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group.  In that case, the court
upheld a waiver of rights if the waiver was clear and unambiguous.
That was the case here, Judge St. John said.

Lastly, the appeals court rejected the claim that arbitration
would force the plaintiffs to carry the costs.  The program, Judge
St. John said, clearly points out that both sides will share the
costs and that the company, if it prevails, would not seek to
recover costs from plaintiffs.

Mr. Lenzo said one reason he believes the Supreme Court will agree
to hear the case is because it has not addressed the issue of
illusory agreements.

"I think they will want to weigh in on this," he said.


FAIR COLLECTIONS: Must Defend Against "Martin" FCRA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George J. Hazel of the District of Maryland,
Southern Division denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
KEVIN D. MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. FAIR COLLECTIONS & OUTSOURCING,
INC., Defendant, CASE NO. GJH-14-3191 (D. Md.)

Plaintiff Kevin D. Martin was interviewed for a position with
defendant Fair Collections & Outsourcing, Inc. (FCO), where the
latter offered a position to the plaintiff. As part of the hiring
process, Martin signed a form entitled Consent to Request Consumer
Report and Investigative Consumer Report Information, which FCO
uses the form to perform background checks on applicants for
employment and uses the screening services of Sterling
Infosystems, Inc. to perform the background check.

The disclosure form requires the potential employee to acknowledge
that Sterling will obtain a consumer report and/or consumer
investigative report and send it to FCO for employment purposes.
The disclosure form also requires the potential employee to
acknowledge that Sterling may obtain additional information about
the applicant from a number of sources.

After Martin signed the disclosure form, Sterling completed the
background check on August 14, 2014.  The resulting report
inaccurately stated that Martin had been arrested for a felony
offense on August 18, 2007 in Charleston. South Carolina. Martin
received a letter from FCO rescinding the offer of employment
along with a copy of the background report. Martin called both FCO
and Sterling to dispute the background report findings. Although
Sterling stated that they would respond to his dispute, Martin did
not receive a reply and lost the job opportunity at FCO.

Plaintiff brought a two-count complaint against defendant FCO as a
class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act. 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681 et seq. (FCRA).  FCO has moved to dismiss count one,
contending that Martin has failed to state a claim. In count one,
Martin alleges that FCO willfully or negligently violated 15
U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2) by procuring or causing to be procured
a consumer report for employment purposes without first providing
a clear and conspicuous disclosure in writing to the consumer in a
document that consisted solely of the disclosure.

Judge Hazel denied FCO's motion to dismiss.  A copy of Judge
Hazel's memorandum opinion dated June 29, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/fJxEL5from Leagle.com.

Kevin D Martin, Plaintiff, represented by James A. Francis --
jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com -- David A. Searles --
dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com -- at Francis and Mailman PC; Martin
Eugene Wolf -- at at Gordon, Wolf & Carney, Chts.

Fair Collections and Outsourcing, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Erin A Risch -- erisch@ewmd.com -- Susannah Eaton Smith --
ssmith@ewva.com -- at Eccleston and Wolf PC


FEDEX CORP: Settles Dissident-Contractors' Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Melissa Kay, writing for Financial Trend, reported that package
carrier FedEx Corporation (NYSE:FDX) announced on July 8 that it
had entered into a settlement with dissident-contractors, led by
Dean Alexander. The lawsuit before United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleged the company of
wrongly fully classifying its contractors, and not in compliance
with California Labor Code as well as the California Business and
Professions Code. The plaintiffs now claim compensation for
deductions, late wage payment and unpaid overtime. The period of
dispute of classifying the employees was between November 17, 2000
and October 15, 2007 with FedEx Ground.

Over seventeen of the contractors also seek meal and rest break
compensation, as they were not allowed these perks, despite
California Labor Code.

The settlement resolves that FedEx Corporation (NYSE:FDX) will pay
$228 million to resolve the lawsuit and gain release from the
claims asserted via the lawsuit.

The classification of employees, numbering nearly 2,300 was not in
compliance with Californian Labor code. The $228 million
settlement will be inclusive of all legal fees to attorneys as
well. Every class member settlement will be based on a particular
formula and will be subject to the dates as well as duration of
the individual contracts with FedEx Ground. The settlement will
consider the number of hours and days of work, as well as the
vehicles used besides the miles driven to execute the order.

However, the settlement will be only after due consideration by
the District Court.  The current preliminary approval has also
fixed the time line during which those seeking compensation will
be notified. They will also be provided with an opportunity to
file the claim and to receive the payment due as part of the
settlement process.

All parties are now waiting for the Fairness Hearing notice period
to lapse, before they seek final approval of the settlement. At
this timeline, if any objections are to be raised, they would be
considered.


FLORIDA: Removes "Johnson" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Alisa Johnson v. State of Florida, Department
of State, Case No. 2015 CA 000967, was removed from the Second
Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00308-RH-CAS to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges discrimination and retaliation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marie A. Mattox, Esq.
          MARIE A. MATTOX, P.A.
          310 East Bradford Road
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: (850) 383-4800
          Facsimile: (850) 383-4801
          E-mail: Marie@mattoxlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Linda Bond Edwards, Esq.
          Brian L. Hayden, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
          215 South Monroe Street, Suite 702
          Post Office Box 10507
          Tallahassee, FL 32302-2507
          Telephone: (850) 222-6550
          Telecopier: (850) 222-8783
          E-mail: ledwards@rumberger.com
                  bhayden@rumberger.com


FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Faces 2 Possible Data Breach Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Paul Brinkmann, writing for Orlando Sentinel, reported that
Florida Hospital is facing two possible class action lawsuits
regarding two separate data breaches of patient information over
the past four years.

The hospital is battling both suits, and has recently submitted
motions to toss them both out.

The first data breach, revealed in August 2011, involved Florida
Hospital employees Dale Munroe and Katrina Munroe combing through
thousands of patient records and selling data to lawyers and
chiropractors. Both employees were fired and charged criminally.

The second breach, discovered in May 2014, involved two employees
printing portions of medical records for at least 9,000 patients
for over two years. Those employees were also fired but not named
in the lawsuits. That breach was allegedly discovered by state
investigators of a criminal case.

The first lawsuit is handled by a Chicago-based law firm Edelson,
and local attorney Edmund Normand. The named plaintiffs in that
case are Richard Faircloth, who was a patient at Florida
Hospital's Apopka campus, and Consuelo Armesto, a former patient
at Florida Hospital's Altamonte Campus. A new hearing is coming up
soon regarding Florida Hospital's motion to dismiss the Faircloth
case.

Attorney John Yanchunis of Orlando law firm Morgan & Morgan is
handling a case tied to the May 2014 breach. The named plaintiffs
in that case are Heather and Sebastian Peralta of Altamonte, and
their daughter Janson Peralta.

The Peralta case, filed more recently, cites the previous case as
evidence that the hospital has known about data breaches for a
while now.

"Hospital are good about delivering medical services. Other kinds
of things, like this, they are not so good at, because it's not
their business," Yanchunis said. "But that must change now, and
there's a movement now to install systems to better detect access
to information."

Florida Hospital and its attorneys did not immediately respond to
phone calls and emails about the lawsuits, which are both pending
in Orange County Circuit Court.

But the hospital has argued that the lawsuits are missing an
important fact: the plaintiffs haven't suffered any identity
theft, at least not yet.

Both lawsuits rely on allegations that the patients involved had
"expected and paid for" data security at the hospital.

But Florida Hospital's attorneys argue that no Florida court has
recognized a fiduciary duty between a hospital and a patient. The
hospital also argues that the plaintiffs can't enforce federal
HIPAA laws through private civil action, that they can't sue based
on "increased risk of identity theft."

The hospital also argues that their employees were willfully
violating the policies regarding HIPAA compliance and patient data
security.

Data stolen from medical records is a common method used by
identity thieves, especially for filing fake tax returns seeking
bogus tax refunds.

There's an additional wrinkle in the Peralta case. Yanchunis noted
that the Peralta's daughter isn't even eligible for credit
protection services yet, but that her data could be used in an
identity theft years from now.

According to the court record, the Munroes were paid $10,000 by
local chiropractor Sergei Kusyakov to pull out information on
victims of motor vehicle accidents -- some of whom then received
calls from Kusyakov's office with offers of chiropractic care. The
Munroes and Kusyakov all pleaded guilty to the crimes.


FOOT LOCKER: Still Facing "Pereira" Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in one case in which plaintiff alleges that the Company
permitted unpaid off-the-clock hours in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and state labor laws. The case, Pereira v.
Foot Locker, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in 2007. In his complaint, in addition to
unpaid wage and overtime allegations, plaintiff seeks compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

In 2009, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide collective
action. During the course of 2010, notices were sent to
approximately 81,888 current and former employees of the Company
offering them the opportunity to participate in the class action,
and approximately 5,027 have opted into the class action.


FOOT LOCKER: Still a Defendant in Wage and Hour Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in additional purported wage and hour class actions that
assert claims similar to those asserted in Pereira and seek
similar remedies. With the exception of Hill v. Foot Locker filed
in state court in Illinois, Kissinger v. Foot Locker filed in
state court in California, and Cortes v. Foot Locker filed in
federal court in New York, all of these actions were consolidated
by the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
with Pereira under the caption In re Foot Locker, Inc. Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wage and Hour Litigation.

In Hill v. Foot Locker, in May 2011, the court granted plaintiffs'
motion for certification of an opt-out class covering certain
Illinois employees only. The Company and plaintiffs have entered
into a proposed settlement agreement to resolve the consolidated
cases, Hill and Cortes, that is subject to court approval. The
court recently granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement agreement.


FOOT LOCKER: Still Defending Osberg Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Foot Locker, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the Company and the
Company's U.S. retirement plan are defendants in a purported class
action (Osberg v. Foot Locker, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York) in which the plaintiff
alleges that, in connection with the 1996 conversion of the
retirement plan to a defined benefit plan with a cash balance
formula, the Company and the retirement plan failed to properly
advise plan participants of the "wear-away" effect of the
conversion. Plaintiff's current claims are for breach of fiduciary
duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 and
violation of the statutory provisions governing the content of the
Summary Plan Description. The district court issued rulings
certifying the class. The Company sought leave to appeal the class
certification rulings to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, but these applications were denied. Trial had been
adjourned to July 13, 2015.


FORD MOTOR: NJ Couple Sues Over Carbon Monoxide Leak
----------------------------------------------------
Thomas Zambito, writing for NJ.com, reported that a New Jersey
couple is suing Ford Motor Company, claiming their Explorer leaks
toxic levels of carbon monoxide into its passenger cabin while the
car is on the move.

Stephen Schondel and his wife, Linda King-Schondel of Middletown,
filed the lawsuit against Ford in state Superior Court in Monmouth
County in May.

Ford asked a judge to have the case moved into U.S. District
Court. The couple's lawyers are seeking a judge's order having the
lawsuit declared a class action that would cover New Jersey
residents who have bought or leased the Explorer as well as Ford's
Edge and Lincoln MKX models between the years 2011 and 2015.

The lawsuit claims Ford has known about the problem since 2012 but
has done little to correct it, leaving hundreds of thousands of
"defective vehicles" on the road.

The lawsuit pins the blame on a design flaw in Explorers
manufactured between 2011 and 2015 that allows exhaust and gases,
including carbon monoxide, to enter the car's cabin.

"Ford has known about this problem since 2012," the lawsuit says.
"Since then it has serviced thousands of vehicles around the
world, almost all without succeeding in eliminating the exhaust
leak. It has bought back hundreds of vehicles around the world,
mostly overseas, because it has been unable to fix the leak. It
has attempted a variety of fixes, all without success.''

Ford's lawyers say that as of July 1, 2015, the company has sold
nearly 62,000 Explorers from the model years 2011 to 2015 to
customers living in New Jersey.

The Schondels leased a 2014 Ford Explorer from a Red Bank
dealership in January 2014, according to the lawsuit.

The same year they say they told their dealer of "an exhaust odor"
while the car was in use. The dealer told them that there was "no
carbon monoxide entering the passenger compartment of the vehicle,
and that the problem was not a hazard to health," the lawsuit
alleges.

A Ford spokesman could not immediately be reached for comment. And
Matthew Goldberg, the attorney representing Ford in the case,
could not be reached for comment.

Ford has told owners said that no carbon monoxide enters the
compartment and that the vehicles do not present a health hazard,
according to the lawsuit.

The Schondels said tests they had done on the car in 2015 showed
that the car's air conditioning system "picks up the gas entering
around the rear ejector valve and blows it into the cabin of the
vehicle," the lawsuit says.

In July 2014, the lawsuit claims, Ford issued a safety bulletin to
dealers providing instructions for eliminating the presence of an
exhaust odor in Explorers for the model years 2011 through 2015.

A similar bulletin was issued in 2012, the lawsuit adds.

But, the lawsuit says, Ford did not inform car owners "even though
these defects present health and life safety issues to occupants
of the vehicles," the lawsuit adds.

"Ford knew or should have known that the 2011 through 2015 model
year Ford Explorers were dangerous and defective such that drivers
and passengers of those vehicles may be exposed to carbon monoxide
and other dangerous gases while the vehicles are in operation,"
the lawsuit adds.

The lawsuit accuses Ford of violating the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act as well as the state's Motor Vehicle Warranty Act, known
as the Lemon Law.


FOREST LAB: Bid to Toll Statute of Limitations Period Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronnie Abrams of the Southern District of New York
denied plaintiffs' motion in the case MEGAN BARRETT, LINDSEY
HOUSER, JENNIFER JONES, JENNIFER SEARD, ERIN ECKENRODE, CHRISTY
LOWDER, JULIE SMYTH, ANDREA HARLEY, KIMBERLY CLINTON, and MARIE
AVILA, TRACY LE, each individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated female employees, Plaintiffs, v. FOREST
LABORATORIES, INC. AND FOREST PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendants,
NO. 12-CV-5224 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiffs are 11 current or former female employees of defendants
Forest Laboratories, Inc. and Forest Pharmaceuticals, Inc., who
brought individual and class claims under the Equal Pay Act (EPA)
and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sections
2000e, et seq.
An initial case management conference scheduled for December 21,
2012, was adjourned indefinitely upon plaintiffs' request and with
defendants' consent in anticipation of defendants' motion to
dismiss. After that motion was filed, plaintiffs sought and were
granted leave to file a second amended complaint (SAC), which they
did on March 20, 2013. Defendants again moved to dismiss and each
party sought and received extensions at various points.
Plaintiffs wrote on behalf of both parties to advise that the
parties had begun the meet-and-confer process. Plaintiffs first
advised of their desire to seek expedited discovery of certain
information and equitable tolling for the EPA claims. Magistrate
Judge Dolinger, to whom the case was subsequently referred for
general pre-trial matters, entered a case management plan on
December 11, 2014.
Plaintiffs move for equitable tolling of the limitations period
for potential collective action members' claims under the Equal
Pay Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 206(d).  They seek to toll the statute of
limitations from April 29, 2013, the date on which defendants
filed their motion to dismiss the SAC through the date conditional
certification for the collective action is granted. Defendants
object to any further tolling.

Judge Abrams denied plaintiffs' motion.

A copy of Judge Abrams's opinion and order dated July 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/Z95XgLfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by David W. Sanford --
dsanford@sanfordheisler.com -- David Hahn Tracey --
dtracey@sanfordheisler.com -- Deborah Kristine Marcuse --
dmarcuse@sanfordheisler.com -- Jeremy Heisler --
jheisler@sanfordheisler.com -- Katherine Leong -- Katie Mueting --
kmueting@sanfordheisler.com -- Lubna Aftab Alam -- Michael Douglas
Palmer -- mpalmer@sanfordheisler.com -- Stefanie Roemer --
sroemer@sanfordheisler.com -- Thomas J Henderson --
thenderson@sanfordheisler.com -- at Sanford Heisler Kimpel, LLP

Defendants, represented by Gary Drew Friedman --
gary.friedman@weil.com -- Allison Millie Warner --
millie.warner@weil.com -- Ami Gersen Zweig -- ami.zweig@weil.com
-- Courtney Patrice Fain -- courtney.fain@weil.com -- at Weil,
Gotshal & Manges LLP


FURIEX PHARMA: Court Cuts Fees for Plaintiff Counsel
----------------------------------------------------
Mack Sperling, writing for The National Law Review, reported that
the Business Court knocked down a fee request of Plaintiffs' class
action counsel to $500,000, from the $660,000 requested, in an
Order in Nakatsukasa v. Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2015 NCBC
68.

The Settlement of the Class Action

The ruling was entered in conjunction with the approval of a
settlement of four class actions (two filed in North Carolina and
two filed in Delaware).  The lawsuits concerned a challenge to
Defendant Furiex's merger with Defendants Royal Empress, Inc. and
Royal's affiliate Forest Laboratories, Inc.

As a part of the settlement, Plaintiffs' counsel reserved the
right to apply to the Court for approval of fees not to exceed
$695,000.  Given that the Defendants had waived their right to
challenge the fee application, it fell to Judge McGuire to
determine whether the fees requested were reasonable.

If the first question in your mind is "how much money did the
Plaintiff obtain for the class?" the answer is none.  The claimed
value to the class came in the waiver of "DADW provisions" in
Confidentiality Agreements executed by the Defendants Royal
Empress and Forest Laboratories as well as other potential buyers
of Furiex.  There were also some additional disclosures obtained
via the settlement.

DADW Provisions?

The NC Business Court hasn't had the opportunity to consider the
viability of DADW -- don't ask, don't waive -- provisions,  but
the Delaware Court of Chancery has ruled that they are not
presumptively impermissible. If you are wondering what a DADW
provision does, it prohibits the entity signing it from making an
offer for the target corporation's shares without an express
invitation from the target's Board of Directors. The "don't ask"
aspect prevents the signing party from asking the target's Board
to waive that restriction.

Since the Court didn't discuss the validity of the DADW provision
at all, except to say that the waiver of it procured by the
litigation was "a significant benefit to shareholders," the
validity of this type of deal protection device in North Carolina
remains untested.  Given that the Court accepted Plaintiffs'
counsel's argument that they had obtained value for the class  in
the waiver of the DADW restriction (meriting fees of half a
million dollars), lawyers in North Carolina should be cautious
about including DADW's in their merger related documents .

The lawyers for the class (two New York class action firms) had a
pretty high opinion of the value that they had obtained for the
class.  The requested that the Court allow $660,000 in fees for
700 hours of work.

You don't need to do the math to figure the hourly rate that those
figures yield. Judge McGuire calculated it at a staggering $941.72
per hour, which was triple the hourly fee the Business Court had
approved in a previous class action (In re Harris Teeter Merger
Litig., 2014 NCBC 44) and seven times the hourly fee awarded in
another class action approval (In re Progress Energy Shareholder
Litig., 2011 NCBC 44).

The Business Court Refused To Apply A Multiplier To Plaintiffs'
Counsel's Lodestar

The $660,000 sought was based on a request for a multiplier of 1.7
to be applied to the lodestar amount established by  Plaintiffs'
counsel's regular billing rates (that was $388,465).  A
"lodestar," if you are not familiar with the term, Wikipedia
defines it as "a method of computing attorney's fees whereby a
trial court must multiply the number of hours reasonably spent by
trial counsel by a reasonable hourly rate."

Judge McGuire observed that no reported North Carolina appellate
decision had ever applied a multiplier to increase a lodestar
amount, so he decided that the "best course is to assess the
requested fees as if Plaintiffs were seeking an award of $941.72
per hour, and to consider such request based on whether special
legal skills  and experience were involved that are not available
in North Carolina, the rates charged by attorneys for comparable
work in the local area, and in light of the result obtained for
the amount of work expended."

Were North Carolina attorneys capable of handling this litigation?
The Plaintiffs' local counsel represented to the Court that "he
did not believe there were a substantial number of attorneys in
North Carolina prosecuting this type of shareholder action."
Judge McGuire said that the lack of specific information whether
there were North Carolina attorneys qualified to handle the case
warranted in favor of a "premium rate."

The Court Said That A Fee Award Of $941.72 Per Hour Would Be
"Extraordinary"

Looking at the electronic docket sheet in the case, Plaintiffs'
counsel did little more than filing a Complaint, a Motion for
Expedited Discovery, and a Motion for approval of the settlement
that they brokered.  On top of that, they took two depositions and
reviewed only a thousand pages of documents.  Maybe the case did
require supremely qualified counsel not available in NC.

The rates "generally charged for sophisticated business litigation
in North Carolina" were deemed to be $321.91 per hour (found to be
"reasonable in In re Harris Teeter, 2014 NCBC 44 at par. 63),
although Judge McGuire said that "his own experience is that rates
of approximately $300 -- $550 per hour are typical of the fees
charged for this type of work in Wake County, North Carolina.

Looking at the substantially higher hourly fee of $941.72 sought
by Plaintiffs' counsel, Judge McGuire deemed it to be an
"extraordinary amount"

The Judge exercised his discretion and awarded $500,000 in fees.
That yielded an hourly rate of $712.96, still a pretty impressive
award.  And notwithstanding Judge McGuire's rejection of the
application of a multiplier, I calculate that as a multiplier of
1.28711724 on the lodestar of $388,465.


GENERAL MOTORS CANADA: Judge Dismisses Suit by Ex-Dealers
---------------------------------------------------------
Greg Keenan, writing for The Globe and Mail, reported that a
class-action lawsuit by former General Motors of Canada Ltd.
dealers against the company has been dismissed but their claim
against a Toronto law firm has been upheld.

The dealers, who were terminated as the auto maker successfully
staved off bankruptcy protection under the Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act in 2009, have been awarded C$45-million in damages
against Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP. That is considerably less
than the C$375-million to C$425-million claim they urged Judge
Thomas McEwen to levy on the law firm.

The retailers sued GM Canada and the law firm after their
dealerships were wound up in 2009. They argued in part that the
six days the company gave them to assess wind-down agreements they
signed in return for compensation was insufficient and that the
law firm was in conflict of interest because it represented both
dealers and the federal government, which was being asked to help
bail out the company.

The suit is one of several launched by individual dealers or
groups of GM Canada dealers in the wake of the 2008-2009
recession, which led to the elimination of 240 dealerships in
Canada, the termination of the Pontiac, Saturn and Hummer brands
and the chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by General Motors Co.

The Ontario Superior Court judgment provides a glimpse of the
crisis facing GM Canada and its parent company in the depths of
the recession as auto sales plunged, bondholders launched a
lawsuit and the company and its parent racked up billions of
dollars in losses.

The Canadian unit lost C$2.7-billion in 2007 -- the year before
the recession hit -- and another C$4.3-billion in 2008. GM Canada
(GMCL) does not release annual profit and loss statements publicly
so the evidence introduced in the trial provides the first public
indication of how deep the pool of red ink grew.

"GM, GMCL and the dealers were all surprised by the extraordinary
pace and painful depth of the financial crisis," Judge McEwen
wrote.

GM Canada terminated about one-third of its outlets in the country
and 181 of those dealers signed on to the class-action suit. They
will each be awarded about C$249,000 if the ruling stands.

Judge McEwen agreed with GM Canada's arguments that it gave the
dealers sufficient notice to make a decision about whether to
accept a wind-down agreement and compensation and that the cuts in
its dealer network were necessary in order to secure financial
assistance from federal and Ontario taxpayers.

"GMCL did not mislead dealers by stating that the governments
mandated the cuts," he wrote.

But he was sharply critical of Cassels Brock, which was advising
Industry Canada in negotiations with GM Canada and its parent
company and then signed on to represent a group of dealers.

"Cassels acted irresponsibly and unprofessionally by failing to
have an effective conflicts checking system in place -- that is
one which actually leads to lawyers discussing and resolving
potential conflicts," he wrote. "Cassels is liable for its failure
to heed the alarm bells that were audible, despite the
deficiencies of its conflicts checking system." While GM Canada
stayed out of bankruptcy protection, Canadian and Ontario
taxpayers contributed C$10.8-billion to the bailout of its parent,
which used some of that money to reduce a massive pension deficit
in plans set up for salaried and hourly employees.


GENERAL NUTRITION: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Alyssa Clemmons vs. General
Nutrition Corp, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-05036, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-05104 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: GNC Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2621.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq.
          MITCHELL WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8869
          E-mail: lpruitt@mwlaw.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: "Reyes" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Reyes v. General Nutrition
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20513, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-05107 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: GNC Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2621.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Marion Quaranta, Esq.
          WEIL QUARANTA, P.A.
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-5352
          Facsimile: (305) 372-5355
          E-mail: John@wqmlaw.net

               - and -

          Ronald Peter Weil, Esq.
          RONALD WEIL PA
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-5352
          Facsimile: (305) 372-5355
          E-mail: Ronald@wqmlaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hannah Lisbeth Sorcic, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-6547
          Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
          E-mail: hsorcic@reedsmith.com


GEO GROUP: Allows Suit by Immigrant Detainees to Move Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Prendergast, writing for Westword, reported that in a move
that could have resounding consequences for corrections practices
and the for-profit prison industry in particular, a Denver federal
judge has refused to dismiss a lawsuit filed by nine federal
immigrant detainees, who alleged that a private prison contractor
forced them to perform maintenance and cleaning jobs for little or
no pay. The suit, which is seeking class-action status, accuses
the company of violating federal laws prohibiting human
trafficking and forced labor and seeks millions of dollars in
damages.

Senior U.S. District Judge John L. Kane threw out some of the
plaintiffs' claims but allowed the case against The GEO Group,
which operates a detention facility in Aurora under contract with
U.S. Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to move forward. The
decision was hailed as "a tremendous victory for civil immigrant
detainees nationwide" by Nina DiSalvo, the executive director of
Towards Justice, a Denver-based nonprofit that partnered with
several law firms to bring the action. "The judge's decision
allows us to address the systemic problems with GEO's treatment of
immigrant workers throughout the legal system."

One of the largest private prison companies in the world, GEO
operates 66 correctional facilities in the United States,
including ICE detention centers in Washington, Florida, and
Colorado. The complaint alleges that Aurora detainees participate
in a "voluntary work program" that includes laundry, kitchen and
cleaning jobs, for which they are paid a dollar a day. Six
detainees are also selected at random each day to clean the living
pods without pay; refusal can result in being placed in solitary
confinement.

The lawsuit argued that the arrangement violates Colorado's
minimum wage law. Judge Kane disagreed, since the state's labor
laws specifically carve out an exception for prisoners, who are
not considered employees. But Kane found merit in the claim that
GEO's approach to the pod-cleaning assignments -- do it or get
thrown in the hole -- may be a violation of the federal
Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which prohibits involuntary
servitude and coercive methods to demand work "by means of force,
threats of force, physical restraint, or threats of physical
restraint." The judge also allowed a claim involving unjust
enrichment to proceed.

Most correctional systems depend on cheap inmate labor to keep
costs down. Kane's denial of GEO's motion to dismiss doesn't
signal an end to that practice. It does, however, raise questions
about the ability of a private contractor to demand that inmates
perform basic maintenance or cleaning tasks under threat of
further punishment. "Using forced detainee labor is an integral
tool in maintaining GEO's profitability under its contracts with
ICE," Nashville attorney Andrew Free, a co-counsel in the case,
noted in prepared statement. "The court's decision represents an
important step forward in ending that morally bankrupt business
model."

In response to a request for comment, The GEO Group corporate
headquarters provided a statement that reads, in part: "GEO's
facilities, including the Aurora, Colo., facility, provide high
quality services in safe, secure, and humane residential
environments, and our company strongly refutes allegations to the
contrary. The volunteer work program at immigration facilities as
well as the wage rates and standards associated with the program
are set by the federal government. Our facilities adhere to these
standards as well as strict contractual requirements and all
standards set by ICE, and the agency employs several full-time,
on-site contract monitors who have a physical presence at each of
GEO's facilities."


GNC HOLDINGS: "Dore" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dore v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20618, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05108 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: GNC Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2621.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Scarola, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
          PO Drawer 3626
          West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3626
          Telephone: (561) 686-6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
          E-mail: JSX@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Shawn Spellacy, Esq.
          KIRWAN, SPELLACY & DANNER, P.A.
          200 South Andrews Avenue, 8th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 463-3008
          Facsimile: (954) 463-3010
          E-mail: spellacy@kirwanspellacy.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
          Monica Marie McNulty, Esq.
          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 728-2959
          E-mail: rn@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com
                  TR@kttlaw.com
                  mmcnulty@kttlaw.com
                  AMM@kttlaw.com


GOLDMAN PHIPPS: Judge Grants Class Certification Bid in "Downing"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Catherine D. Perry of the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case DON M. DOWNING, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GOLDMAN PHIPPS PLLC, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 4:13CV206 CDP
(E.D. Mo.)

The case originated in a continuing multi-district litigation that
began after the introduction of Bayer's genetically modified rice
into the United States domestic rice supply. Thousands of
Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Texas rice farmers
and others involved in the rice business filed suit against
various Bayer entities in federal and state courts.

The court appointed Don Downing and Adam Levitt as Co-Lead Counsel
of a leadership group of attorneys. A common-benefit trust fund
(CBF Trust) was ordered established to compensate attorneys for
services rendered on behalf of all the plaintiffs. Downing and
Levitt were named as Co-Trustees of the Trust.

The Co-Lead Counsel and additional attorneys at their request (the
common-benefit attorneys) were directed to manage pretrial
proceedings on behalf of all MDL plaintiffs. Over the course of
five years, the common-benefit attorneys performed a variety of
work, including, among other things, drafting a master
consolidated complaint against Bayer under the laws of five
states.

The Goldman Phipps PLLC (Phipps legal team) opposes the creation
of the CBF Trust, including the requested allocation of legal fees
by the leadership counsel and sought, in the alternative, over $13
million that it claimed as reimbursement for its own common-
benefit fees.  Stephen B. Murray, Sr., the Murray Law Firm,
Charles A. Banks, and the Banks Law Firm, PLLC, objected to the
creation of the CBF Trust but did not object to the Special
Master's Report and Recommendation regarding payment of common-
benefit attorney's fees from the CBF Trust.

The court ordered that the common-benefit attorneys' expenses be
paid from the Trust. The court also awarded up to $72 million in
attorneys' fees. However, only approximately $56.5 million of the
potential award has been obtained by the Trust.

Plaintiffs allege that the defendant law firms used some of their
own litigation work product when representing different clients in
state-court cases against Bayer. The plaintiffs seek to certify a
class of all "persons and entities that provided or paid for
common-benefit services, materials, and/or related expense items.
They also seek to certify a subclass limited to those who provided
common-benefit services.

Magistrate Judge Perry granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and that class plaintiffs Gray, Ritter & Graham,
P.C., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLC, and Looper Reed
& McGraw, P.C., are appointed as class representatives to
represent the following class:

     All persons and entities that provided or paid for common-
benefit services, materials, and/or related expense items (except
defendants).

They are also appointed to represent the following subclass:

     All persons and entities that provided common-benefit
services (except Defendants).

Magistrate Judge Perry appointed as class counsel:

     Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
     Todd E. Hilton, Esq.
     Bradley T. Wilders, Esq.
     STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
     460 Nichols Rd. Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64112

A copy of Judge Perry's memorandum and order dated July 14, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/1KWGa3from Leagle.com.

Don M. Downing and Adam J. Levitt, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- at GRANT AND EISENHOFER PA;
Bradley T. Wilders -- wilders@stuevesiegel.com -- Patrick J.
Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Todd E. Hilton --
hilton@stuevesiegel.com -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP; Grant L.
Davis -- gdavis@dbjlaw.net -- at DAVIS AND BETHUNE; Gretchen
Garrison -- Jason D. Sapp -- Don M. Downing -- at GRAY AND RITTER,
P.C.; Jennifer M. Hoekstra -- jhoekstra@nbalawfirm.com -- Richard
J. Arsenault -- rarsenault@nbalawfirm.com -- at NEBLETT AND BEARD;
Stacey T. Kelly -- breen@whafh.com -- at WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER;
Scott A. Powell -- scott@hwnn.com -- at HARE AND WYNN, LLP

Gray, Ritter & Graham, P.C., Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLC and Gray Reed & McGraw, P.C., Plaintiffs, represented by
Bradley T. Wilders -- wilders@stuevesiegel.com -- Patrick J.
Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com -- Todd E. Hilton --
hilton@stuevesiegel.com -- at STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP

Defendants, represented by Michael A. Vitale --
mav@herzogcrebs.com -- Brian M. Wacker -- bmw@herzogcrebs.com --
Peter W. Herzog -- pwh@herzogcrebs.com -- at HERZOG CREBS LLP

Riceland Foods, Inc., Consolidated Filer Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Hohn -- chohn@thompsoncoburn.com -- John R.
Musgrave -- jmusgrave@thompsoncoburn.com -- Kimberly M. Bousquet
-- kbousquet@thompsoncoburn.com -- at THOMPSON COBURN, LLP


GRINDR LLC: Sued Over Lack of Membership Information
----------------------------------------------------
Shaun Zinck, writing for LegalNewsline, reported that a popular
all-male social networking site is being sued over allegations the
site didn't follow California state law by informing users they
could cancel their membership. Mark Howell filed the lawsuit on
June 18 in United States District Court in California against
Grindr LLC claiming the networking website failed to include a
specific statement letting users know they had three days to
cancel their membership.

According to the lawsuit, Grindr requires users to enter into a
"dating service contract" when they sign up for its services.
Under state law, a business that requires a dating service
contract must include a statement, near where the user will sign
the contract, that the buyer can cancel the agreement without
penalty or obligation before midnight on the third business
following the date of the contract, the suit claims. The lawsuit
also claims Grindr didn't include the name or address of the
dating service operator who could be notified of a potential
cancelation, which is also a violation of state law. Howell is
seeking class status for California users of Grindr, and is also
seeking more than $5 million in damages plus court costs. Howell
is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Matthew M. Loker of
Kazerouni Law Group, APC in Costa Mesa, Calif.; Todd M. Friedman
of the Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C. in Beverly Hills,
Calif.; and Joshua B. Swigart of Hyde & Swigart in San Diego.
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California case number 15-cv-1337.


HANDY TECHNOLOGIES: Worker Files Reimbursement, Minimum Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Levine, writing for Business Insider, reported that on-demand
cleaning company Handy Technologies was sued by a worker alleging
she should be classified as an employee, the latest in a debate
over whether workers in the sharing economy are independent
contractors or employees entitled to benefits.

The proposed class action lawsuit, filed in a Massachusetts
federal court, seeks reimbursement of expenses and minimum wages
for Handy workers. The results of the broader legal battle could
reshape the sharing economy, as companies say the contractor model
allows for flexibility that many see as key to their success.

The lawyer representing the employee is Shannon Liss-Riordan, who
is representing workers from Uber, Lyft, Postmates, and other
companies in similar cases.

In June, a California labor official found that one San Francisco-
based driver for ride service Uber was an employee and entitled to
expenses. An ultimate finding against companies like Handy and
Uber could force them to pay Social Security, workers'
compensation, and unemployment insurance.

Maisha Emmanuel has worked as a Handy cleaner in the Boston area
since last May and was often paid less than minimum wage,
according to her lawsuit. One week she worked more than 30 hours
and was paid only $14 because she had to buy a cleaning kit, the
lawsuit said.

In a statement, Handy said its workers "make on average over $17
an hour per job" using its platform.

"We are creating opportunities for thousands of professionals who
now have access to economic security for themselves and their
families," the company said.

Emmanuel's case was filed by the same attorney who brought two
similar, high profile lawsuits against Uber and Lyft. In the past
year at least three lawsuits alleging worker Misclassification
have been filed against Handy, while competitor Homejoy has faced
at least four, according to Westlaw dockets.

One of the cases against Handy is pending, another is in
arbitration, and a third was withdrawn. The four cases against
Homejoy are pending.

In May, technology blog Techcrunch reported that Handy was in
acquisition talks for Homejoy. Homejoy representatives could not
immediately be reached for comment.

Handy's venture backers include TPG Growth, and in June the
company announced it had reached one million customer bookings.

The lawsuit in U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts is
Maisha Emmanuel vs. Handy Technologies Inc., 15-12914.


HEALTH NET: Naturopathic Doctors, Patients File Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians (OANP) filed a
class action lawsuit in federal court against Health Net Health
Plan of Oregon, Inc. (Health Net) and their contracted benefits
provider American Specialty Health (ASH), alleging unlawful and
discriminatory practices.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of naturopathic physicians and
their patients who allege that Health Net discriminates against
Oregon licensed naturopathic physicians by denying claims for
services provided by Naturopathic Doctors (NDs) that are otherwise
covered when delivered by a different medical provider. The "Non
Discrimination in Health Care" section of the Affordable Care Act
(ACA), commonly known as "Section 2706" (42 U.S.C. Section 300gg-
5), prohibits insurance carriers from discriminating against
health care providers acting within the scope of their license.

Lawsuit plaintiff and Health Net participant Eileen Fox-Quamme
experienced the medical care limitations caused by Health Net's
discriminatory practices first-hand. On October 27, 2014, a Health
Net-contracted naturopathic physician saw Fox-Quamme for a routine
preventative medical care visit, a service that all insurers are
legally required to cover. Health Net's subcontractor ASH, which
provides contracting and claims processing for all Health Net
"complementary providers," including naturopathic doctors, denied
her claim on November 4, 2014. After exhausting Health Net's
grievance process, in February 2015 Fox-Quamme submitted an appeal
of the denial through the law firm Bennett, Hartman, Morris &
Kaplan. One month later, she received a letter from Health Net
stating that while her claim had been correctly denied by ASH, ASH
recommended that Health Net should consider paying the claim
through its normal medical benefit regardless.

"I see an ND for all my primary care, including my annual well
woman exam last October," said Fox-Quamme. "Every insurer covers
well women visits, but Health Net denied that claim because I had
it done by a naturopathic doctor. The only reason they even
considered reversing the denial was because a law firm submitted
an appeal. It is a huge problem if I need a lawyer to access
basic, covered benefits."

To date, four other patients had their denials reversed after a
law firm submitted an additional appeal. Eight months after Fox-
Quamme's November 4, 2014 medical visit, the in-network Health Net
naturopathic physician who provided her medical services has yet
to be reimbursed by Health Net or its subcontractor ASH.

Advocates have been working directly with federal agencies and
state insurance commissioners for the last two years to implement
and enforce the provider non-discrimination provision to little
effect. Both providers and patients have filed complaints to the
state insurance division as well as to the Department of Labor.
The most common reply stated that their hands were tied in terms
of enforcement without clear guidelines or clarification of the
law.

"The impact of this discrimination is clear," said OANP Board
President Carrie Baldwin-Sayre, ND. "Patients face unnecessary
barriers to covered medical services, and naturopathic physicians
are being arbitrarily limited in providing routine and preventive
medical care. Until we have an impact judgment ruling, insurance
carriers will continue to skirt the law, and patients and
practitioners will be forced to pay the price."

The group hopes that the suit will ensure that all qualified
providers are able to work to the full extent of their license to
help Oregon meet the Triple Aim of better care, better outcomes,
and lower cost.

The class action seeks several remedies, including: (1)
reimbursement to individuals who have been denied benefits under
their Health Net health insurance plans; (2) repayment of profits
retained by Health Net as a result of its discriminatory
practices; (3) enforcement of non-discriminatory practices in the
future; and, (4) a court order for Health Net and ASH that
clarifies which of their practices are unlawfully discriminatory.

The discriminatory Health Net/ASH practices cited in the lawsuit
allege that unlawful limitations are imposed on naturopathic
physicians as compared to other medical practitioners who provide
commensurate medical services. These practices include: an annual
limit on the number of reimbursable visits to naturopathic
physician; the requirement of a Medical Necessity Review form,
that other providers are not required to provide; a $1,500 maximum
reimbursable cap for the use of naturopathic medical services; a
limitation on certain types of medical care performed by
naturopathic physicians that are within their scope of practice
including, but not limited to, the delivery of preventative
services; and, reimbursing naturopathic doctors at up to 80% less
than other providers for the same service rather than varying
reimbursement rates based on objective quality or performance
measures.

The Oregon Board of Naturopathic Medicine has licensed
naturopathic physicians in Oregon since 1928 with a broad scope of
practice that allows naturopathic doctors to practice as primary
care providers, including providing all preventative services,
prescribing pharmaceuticals, and ordering all tests necessary to
diagnose and treat illness.

Health Net included naturopathic physician services to their
benefits as early as 2003, but has consistently restricted the
scope of practice of naturopathic doctors by capping the number of
times a patient could see their ND, limiting the kind of
conditions that NDs can treat, declining payment for preventative
services done by NDs, and/or restricting access to labs or
pharmaceuticals when ordered by the ND.

Plaintiffs believe this class action lawsuit will produce a much
needed judgment to clarify the ACA's provider non-discrimination
mandate for a variety of provider types in Oregon as well as
nation-wide.

                About Oregon Association of Naturopathic

Physicians Oregon Association of Naturopathic Physicians' (OANP)
mission is to support its members and improve the health of
Oregonians through the advancement of Naturopathic Medicine.
Naturopathic medicine is a distinct method of primary health care
that combines centuries old natural, common-sense therapies with
current advances in biomedical and diagnostic sciences covering
all aspects of health. Learn more at www.oanp.org.


HONDA MOTORS: Recalls 4.5-Mil. More Cars Over Defective Airbags
---------------------------------------------------------------
BBC News reported that Japanese carmaker Honda is recalling 4.5
million more cars globally amid continuing fears of a potentially
deadly defect in Takata airbags.

At least eight deaths -- all in Honda cars -- have been linked to
the airbag inflator, which can deploy with too much force spraying
metal shrapnel.

Globally, tens of millions of cars with Takata airbags have been
recalled since 2008, most of them in the US.

Other brands that have issued recalls include Nissan, General
Motors and BMW.

But Honda, the number three carmaker in Japan, has been hardest
hit with 24.5 million cars recalled -- more than half of the
global total.

A Honda spokesman in Tokyo told AFP news agency on that the
carmaker had found some airbag inflators had "uneven gas density,
which we worry could do some harm".

"It is a preventive measure and unlike other normal recalls we are
not waiting for the full results of the research," he said.
Honda is recalling about 1.63 million cars in Japan alone. The
carmaker told the Reuters news agency that North America was not
included in the latest recall.

Nissan incident

The announcement came a day after Nissan announced its first case
of injuries sustained from a Takata airbag deployment.

The airbag inflated and exploded in the passenger side of an X-
Trail sport utility vehicle involved in a car crash in Iwata in
central Japan on 25 June.

Nissan said the passenger side window was smashed and high-
temperature fragments were sent flying into the dashboard. The
driver's left cheek was lightly burnt, although it remains unclear
whether this was caused by the explosion.

Earlier investigations showed Takata airbag inflators were not
properly sealed and could be damaged by moisture. It is alleged
that the airbags can burst under pressure, due to the instability
of its chemical propellant, spraying shrapnel inside the car.

Takata is currently facing multiple class action lawsuits and
criminal and regulatory investigations in North America.


ILLINOIS TOLL HIGHWAY: Judge Dismisses Non-Resident Driver's Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Manish S. Shah of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss
in the case JEFFREY D. COCHRAN, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS STATE TOLL
HIGHWAY AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants, NO. 14 CV 9145 (N.D. Ill.)

The Illinois State Toll Highway Authority is an administrative
agency of the State of Illinois. The Authority operates Illinois's
toll highway system. In that system, cars equipped with electronic
transponders can pass under toll bridges at high speeds while
tolls are automatically collected. But drivers without
transponders must slow down and move to designated cash lanes to
pay their tolls -- using a lane meant for transponders results in
a missed toll.

Jeffrey Cochran, an Ohio resident, drove to Chicago to visit his
family. Unfamiliar with Illinois's toll highway system, and unable
to understand the signs directing him to toll booths, he missed
three tolls. He didn't know that he could avoid a fine by paying
his missed tolls online or by phone within seven days, so he was
assessed $60 in fines. Cochran brought a putative class action
suit against the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority and members
of its Board of Directors, alleging that the way tolls and fines
are collected in Illinois violates the United States Constitution
and Illinois state law.

Cochran complains that by collecting fines without adequate
notice, the Authority violated his constitutional rights to
procedural due process and equal protection of the laws. Also, in
violation of state laws, Cochran contends that the Authority
exceeded its powers, breached a contract, and was unjustly
enriched.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.

Judge Shah granted defendants' motion to dismiss: Cochran's state
law claims are dismissed without prejudice and his federal claims
are dismissed with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Shah's memorandum opinion and order dated July 15,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/a3hqbVfrom Leagle.com.

Illinois State Toll Highway Authority, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Larry R.
Wikoff, Illinois Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch
Familo & Durkin, Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister
& Alexander E. Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin

Terrence D'Arcy, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj,
Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois
Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin,
Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E.
Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin

Jeffrey Redick, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj,
Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois
Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin,
Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E.
Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin

Earl Dotson, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois
Attorney General's Office, Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney
General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D.
Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch,
Cavitch Familo & Durkin

Jeffrey D Cochran, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Cusack Cronin,
Cronin & Co., Ltd. & George W. Cochran, III, Law Office of George
W. Cochran

Paula Wolff, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois
Attorney General's Office, Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney
General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D.
Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch,
Cavitch Familo & Durkin

James J Banks, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj,
Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois
Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin,
Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E.
Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin

David Gonzalez, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj,
Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois
Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin,
Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E.
Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin

Mark W. Peterson, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj,
Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois
Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin,
Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E.
Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin

James Sweeney, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj,
Illinois Attorney General's Office,Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois
Attorney General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin,
Ronald D. Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E.
Goetsch, Cavitch Familo & Durkin

Tom Weisner, Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Bugaj, Illinois
Attorney General's Office, Larry R. Wikoff, Illinois Attorney
General's Office, Max E. Dehn, Cavitch Familo & Durkin, Ronald D.
Holman, II, Taft Stettinius & Hollister & Alexander E. Goetsch,
Cavitch Familo & Durkin


ITT EDUCATIONAL: "Koetsch" Securities Litigation Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. intends to continue to defend
vigorously against the allegations made in the second amended
complaint in the In re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities
Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption: William
Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch
Litigation"). On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption:
Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services,
Inc., et al (the "MLAF Litigation")."

"On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation
and MLAF Litigation under the following caption: In re ITT
Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "New York
Securities Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs. On October 7, 2013, an
amended complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation,
and on January 15, 2014, a second amended complaint was filed in
the New York Securities Litigation. The second amended complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

* our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, CUSO RSA and
PEAKS Program;

* employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

* making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting material
facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading;

* making the above statements intentionally or with reckless
disregard for the truth;

* engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of our
common stock;

* deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs and
the purported class, regarding, among other things, our
artificially inflated statements of financial strength and
understated liabilities; and

* causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members
to purchase our common stock at inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008
through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and such
equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of our motion to
dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted. On August 5, 2014, we filed our
answer to the second amended complaint denying all of the
plaintiffs' claims and the parties are currently engaged in
discovery. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification
on March 27, 2015. All of the defendants have defended, and intend
to continue to defend, themselves vigorously against the
allegations made in the second amended complaint.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Securities Litigation Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an amended
complaint has been filed in the Indiana Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a
securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of
our current executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption:
David Banes, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation"). On
October 3, 2014, October 9, 2014 and November 25, 2014, three
similar complaints were filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under the following captions: Babulal
Tarapara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Tarapara
Litigation"), Kumud Jindal, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin Modany, et al. (the "Jindal
Litigation") and Kristopher Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et
al. (the "Hennen Litigation").

On November 17, 2014, the Tarapara Litigation and the Jindal
Litigation were consolidated into the Banes Litigation. On January
21, 2015, the Hennen Litigation was consolidated into that
consolidated action (the "Indiana Securities Litigation").

On December 1, 2014, motions were filed in the Indiana Securities
Litigation for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On March 16, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Subsequently, the caption for the Indiana Securities
Litigation was changed to the following: In re ITT Educational
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana).

On May 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Indiana
Securities Litigation. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, prospects and financial results. Plaintiffs assert
that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business and that alleged misstatements and/or omissions by the
defendants caused members of the putative class to purchase our
securities at artificially inflated prices. The amended complaint
includes allegations relating to:

* the performance of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program;

* our guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program and the CUSO
Program;

* our accounting treatment of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO
Program;

* consolidation of the PEAKS Trust in our consolidated financial
statements;

* the impact of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program on our
liquidity and overall financial condition;

* our compliance with Department of Education financial
responsibility standards; and

* our internal controls over financial reporting.

The putative class period in the Indiana Securities Litigation is
from February 26, 2013 through May 12, 2015. The plaintiffs in the
Indiana Securities Litigation seek, among other things, the
designation of the action as a proper class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, interest,
costs, expenses, counsel fees and expert fees, and such other
relief as the court deems proper. All of the defendants have
defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves vigorously
against the allegations made in the amended complaint.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Gallien Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. continues to defend against the
Gallien class action litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June
12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed against us in a
purported class action in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles under the following
caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James Rayonez, an
individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. ITT
Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation"). The
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014. The
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under
California law, we:

* failed to pay wages owed;

* failed to pay overtime compensation;

* failed to provide meal and rest periods;

* failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

* engaged in unlawful business practices; and

* are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act.

The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17,
2013. The amended complaint seeks:

* compensatory damages, including lost wages and other losses;

* general damages;

* pay for missed meal and rest periods;

* restitution;

* liquidated damages;

* statutory penalties;

* interest;

* attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

* civil and statutory penalties;

* injunctive relief; and

* such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable
and appropriate.

"We have defended, and intend to continue to defend, ourselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint,"
the Company said.


JIMMY JOHNS: "Watson" Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gregory L. Frost of the Southern District of Ohio,
Eastern Division granted defendants' motion in the case SCOTT
WATSON, Plaintiff, v. JIMMY JOHN'S, LLC, et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 2:15-CV-768 (S.D. Ohio)

Emily Brunner, a Second Assistant Store Manager (2nd ASM) at a
Jimmy John's franchisee filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (FLSA),
against multiple defendants, including in the instant case. She
seeks to certify a class of all current and former, similarly
situated employees at all Jimmy John's franchisee- and franchisor-
owned locations. Brunner also alleges violations of the Illinois
wage law (IWL).

Subsequently, in the Northern District of Illinois, another
plaintiff brought an action advancing substantially the same
claims, on behalf of a substantially similar class of plaintiffs,
and against substantially similar defendants, which the court
consolidated the two cases.

On January 5, 2015, in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, plaintiffs Rodriguez, Kavanagh, and
Womack filed a suit against defendants. On March 2, 2015,
plaintiff Scott Watson filed the present action. Subsequently,
plaintiffs Rodriguez, Kavanagh, and Womack voluntarily dismissed
their suit and opted-in to the present action, along with opt-in
plaintiff Ladd.

Plaintiffs filed suit individually and on behalf of all Assistant
Store Managers. Plaintiffs describe the putative class as current
and former Assistant Store Managers and similarly situated current
and former employees holding comparable positions but different
titles. Plaintiffs allege that, in defiance of state and federal
law, defendants misclassified the putative class as exempt
employees. Plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to unpaid
overtime compensation. Each defendant here is also a defendant in
the Brunner case.

Plaintiffs' claims are as follows: (1) an FLSA claim on behalf of
themselves and a nationwide class for unpaid overtime; (2) an Ohio
wage law claim (OWL) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on
behalf of themselves and an Ohio class for unpaid overtime; and
(3) an OWL claim on behalf of themselves and an Ohio sub-class for
failure to keep records of hours worked. Plaintiffs base their
case on a theory of joint employer liability.

Defendants exercised significant control over the operations of
Jimmy John's franchisees. Defendants filed a motion to transfer
the case to the Northern District of Illinois, stay the case until
the Brunner court decides the issue of joint employment, or
dismiss the case.

Judge Frost granted defendants' motion to transfer; and the case
is transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

A copy of Judge Frost's opinion and order dated July 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/OKd3sDfrom Leagle.com.

Scott Watson, Plaintiff, represented by:

Drew T Legando, Esq.
Jack Landskroner, Esq.
LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
1360 W 9th St #200
Cleveland, OH 44113-1254
Telephone: 216-522-9000
Facsimile: 866-823-3332

     - and -

Alan L Quiles, Esq.
Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
1515 South Federal Highway Suite 404
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: 800-616-4000
Facsimile: 561-447-8831
Email: aquiles@shavitzlaw.com
       gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

     - and -

Fran L Rudich, Esq.
Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
Two International Drive, Suite 350
Rye Brook, NY 10573
Telephone: 914-934-9200
Facsimile: 914-934-9220

     - and -

Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
Michael N Litrownik, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212-245-1000
Facsimile: 646-509-2060
Email: jms@outtengolden.com
mlitrownik@outtengolden.com

Defendants, represented by Matthew Scott Zeiger --
zeigerm@litohio.com -- at Zeiger Tigges & Little LLP; Christopher
M Cascino -- ccascino@seyfarth.com -- Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. --
gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- Jason John Englund --
jenglund@seyfarth.com -- Jennifer Ann Riley -- jriley@seyfarth.com
-- Matthew James Gagnon -- mgagnon@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth
Shaw LLP


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Bedtime Products False Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Grimoldby, writing for Cook County Record, reported that
a woman is suing Johnson & Johnson for allegedly misrepresenting
the effectiveness of the company's Bedtime Products that she, and
many other parents, have purchased to help their babies sleep
better.

Stephanie Leiner, of Chillicothe, filed a class action lawsuit
July 2 in federal court in Chicago against Johnson & Johnson
Consumer Companies Inc., of Skillman, New Jersey, alleging
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practice Act and unjust enrichment, among other counts.

In the lawsuit, Leiner claims she and other Illinois consumers
purchased Johnson & Johnson Bedtime Products -- specifically,
Johnson's Bedtime Bath and Johnson's Bedtime Lotion -- at a
premium price after seeing advertisements claiming such products
are "clinically proven" to help babies sleep better.

In Leiner's experience, after using the Bedtime Products as part
of the company's recommended 3-step nightly routine with her child
for a period of time in 2014, she found the products did not help
her baby sleep better.

The complaint states Bedtime Products are at least $1 more
expensive than other Johnson and Johnson products that do not
claim to have "clinically proven" benefits. Had Leiner and other
consumers been aware that no studies show the premium products are
clinically proven to provide any results, they would have not have
purchased the Bedtime Products, she argues.

"Given the existence of similar bath and skin lotion products,
long sold by J&J, for washing and moisturizing a baby's skin,
consumers would purchase the Bedtime Products if, and only if,
they were exposed to Defendant's pervasive labeling and
advertising campaign that these new Products did something that
its others did not do -- here, it is that the Bedtime Products
were (and are) clinically proven to help baby sleep better," the
complaint states.

The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practice Act
prohibits deceptive acts or practices, the lawsuit says, yet
Johnson & Johnson has spent extensive amounts of money on a
massive marketing campaign to convey its deceptive message.

"Since the launch of the Products and to the present, J&J has
consistently and uniformly stated on its labeling and in its other
advertisements that the Products are clinically proven to help
babies sleep better. J&J intended the statement to appear
scientific and give the claims a special significance, when in
reality, Defendant knows the Products themselves are not
clinically proven," the complaint reads.

Johnson and Johnson has reaped the benefits of its false
representations, collecting millions of dollars from the sales of
its Bedtime Products, the complaint states.

Leiner has requested a jury trial and treble damages for herself
and the class, plus attorneys' fees and costs. While individual
damages likely will be small, the complaint states the aggregate
damages sustained by the class are likely in the millions.

Leiner also requests Johnson & Johnson create and distribute a
corrective advertising campaign.

Leiner is represented by Jayne A. Goldstein and Mark B. Goldstein,
of Pomerantz LLP in Chicago; James C. Shah and Natalie Finkelman
Bennett, of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller and Shah LLP in Media,
Pa.; and James B. Zouras, Ryan F. Stephan, Andrew C. Ficzko,
Teresa M. Becvar and Jorge A. Gamboa, of Stephan Zouras LLP in
Chicago.


JPMORGAN CHASE: Plaintiffs' Firms Spar Over Forex Suit Lead Role
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll lost an early round on July 27 in a
spat with Hausfeld and another plaintiffs firm over who should
lead part of a sprawling antitrust litigation over alleged
manipulation of foreign exchange rates.  But the dispute isn't
fully resolved, and judging by a snippy letter Cohen Milstein
filed in Manhattan federal court, there could be plenty of
acrimony ahead.

In a letter on July 24 to U.S. District Judge Lorna Schofield in
Manhattan, Cohen Milstein accused lawyers at Hausfeld and Scott +
Scott of engaging in deception on par with that of former
President Richard Nixon.  The letter came as Schofield considers
Hausfeld's and Scott + Scott's motion to serve as co-lead
plaintiffs counsel in one piece of the putative class action,
which accuses a dozen banks of widespread misconduct in the $5
trillion-per-day foreign exchange market.

Cohen Milstein -- who before his unceremonious 2008 departure had
counted Hausfeld founder Michael Hausfeld as a name partner --
claimed that the other two firms had refused to turn over
information that could cast doubt on their qualifications to
represent a potential class of futures traders.  On July 27,
however, Judge Schofield agreed that Hausfeld and Scott + Scott
shouldn't have to answer Cohen Milstein's requests.

Michael Hausfeld and Scott + Scott's Christopher Burke have
spearheaded the forex litigation since their early 2014
appointment as interim co-lead counsel.  At least four banks --
JPMorgan Chase & Co., UBS AG, Bank of America Corp. and Citigroup
Inc. -- have since agreed to settle for a combined $808.5 million,
according to public disclosures. Separately, five banks agreed in
May to pay $2.5 billion and pleaded guilty to related criminal
charges from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Following the JPMorgan settlement in January, the first to be
disclosed in the private litigation, several futures traders
jumped into the fray for the first time, filing new forex suits.
On July 16, Hausfeld and Scott + Scott filed a motion to roll
those actions in with the rest of the private litigation, while
also seeking to serve as co-lead counsel for the futures traders.

That move apparently riled Cohen Milstein, which represents one of
the named futures plaintiffs who sued this year.  In the July 24
letter, Cohen Milstein managing partner J. Douglas Richards raised
questions about Hausfeld's and Scott + Scott's credentials for
representing a potential class of forex futures traders.

According to Mr. Richards, the other two plaintiffs firms argue
that they're qualified to lead the futures actions in part because
they've already obtained several settlements in the forex
litigation.  In addition to the four publicly announced deals,
Hausfeld and Scott + Scott have also described certain
"undisclosed" settlements as favorable results, Mr. Richards wrote
in his filing on July 24.  Cohen Milstein isn't convinced those
undisclosed deals live up to the hype, but says the other firms
have rebuffed its request to review the settlement agreements.

To drive home its point, Cohen Milstein wrote that the other
firms' behavior is "reminiscent" of baseless campaign promises
made by former President Richard Nixon to drum up votes from
Vietnam War opponents during the 1968 campaign.  Nixon infamously
claimed during that presidential election to have a "secret plan"
to end the Vietnam War, when no such plan actually existed.

Hausfeld and Scott + Scott, for their part, shot back in a letter
of their own on July 27, telling Schofield that they've declined
to share the settlement agreements because the final details
haven't been worked out.  The judge later endorsed the response,
denying Cohen Milstein's request for the various settlement
agreements. Cohen Milstein will still, however, have a chance to
formally oppose Hausfeld's and Scott + Scott's attempts to lead
the futures cases.

Beyond the infighting with other plaintiffs firms, Scott + Scott
appears to be reaping benefits from its role in the forex
litigation.  Recently, the firm announced the hire of former
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer senior associate Belinda Hollway,
who will open Scott + Scott's first European office in London.
Ms. Hollway credited the firm's leadership in the forex litigation
as one of the factors that drove her to come on board.


KELLBRAN CANDIES: Recalls Caramel Popcorn Products Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
KellBran Candies of Akron, Ohio is recalling KellBran Caramel
Popcorn, because it contains undeclared milk product. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk, run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

Caramel Popcorn was distributed in Florida, Georgia, Alabama,
Texas, North and South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Maryland,
Connecticut, New York, Ohio, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana,
Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, New Jersey, Arkansas, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, through various retail specialty grocery stores.

The product is packaged in 8 oz. bags with expiration dates of
11/30/2015 and 12/31/2015 located on the back of the package. The
UPC number 0 96637 50153 9, with Lot Codes 181317 4 for the
11/30/2015 packages, 211830 6 for the 12/31/2015 packages are also
located on the back of the package.

No illnesses or reactions have been reported to date.

During an inspection by the Ohio Department of Agriculture, it was
discovered that product containing a milk product (butter) was
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of milk
in the ingredients.

Consumers with questions or concerns may contact the company
direct at 330-628-3900 Monday through Friday 9 a.m. until 4 p.m.
EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm456163.htm


KROGER CO: Recalls Seasoning Products Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
The Kroger Co. (NYSE: KR) said it is recalling Kroger Ground
Cinnamon, Kroger Garlic Powder, Kroger Coarse Ground Black Pepper
and Kroger Bac'n Buds sold in its retail stores due to possible
contamination from Salmonella.

A sample of Kroger Garlic Powder from a store in North Augusta,
South Carolina was tested by the FDA and found to be contaminated
with Salmonella. To date, no illnesses have been reported in
connection with these products. Out of an abundance of caution,
the company has recalled all four seasonings produced on the same
equipment in the same facility.

Stores under the following names in the 31 states where Kroger
operates are included in this recall: Kroger, Ralphs, Food 4 Less,
Foods Co., Fred Meyer, Fry's, King Soopers, City Market, Smith's,
Dillons, Baker's, Gerbes, Jay C, Ruler Foods, Pay Less, Owen's,
and Scott's.

Kroger has removed the potentially affected items from store
shelves and initiated its customer recall notification system that
alerts customers who may have purchased recalled Class 1 products
through register receipt tape messages and phone calls.

Kroger is recalling the following items:

  Product          UPC           Codes                   Size
  -------          ---           -----                   ----
  Kroger Ground    1111070034    Sell by: May 19 18PS4   18.3 oz
  Cinnamon
  Kroger Garlic    1111070039    Sell by: May 18 17PS4   24.7 oz
  Powder
  Kroger Coarse    1111070041    Sell by: May 18 18PS4   17.1 oz
  Ground Black                   Sell by: May 19 18PS4
  Pepper
  Kroger Bac'n     1111070025    Sell by: May 20 18PS4   12.0 oz
  Buds

Customers who have purchased the above products should not consume
them and should return them to a store for a full refund or
replacement.

Customers who have questions may contact Kroger at 1-800-KROGERS.

Kroger, one of the world's largest retailers, employs nearly
400,000 associates who serve customers in 2,626 supermarkets and
multi-department stores in 34 states and the District of Columbia
under two dozen local banner names including Kroger, City Market,
Dillons, Food 4 Less, Fred Meyer, Fry's, Harris Teeter, Jay C,
King Soopers, QFC, Ralphs and Smith's. The company also operates
780 convenience stores, 327 fine jewelry stores, 1,342 supermarket
fuel centers and 37 food processing plants in the U.S. Recognized
by Forbes as the most generous company in America, Kroger supports
hunger relief, breast cancer awareness, the military and their
families, and more than 30,000 schools and community
organizations. Kroger contributes food and funds equal to 200
million meals a year through more than 100 Feeding America food
bank partners. A leader in supplier diversity, Kroger is a proud
member of the Billion Dollar Roundtable and the U.S. Hispanic
Chamber's Million Dollar Club.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm456188.htm


LAMI PRODUCTS: Class Suit Filed Over FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for PennRecord.com, reported that a South
Carolina employee filed a class action lawsuit against her
Pennsylvania-based company doing business in South Carolina and
other states, claiming willful employment law infringement in its
alleged refusal to pay employees minimum wage and overtime pay
from June 2012 to the present.

Norlene A. Leake of Anderson County, S.C, sued LAMI Products Inc.
and its owners Michael Dion and Larry Dion, all of Huntingdon
Valley, Pa., in the U.S. District Court Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on June 22, alleging Fair Labor Standards Act
violations along with quantum meruit and unjust enrichment.

Leake was hired by the defendant in or around April 2012. Alleging
that LAMI made improper deductions of the merchandisers' recorded
hours, the plaintiff states that the suit's purpose is to recover
unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime compensation, and time worked
"off the clock."

The suit states that the defendants compensated employees hired as
merchandisers only for hours spent in stores, allegedly failing to
recognize travel time, administrative duties, and other tasks such
as scanning, emailing orders, documenting, and boxing and shipping
packages.

The plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the putative class,
seeks to reclaim monetary, liquidated and treble damages,
compensatory back and front pay and benefits, pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and court costs. She is
represented by Jason Brown and Zijian Guan of JTB Law Group in
Jersey City, N.J.

U.S. District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania Case 2:15-cv-
03487-LFR.


LIFE & MORE: Recalls Fat Burner Gold Capsules Due to Sibutramine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Life & More, L.L.C. is voluntarily recalling 783 Bottles from Lot
#000185004400 Akttive High Performance Fat Burner Gold capsules
weight loss supplements. The firm was informed by the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) that a sample of Akttive High
Performance Fat Burner Gold capsules was found to contain
Sibutramine, desmethylsibutramine, and Phenolphthalein.
Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was withdrawn from the
U.S. market in October 2010 (due to increased risk of seizures,
heart attacks, arrhythmia and strokes). Phenolphthalein is an
ingredient previously used in over-the-counter laxatives, but
because of concerns of carcinogenicity, it is not approved for
marketing in the United States. These undeclared ingredients make
this product an unapproved new drug for which safety and efficacy
have not been established.

Products containing Sibutramine pose a threat to consumers because
Sibutramine can increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some
patients and may present a risk for those with a history of
coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure or stroke. These
products may also interact in life threatening ways with other
medications a consumer may be taking. Health risks associated with
phenolphthalein could include potentially serious gastrointestinal
disturbances, irregular heartbeat, and cancer with long-term use.
No illnesses or injuries have been reported to the company to date
in connection with this product.

Akttive High Performance Fat Burner Gold weight loss supplement
capsules are marketed as a dietary supplement for weight loss.
Akttive High Performance Fat Burner Gold capsules are packaged in
aluminum bottles containing 30 gold capsules per bottle and
labeled with Lot #000185004400, UPC 859189005005, Expiration
12/17. The products were distributed from January 2012 until July
2015.

The product was sold directly to distributors and online to
consumers at disclaimer iconwww.akttive.com and shipped to the
following states: NV, FL, NY, AZ, MA, NJ, CA, MD, TX, VA and MI.

Life & More, L.L.C. is notifying its distributors and customers by
letter and is arranging for return of all recalled products.
Consumers should not consume Akttive High Performance Fat Burner
Gold weight loss supplement Capsules and should return it
immediately to the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact Life &
More, L.L.C. at 01157-300-487-0534 or e-mail info@akttive.com ,
Monday through Friday from 9:00am - 5:00pm EST. Consumers should
contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using
this product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the US Food
and Drug Administration.


MAGMA DESIGN: Judge Rules in Insurance Coverage Dispute
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward J. Davila of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division ruled on the parties' motions in the
case GENESIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MAGMA DESIGN
AUTOMATION, INC. and NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF
PITTSBURGH, PA, Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS,
CROSSCLAIMS, AND THIRD-PARTY ACTIONS, CASE NO. 5:06-CV-05526-EJD
(N.D. Cal.)

Magma Design Automation, Inc. obtained a $10 million directors and
officers (D&O) liability insurance policy from Executive Risk
Indemnity, Inc. (ERII) for the period of December 15, 2003 to
December 15, 2004. Magma also obtained a first-layer excess D&O
liability insurance policy from Genesis Insurance Company
(Genesis) for the same policy period. The Genesis policy is a
follow form policy that incorporates the terms, conditions, and
exclusions of the primary ERII 2003-04 Policy, and had a policy
limit of $5 million.

After the expiration of the 2003-04 Policy, Magma renewed its $10
million D&O liability insurance policy with ERII for the period of
December 15, 2004 to March 30, 2006. Magma did not renew its
first-layer excess D&O liability insurance policy with Genesis,
but it obtained a first-layer excess insurance policy from
National Union Fire Insurance of Pittsburgh, PA for the 2004-2006
period. The National Union policy was a follow form policy, and
had a policy limit of $5 million.

The 2003-04 policy and the 2004-06 policy each contained a notice
of circumstances provision. If during the policy period Magma
became aware of circumstances which could give rise to a claim and
provided the insurer a written notice of such circumstances, then
any claim subsequently arising from the circumstances would be
deemed to have been first made during the policy period.

In September 2004, Synopsys, Inc. filed an action against Magma
alleging patent infringement. The Synopsys action was filed during
the 2003-04 policy period, Magma notified ERII and Genesis of the
action. Magma's insurance broker, ABD Insurance and Finances
Services (ABD), sent a cover letter and a copy of the Synopsys
complaint to both ERII and Genesis to serve as a notice of
circumstances pursuant to the 2003-04 policy should a future D&O
claim arise out of the Synopsys action. Both ERII and Genesis
declined coverage.

Nearly six months after the expiration of the 2003-04 policy,
Magma shareholders filed a securities class action against Magma,
and in July 2005, Magma shareholders filed a shareholder
derivative action against Magma. ERII concluded that the earlier
Synopsys action constituted a notice of circumstances as to the
securities actions. ERII invoked coverage under its 2003-04
policy. Genesis, however, disagreed with ERII's treatment of the
Synopsys action as a notice of circumstances for the securities
actions, and thus denied coverage under its 2003-04 policy.
National Union sided with ERII, and thus denied coverage under its
2004-06 policy.

In September 2006, Genesis filed an insurance coverage action
against defendants Magma and National Union asserting claims for
declaratory relief and breach of contract.  Magma alleged that the
securities actions did not invoke the Genesis 2003-04 policy, and
thus Genesis owed no coverage.

Magma filed an answer and counterclaim seeking a determination as
to whether the Genesis 2003-04 policy or the National Union 2004-
06 policy applied to the securities actions. Magma also filed a
third-party complaint against National Union seeking the same
determination, and against ERII seeking a declaration as to
whether the ERII 2003-04 Policy or the ERII 2004-06 policy
applied.

ERII answered and counterclaimed for declaratory relief seeking a
declaration that the securities actions were covered by either the
ERII 2003-04 Policy or the ERII 2004-06 Policy, but not both.

Genesis filed a motion for partial summary judgment and magma also
filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to National Union.

Judge Davila granted Magma's motion for partial summary judgment
that its 2004-06 policy applies to the securities actions and that
the ERII 2004-06 policy is exhausted. Magma's motion for partial
summary judgment that National Union's prior notice exclusion does
not bar coverage is granted to the extent this issue pertains to
the known loss rule. Magma's motion for partial summary judgment
that National Union has breached its policy is denied. Magma's
motion for partial summary judgment that National Union must pay
its $5 million policy limit, plus interest, on behalf of Magma is
denied.

Genesis's motion for partial summary judgment that Genesis may
recover its settlement payment from National Union is granted.
Genesis's motion for partial summary judgment that Genesis is
entitled to an award of prejudgment interest is granted.

The case is scheduled for a case management conference at 10:00
a.m. on September 3, 2015. The parties shall file a joint case
management statement on or before August 27, 2015.

A copy of Judge Davila's order dated July 8, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/Evt6k8from Leagle.com

Genesis Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by Lewis Kleiman
Loss, Thompson, Loss & Judge & Robert John Stumpf, Sheppard Mullin
Richter & Hampton LLP

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dennis M.
Cusack, Farella Braun & Martel LLP, John D. Green, Farella Braun &
Martel LLP & Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel

Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Terrence Reilly McInnis, Troutman Sanders, LLP & Kim Suzanne
Orbeck, Troutman Sanders LLP

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Cross-
defendant, represented byMichael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith LLP & Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith
LLP

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by
Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella
Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP

Genesis Insurance Company, Counter-defendant, represented by
Robert John Stumpf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Lewis
Kleiman Loss, Thompson, Loss & Judge

Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., 3rd party defendant, represented
by Terrence Reilly McInnis, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Thomas Howard
Prouty, Troutman Sanders LLP & Kim Suzanne Orbeck, Troutman
Sanders LLP

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 3rd party
defendant, represented byGlenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP

Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc., Counter-claimant, represented by
Terrence Reilly McInnis, Troutman Sanders, LLP & Kim Suzanne
Orbeck, Troutman Sanders LLP

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Counter-defendant, represented by
Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella
Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel

Genesis Insurance Company, Counter-claimant, represented by Lewis
Kleiman Loss, Thompson, Loss & Judge & Robert John Stumpf,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Cross-claimant, represented by
Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella
Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP

Genesis Insurance Company, Cross-defendant, represented by Robert
John Stumpf, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP & Lewis Kleiman
Loss, Thompson, Loss & Judge

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, Counter-
defendant, represented byGlenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg, PA, Cross-
claimant, represented by Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard
& Smith LLP

Magma Design Automation, Inc., Cross-defendant, represented by
Katina Ancar, Farella Braun & Martel, Dennis M. Cusack, Farella
Braun & Martel LLP & John D. Green, Farella Braun & Martel LLP

National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA, 3rd party
plaintiff, represented by Glenn A. Friedman, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP, Paul Andre Desrochers, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Michael Kenneth Johnson, Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard & Smith LLP


MAKER'S MARK: Judge Tosses Bourbon False Advertising Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Schreiner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Maker's Mark distillery fends off claims of misleading marketing
for promoting its Kentucky bourbon as handmade.

A federal judge in California dismissed a lawsuit filed by two
consumers who claimed they were misled by the bourbon maker's
handmade claims on its bottles, known for their red-wax seal.

They said the claim enticed them to purchase Maker's Mark instead
of a less expensive whiskey.

The plaintiffs, Safora Nowrouzi and Travis Williams, accused
Maker's Mark of false advertising, unfair competition and
negligent and intentional misrepresentation.  The suit claimed the
process to produce the bourbon features "little to no human
supervision, assistance or involvement."

The judge, however, accepted the bourbon producer's request to
dismiss the suit.

"This court finds that 'handmade' cannot reasonably be interpreted
as meaning literally by hand nor that a reasonable consumer would
understand the term to mean no equipment or automated process was
used to manufacture the whisky," Judge Houston wrote.

The judge added that the plaintiffs "cannot plausibly contend
defendant intends to deceive consumers about the nature of its
processes when its label clearly describes the process and points
consumers to its website."

Mona Amini, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said on July 29 they
were still reviewing the ruling and declined further comment.

Beam Suntory Inc., the parent of Maker's, had maintained the suit
was meritless.

"We were confident we would prevail, and we are pleased that the
California court terminated this matter at an early stage," said
company spokesman Clarkson Hine.

It was the brand's latest legal victory in fending off claims that
it falsely promotes its bourbon.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Florida dismissed a lawsuit
by two consumers who accused Maker's Mark of misleading marketing
by labeling its bourbon as handmade.

Maker's Mark bourbon is produced at a distillery outside Loretto,
Kentucky.

Maker's has developed a passionate following among bourbon
drinkers.  The brand created a backlash in 2013 by saying it was
cutting the amount of alcohol in each bottle to stretch its
whiskey supplies.  Producers quickly scrapped the idea.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: To Defend Against Remaining "Johnson" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. intends to vigorously defend against the
remaining claims in the class action lawsuit filed by Matthew B.
Johnson, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015.

On July 30, 2013, Matthew B. Johnson, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all Ohio residents similarly situated (the "Johnson
Plaintiffs"), filed a putative class action Complaint against Jos.
A. Bank in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern District (Case No. 2:13-cv-756).  The Complaint
alleges, among other things, deceptive sales and marketing
practices by Jos. A. Bank relating to its use of the words "free"
and "regular price."  The Complaint seeks, among other relief,
class certification, compensatory damages, declaratory relief,
injunctive relief and costs and disbursements (including
attorneys' fees).  Upon the motion of Jos. A. Bank, the U.S.
District Court dismissed the Complaint, without prejudice, and the
Johnson Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in
the same U.S. District Court making substantially the same
allegations as in the original Complaint.

On February 21, 2014, Jos. A. Bank filed a motion to dismiss and,
on August 19, 2014, the Court dismissed the class claims and
certain other breach of contract claims.

"We intend to vigorously defend against the remaining claims.  The
range of loss, if any, is not reasonably estimable at this time.
We do not believe, however, that it will have a material adverse
effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash
flows," the Company said.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Defending Against Suit by Lucas and Salerno
------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. is defending against the class action
lawsuit filed by David Lucas and Eric Salerno, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on June 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2,
2015.

On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of
themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed
a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S.
District Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB
JLB).  The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A.
Bank violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price
advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions.  The
Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as
a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory
damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust
enrichment, costs and attorney fees.

"We intend to vigorously defend the case.  The range of loss, if
any, is not reasonably estimable at this time.  We do not believe,
however, that it will have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.


MID AMERICA APARTMENT: Judge Narrows Claims in "Schilling" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin of the Western District of
Texas, Austin Division, recommends the denial of defendants'
second motion to dismiss and the granting of plaintiffs' motion
for leave.

Plaintiffs Jamie C. Schilling and Katelyn Elizabeth Brooks sue
their landlord, Mid-America Apartment Communities, Inc. and Mid-
America Apartments, L.P. ("MAA), alleging that MAA improperly
charged water connection fees in violation of the Texas Water
Code. Plaintiffs are former tenants of one of MAA's apartment
complexes in Austin, Texas known as Colonial Grand at Canyon
Ranch. Schilling and Brooks, as co-tenants were parties to a lease
with MAA for a one-year term starting July 7, 2013.

The plaintiffs have pled that when they moved into the apartment
on July 7, 2013, they paid the $408.71, which included the $15
water connection fee. Plaintiffs contend that Texas apartment
owners and landlords are prohibited from charging water connection
fees, water utility account activation fees, late fees in excess
of 5% of the water utility bill, and other similar surcharges
under Chapter 13 of the Texas Water Code and PUC/TCEQ Rules.
Plaintiffs for themselves, and on behalf of a proposed class, seek
recovery of statutory damages equal to three times the amount of
all overcharges, a civil penalty of one month's rent for each
class member for each violation, reasonable attorneys' fees,
prejudgment and post judgment interest at the highest rate allowed
by law, and costs of court.

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the
only plaintiff named was Schilling, who lacked standing to bring
the case. Defendants argued that Brooks not Schilling entered into
the Reservation Agreement and was charged and paid the $15 fee
that is at the heart of the dispute, and therefore Schilling
suffered no injury in fact. A week after the motion was filed,
Schilling filed her first amended complaint adding Brooks as a
plaintiff.  Defendants filed a second motion to dismiss, and the
District Court dismissed the original motion without prejudice.
The second motion to dismiss continues to assert that the case
should be dismissed because Schilling has no standing, and adds
that because he lacks standing, he could not amend his complaint
to add Brooks as a plaintiff.

Magistrate Judge Austin recommends that defendants' second motion
to dismiss be denied and grants plaintiffs' motion for leave to
file second amended complaint.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Austin's report and recommendation
dated July 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/R86iXdfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, for themselves and all others similarly situated
represented by:

Britton D. Monts, Esq.
THE MONTS FIRM
401 Congress Avenue, Suite 1540
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: 512-474-6092
Facsimile: 514-692-2981

     - and -

Stacey V. Reese, Esq.
STACEY V. REESE LAW PLLC
815 - A Brazos Street #226
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: 512-212-1423

     - and -

Jason W. Snell, Esq.
THE SNELL LAW FIRM, PLLC
The Littlefield Building
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 330
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: 512-477-5291
Facsimile: 512-4775294

Defendants, represented by Artoush Varshosaz --
artoush.varshosaz@klgates.com -- Gregory P. Sapire --
Greg.Sapire@klgates.com -- Justin Roel Chapa -- Thomas K.
Schroeter -- thomas.schroeter@klgates.com -- at K&L Gates LLP


MIDWEST HEALTH: Judge Narrows Plaintiff's Claim in "French" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Julie A. Robinson of the District of Kansas granted
in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification in the case MELISSA FRENCH, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDWEST HEALTH, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2625-JAR-KMH (D. Kan.)

Midwest Health owns, operates, and/or manages at least forty-two
skilled nursing, assisted living, and independent living
facilities in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Oklahoma.  The Defendant
had a policy of automatically deducting a 30-minute meal break
from each shift of six or more hours whether or not a full,
uninterrupted meal break was actually taken. During these
uncompensated periods, Melissa French and other employees often
worked, or were interrupted with work, and were not compensated,
subjecting hourly employees to off-the-clock work.

Plaintiff brought a putative collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), against
defendant, claiming violations of the FLSA's minimum wage and
overtime pay requirements. Plaintiff is joined by nineteen current
and former Midwest Health employees from eight different
facilities in Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska who have opted in to this
lawsuit.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges that because defendant
automatically deducts a 30-minute meal break from each shift of
six or more hours, and she and many employees often work during
that period and receive no compensation for said work, the
practice is in violation of the FLSA. Plaintiff filed a motion for
conditional certification. Plaintiff also moved for the approval
of form of notice.

Judge Robinson granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's
motion for conditional certification; and conditionally certifies
plaintiff's collective action under Section 216(b) of the FLSA:

All hourly employees who worked for Defendant's care facilities
during the last three years and were subject to the 30-minute
automatic meal deduction policy.

French is designated as the class representative and plaintiffs'
counsel will act as class counsel. Plaintiff's motion to approve a
form of notice is denied without prejudice, to be reasserted after
the parties have conferred.

If an agreement is reached, the parties shall submit a joint
proposed notice and consent form to the court for approval within
21 days of the court's order. To the extent the parties are unable
to reach an agreement, plaintiffs shall file a motion within 21
days of the court's order, to seek approval of the proposed forms,
and defendant shall have 14 days to respond to plaintiff's motion.
Defendant may, if necessary, submit an alternative proposed notice
and consent form with its response.

Within 14 days of the court's order, defendant must provide
plaintiff a list in electronic and importable format, of the first
and last names, last-known addresses, dates of employment, job
title, location of employment, and telephone numbers of all
members of the putative class.

A copy of Judge Robinson's memorandum and order dated July 2,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/1s9u1Sfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP, LLC
10601 Mission Road, Suite 100
Leawood, KS 66206
Telephone: 913-766-5585
Facsimile: 816-875-5069

     - and -

Tracey F. George, Esq,
Davis George Mook, LLC
1600 Genessee, Ste. 328
Kansas City, MO 64102
Telephone: 816-569-2629

Midwest Health Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by James
C. Sullivan -- jsullivan@polsinelli.com -- Latrice Nicole Lee --
lnlee@polsinelli.com -- Robert J. Hingula --
rhingula@polsinelli.com -- at Polsinelli PC


MOSES LAKE: Recalls Human and Veterinary Sterile Compounded Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Moses Lake Professional Pharmacy is voluntarily recalling human
and veterinary sterile compounded drugs which are unexpired to the
consumer level due to lack of sterility assurance.

The company has not received any reports of product contamination
or adverse events to date, and is issuing this voluntary recall
out of an abundance of caution following a recent inspection which
identified an issue with sterility assurance. If there is
contamination in products intended to be sterile, patients are at
risk of serious infections which may be life threatening.

The recalled products were made from 7/21/2014 through 7/21/2015,
and dispensed to patients or distributed to physicians for further
administering to patients in the states of Arizona, Idaho,
Florida, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. All recalled products have
a label that includes the pharmacy name and the name of the
compounded drug product.

The recall does not pertain to any non-sterile compounded
medications prepared by the pharmacy or to products compounded
after July 21, 2015.

All unexpired lots of the following sterile compounded products
are subject to the recall:

  --- ALPROSTADIL 20 MCG/ML INJ SOLN
  --- ALPROSTADIL 5 MCG/ML INJ SOLN
  --- ALPROSTADIL 40 MCG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- ALPROSTADIL/PROCAINE 20 MCG/0.1%/ML INJECTABLE
  --- ALPROSTADIL/PROCAINE 40 MCG/0.1%/ML INJECTABLE
  --- B1/B2/B3/B5/B12/LIDOCAINE/ISOLEUCINE/METHIONINE/CHOLINE/
      INOSITOL 50/5/50/5/1/10/25/8/17/17MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- BUPRENORPHINE MULTIDOSE VIAL 0.3MG/ML INJ SOLN
  --- CALM ME VITAMIN COCKTAIL, MAGNESIUM, COMPOUNDED B COMPLEX
      INJECTABLE
  --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN  INJECTION 4000 UNITS/ML INJECTABLE
  --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN 1000UNITS/0.1ML INJECTION 10,000
      UNITS/ML INJECTABLE
  --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN 175 UNITS/SYRINGE W METHYLCOBALAMIN
      175 UNITS/1.5MG INJECTABLE
  --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN 200UNITS/0.1ML INJECTION 2000
      UNITS/ML INJECTABLE
  --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN 500UNITS/0.1ML INJECTION 5000
      UNITS/ML INJECTABLE
  --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN COMPOUNDED 150 UNITS/SYRINGE 150
      UNITS/0.150ML INJECTABLE
  --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN COMPOUNDED 175 UNITS/SYRINGE 175
      UNITS/0.175ML INJECTABLE
  --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN COMPOUNDED 200 UNITS/SYRINGE 200
      UNITS/0.2ML INJECTABLE
  --- CHORIONIC GONADOTROPIN COMPOUNDED 250 UNITS/SYRINGE 250
      UNITS/0.25ML INJECTABLE
  --- CYANOCOBALAMIN MDV (COMPOUNDED) 1MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- CYCLOSPORIN DROPS 1% OPHTHAMLIC
  --- DEXPANTHENOL  250MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- DIHYDROERGOTAMINE MESYLATE 1MG/ML  INJECTABLE>
      DMPS (DIMERCAPTO-PROPANESULFONIC NA (SINGLE USE ONLY)
      50MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- EDETATE CALCIUM DISODIUM (SINGLE USE ONLY) 300MG/ML
      INJECTABLE
  --- ESTRADIOL 20MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- ESTRADIOL 3MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 6MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 9MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 12MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 12.5MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 15MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 18MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 20MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 25MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 30MG PELLET
  --- ESTRADIOL 75MG PELLET
  --- ETHYL ALCOHOL 200 PROOF (STERILE FOR INJECTION) 100%
      INJECTABLE
  --- FOLIC ACID 10MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- GLUTATHIONE  MDV 200MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- GLUTATHIONE (L) 75/ML INJECTABLE
  --- GLYCOPYRROLATE 0.2 MG/ML INJ SOLN
  --- HYDROXOCOBALAMIN  (PRESERVATIVE FREE) UNIT DOSE SYRINGES
      1.5MG/0.25ML INJECTABLE
  --- HYDROXOCOBALAMIN (COMPOUNDED) 1MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- HYDROXOCOBALAMIN MULTIDOSE VIAL 5MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- HYDROXYCOBALAMINE/METHYLCOBALAMINE PF UNIT DOSE
      1.5/1.5MG/.25ML INJECTABLE
  --- HYDROXYPROGESTERONE CAPROATE OIL  250MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- MEDROXYPROGESTERONE ACETATE INJECTION VEHICLE 200MG/ML
  --- METHIONINE/CHOLINE/INOSITOL 25/50/50MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- METHYLCOBALAMIN 10MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- METHYLCOBALAMIN 15MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- METHYLCOBALAMIN MDV 1MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- METHYLCOBALAMIN MDV 2MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- METHYLCOBALAMIN MDV 5MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- METHYLCOBALAMIN PRESERVATIVE FREE PREFILLED 1MG/ML
      INJECTABLE
  --- METHYLCOBALAMIN PRESERVATIVE FREE PREFILLED 15MG/ML
      INJECTABLE
  --- METHYLCOBALAMIN/HYDROXOCOBALAMIN PRESERVATIVE FREE UNIT
      DOSE SYRINGES 2.5/0.5MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- PAPAVERINE/PHENTOLAMINE 30MG/1MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- PAPAVERINE/PHENTOLAMINE/ATROPINE/PROSTAGLADIN PER ML
      30MG/2MG/0.1MG/20MCG INJECTABLE
  --- PROCAINE MDV 1% INJECTABLE
  --- PROGESTERONE 50MG PELLET
  --- PROGESTERONE 100MG PELLET
  --- PROGESTERONE 200MG PELLET
  --- PYRIDOXINE HCL 100MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- SERMORELIN/GHRP-6/GHRP-2 9/5.4/5.4MG/9ML INJECTABLE
  --- SERMORELIN/GHRP-6/GHRP-2 9/9/9MG/9ML INJECTABLE
  --- SODIUM TETRADECYL SULFATE 3% INJECTABLE
  --- TESTOSTERONE CYPIONATE (COMPOUNDED) 200MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- TESTOSTERONE 25MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 50MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 60MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 70MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 76MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 80MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 90MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 100MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 106MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 110MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 112MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 115MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 116MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 120MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 125MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 130MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE 150MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE  200MG  PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE/ANASTROZOLE 200/13MG   PELLET
  --- TESTOSTERONE/ANASTROZOLE 120/8MG     PELLET
  --- THIAMIN/RIBOFLAVIN/NIACIN/PYRIDOXINE/BIOTIN/FOLIC ACID/
  --- METHYLCOBALAMIN
      50MG/50MG/50MG/50MG/400MCG/800MCG/500MCG/5ML SOLUTION
  --- TRIMIX  30MG/2MG/20MCG INJECTABLE
  --- TRIMIX  40MG/2MG/40MCG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- TRIMIX 15MG/.5MG/5MCG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- TRIMIX 20MG/1MG/20MCG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- VITAMIN A/VITAMIN C/VITAMIN E/LIPOIC ACID/COQ10
      5000U/500MG/200U/200MG/30MG/5ML SUSPENSION
  --- VITAMIN B-COMPLEX    B1/B3/B2/B5/B6/B12
      100/100/2/2/2/3MG/ML INJECTABLE
  --- VITAMIN D3  OIL  400,000 UNITS/ML INJECTABLE
  --- VITAMIN D3  OIL  50,000 UNITS/ML INJECTABLE

The pharmacy has begun notifying its patients by telephone, fax,
electronic mail and/or regular mail of this recall. Users or
recipients of these products should immediately discontinue use
and return the recalled unexpired products.

To return product or request assistance related to this recall,
users should call 509-764-2314, Monday through Friday, from 8:30
a.m. to 12:30 p.m. and 1 to 5:30 p.m. PDT.;

Consumers should contact their physician or health care provider
if they have experienced any problems that may be related to
taking these drug products.

Adverse reactions experienced with the use of human drugs may be
reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program
either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit a report Online at
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form at
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and mail to address on the
pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

Adverse events involving animals can be reported to the FDA on
Form FDA 1932a. FORM FDA 1932a can be found at:

http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/An
imalDrugForms/ucm048817.pdf

It is preaddressed and pre-postage paid, and can be filled and
submitted via US Mail.

Call the Center for Veterinary Medicine: 1-888-FDA-VETS. Leave
your name, address, phone number, and the brand name of the drug
involved. Ask to have a Form FDA 1932a sent to you.

"We are fully cooperating with the FDA and we regret any impact
this voluntary recall may have on our patients, and patient safety
is our highest priority", said Shawn Needham, R.Ph., owner and
pharmacist.


MOUNTAINS RECREATION: Appellate Court Trashed Violator's Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Tricia A. Bigelow of the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Eight, affirmed the trial
court's judgment in the case DANNY EVERETT et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. MOUNTAINS RECREATION AND CONSERVANCY AUTHORITY,
Defendant and Respondent, NO. B254753 (Cal. Ct. App.)

The Mountains Recreation and Conservancy Authority (MRCA) is a
public entity formed by a joint exercise of powers agreement
between the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy, a public agency
within the state's Natural Resources Agency, and two local
recreation and park districts, the Conejo Recreation and Park
District, and the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District.

MRCA adopted an ordinance establishing rules, regulations and
punishments for the parklands under its control. MRCA regularly
amended its ordinance and in 2010, MRCA adopted the Mountains
Recreation and Conservancy Authority Park Ordinance, which governs
such matters as park hours, smoking and fire restrictions, and the
prohibition of alcoholic beverages.

On January 16, 2011, one of MRCA's automated video camera system
recorded a vehicle registered to Danny Everett failing to stop at
a stop sign on a roadway in a parkland property under MRCA's
control. A MRCA park ranger issued and mailed an administrative
citation to Everett.

Everett paid the administrative penalty of $175 indicated on the
administrative citation, and requested an administrative hearing
before MRCA to contest the citation. On April 7, 2011, a MRCA
administrative officer denied Everett's contest of the citation.

Everett filed a complaint, alleging three causes of action:

     -- declaratory relief;
     -- injunctive relief; and
     -- petition for writ of mandate.

Everett's complaint alleged that the stop sign violation for which
MRCA cited him as well as the other members of the putative class
occurred on a highway as defined by Vehicle Code section 360, that
Vehicle Code section 21 makes the provision of the Vehicle Code
uniformly applicable to all highways located in California, that
Vehicle Code section 21455.5 governs automated traffic enforcement
systems, and that MRCA failed to comply with the requirements of
Vehicle Code section 21455.5 in establishing its automated video
camera traffic enforcement system.

MRCA filed a demurrer to Everett's complaint arguing, among other
legal issues, that the Public Resources Code, not the Vehicle
Code, gives MRCA the authority to regulate vehicle traffic within
the parklands under its control.

The court entered a minute order sustaining MRCA's demurrer to
Everett's complaint without leave to amend. On January 9, 2014,
the court signed and entered an order of dismissal of Everett's
action. Everett filed a timely notice of appeal.

Presiding Justice Bigelow affirmed the trial court's judgment in
an unpublished opinion dated July 15, 2015, a copy of which is
available at http://goo.gl/y9XjP7from Leagle.com.

For Plaintiffs and Appellants:

David R. Greifinger, Esq.
Law Offices of David R. Greifinger
1801 Ocean Park Blvd Apt 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Telephone: 310-452-7923
Facsimile: 310-450-4715

     - and -

Howard A. Goldstein, Esq.
Goldstein Legal Services
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Telephone: 323-370-6246
Facsimile: 323-795-2650

     - and -

Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
Mike Arias, Esq.
Arnold Wang, Esq.
Arias, Ozzello & Gignac
14th Floor 6701 Center Dr. W
Los Angeles, CA 90045
Telephone: 310-670-1600

Thomas W. Casparian -- tcasparian@gilchristrutter.com -- Yen N.
Hope -- yhope@gilchristrutter.com -- at Gilchrist & Rutter, for
Defendant and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Eight panel consists of Presiding Justice Tricia A. Bigelow and
Justices Madeleine Flier and Elizabeth A. Grimes.


NATURE'S VARIETY: Recalls Dog Food Products Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nature's Variety has announced a voluntary recall of their
Instinct(R) Raw Chicken Formula for dogs with a "Best By" date of
04/27/16 because these products may be contaminated with
Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating the products and
there is risk to humans from handling contaminated pet products,
especially if they have not thoroughly washed their hands after
having contact with the products or any surfaces exposed to these
products.

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

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

The affected products are limited to the Instinct Raw Chicken
Formula Frozen Diets packaged in the following forms:

  --- UPC# 769949611431 - Instinct Raw Chicken Formula Bites for
      Dogs 4 lb.; Best By 04/27/16
  --- UPC# 769949611448 - Instinct Raw Chicken Formula Bites for
      Dogs 7 lb.; Best By 04/27/16
  --- UPC# 769949611486 - Instinct Raw Chicken Formula Patties
      for Dogs 6 lb.; Best By 04/27/16

The "Best By" date is located on the back of the package below the
seal. The affected product was distributed through retail stores
in the United States and limited distribution in Canada. No other
Nature's Variety products are affected.

No illnesses have been reported to date. Even though no illnesses
have been reported, consumers should follow the Simple Handling
Tips published on the Nature's Variety package when disposing of
the affected product.

Nature's Variety became aware of a potential issue after receiving
notification from the FDA that a routine surveillance sample of
seven pound Instinct Raw Chicken Bites for dogs tested positive
for Salmonella.

Consumers feeding the affected product should discontinue use and
monitor their pet's health, and contact their veterinarian if they
have concerns. Consumers who have purchased one of the above
products can obtain a full refund or exchange by either returning
the product in its original packaging or bringing a proof of
purchase back to their retailer.

Consumers with additional questions can call our Consumer
Relations team at 888-519-7387 from 8 am to 7 pm Central time, 7
days a week during the recall.  Or, consumers can email Nature's
Variety directly via cservice@naturesvariety.com.

Reed Howlett, Chief Executive Officer of Nature's Variety, stated,
"At Nature's Variety we take quality and safety very seriously. We
believe that under all circumstances, health and safety comes
first, and we are committed to providing the best possible
nutrition for pets."

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455924.htm


NAUTICA RETAIL: Violates ADA, Florida Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nautica Retail USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
VF Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
1:15-cv-22231-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2015) alleges violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq.
          Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN PA
          6001 NW 153 Street, Suite 100
          Miami Lakes, FL 33014
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
                  louis@kumussman.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Cir. Revives Shoppers' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Diane Pamela Wood of the United States Court of
Appeals, Seventh Circuit, reverses the district court's judgment
and remanded the case of HILARY REMIJAS, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, LLC, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-3122 (7th
Cir.)

In mid-December 2013, Neiman Marcus learned that fraudulent
charges had shown up on the credit cards of some of its customers.
Nine days later, it publicly disclosed the data breach and sent
individual notifications to the customers who had incurred
fraudulent charges. The company also posted updates on its
website. Those messages confirmed several aspects of the attack,
some card numbers had been exposed to the malware, but other
sensitive information such as social security numbers and birth
dates had not been compromised, the malware attempted to collect
card data between July 16, 2013, and October 30, 2013, 350,000
cards were potentially exposed, and 9,200 of those 350,000 cards
were known to have been used fraudulently.

The disclosures prompted the filing of a number of class-action
complaints. They were consolidated in a First Amended Complaint
filed on June 2, 2014, by Hilary Remijas, Melissa Frank, Debbie
Farnoush, and Joanne Kao. They sought to represent themselves and
the approximately 350,000 other customers whose data may have been
hacked.

The complaint relies on a number of theories for relief:
negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, unfair
and deceptive business practices, invasion of privacy, and
violation of multiple state data breach laws. It raises claims
that exceed $5,000,000, and minimal diversity of citizenship
exists, because Remijas is a citizen of Illinois, Frank is a
citizen of New York, and Farnoush and Kao are citizens of
California, while the Neiman Marcus Group LLC, once ownership is
traced through several intermediary LLCs, is owned by NM Mariposa
Intermediate Holdings Inc., a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Texas.

Neiman Marcus moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing
and for failure to state a claim. The district judge granted the
motion exclusively on standing grounds, and the plaintiffs filed
their notice of appeal nine days later.

Chief Judge reversed the district court's judgment and remanded
the suit for further proceedings.

A copy of Chief Judge Wood's opinion dated July 20, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/kfjD0afrom Leagle.com.

The Seventh Circuit panel consists of Chief Judge Diane Pamela
Woods and Circuit Judges Michael Stephen Kanne and Terrence T.
Evans.

                           *     *     *

According to Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC's Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015:

     -- Melissa Frank v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al., was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York on January 13, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiff on April 15, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-
file a complaint.

     -- Donna Clark v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on
January 27, 2014 but was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on
March 11, 2014, without prejudice to her right to re-file a
complaint.

     -- Christina Wong v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, et al.,
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California on January 29, 2014, but was voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiff on February 10, 2014, without prejudice to her right
to re-file a complaint.

     -- Katerina Chau v. Neiman Marcus Group LTD, Inc., filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
March 14, 2014, and Michael Shields v. The Neiman Marcus Group,
LLC, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on April 1, 2014, were voluntarily dismissed, with
prejudice as to Chau and without prejudice as to Shields.

     -- Hilary Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, was filed
on March 12, 2014 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  On June 2, 2014, an amended complaint in
the Remijas case was filed, which added three plaintiffs (Debbie
Farnoush and Joanne Kao, California residents; and Melissa Frank,
a New York resident) and asserted claims for negligence, implied
contract, unjust enrichment, violation of various consumer
protection statutes, invasion of privacy and violation of state
data breach laws. The Company moved to dismiss the Remijas amended
complaint on July 2, 2014. On September 16, 2014, the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the Remijas case on the
grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing due to their failure
to demonstrate an actionable injury.  On September 25, 2014,
plaintiffs appealed the district court's order dismissing the case
to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument was held on
January 23, 2015.

     -- Andrew McClease v. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina on December 30, 2014, alleging negligence and other
claims in connection with Mr. McClease's purchase by payment card.
On March 9, 2015, the McClease case was voluntarily dismissed
without prejudice by stipulation of the parties.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Hearing Held on Bid for Catalyst Attorneys' Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that a hearing on the
motion to recover catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company was
set for June 18, 2015, in the Tanguilig action.

On April 30, 2010, a Class Action Complaint for Injunction and
Equitable Relief was filed against the Company, Newton Holding,
LLC, TPG Capital, L.P. and Warburg Pincus LLC in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California by Sheila Monjazeb,
individually and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated. On July 12, 2010, all defendants except for
the Company were dismissed without prejudice, and on August 20,
2010, this case was dismissed by Ms. Monjazeb and refiled in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County. This
complaint, along with a similar class action lawsuit originally
filed by Bernadette Tanguilig in 2007, sought monetary and
injunctive relief and alleged that the Company has engaged in
various violations of the California Labor Code and Business and
Professions Code, including without limitation, by (i) asking
employees to work "off the clock," (ii) failing to provide meal
and rest breaks to its employees, (iii) improperly calculating
deductions on paychecks delivered to its employees and (iv)
failing to provide a chair or allow employees to sit during
shifts. The Monjazeb and Tanguilig class actions were deemed
"related" cases and were then brought before the same trial court
judge.

On October 24, 2011, the court granted the Company's motion to
compel Ms. Monjazeb and Juan Carlos Pinela (a co-plaintiff in the
Tanguilig case) to arbitrate their individual claims in accordance
with the Company's Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, foreclosing
their ability to pursue a class action in court. However, the
court's order compelling arbitration did not apply to Ms.
Tanguilig because she is not bound by the Mandatory Arbitration
Agreement.  Further, the court determined that Ms. Tanguilig could
not be a class representative of employees who are subject to the
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement, thereby limiting the putative
class action to those associates who were employed between
December 2003 and July 15, 2007 (the effective date of our
Mandatory Arbitration Agreement).

Following the court's order, Ms. Monjazeb and Mr. Pinela filed
demands for arbitration with the American Arbitration Association
(AAA) seeking to arbitrate not only their individual claims, but
also class claims, which the Company asserted violated the class
action waiver in the Mandatory Arbitration Agreement. This led to
further proceedings in the trial court, a stay of the
arbitrations, and a decision by the trial court, on its own
motion, to reconsider its order compelling arbitration. The trial
court ultimately decided to vacate its order compelling
arbitration due to a recent California appellate court decision.

Following this ruling, the Company timely filed two separate
appeals, one with respect to Mr. Pinela and one with respect to
Ms. Monjazeb, with the California Court of Appeal, asserting that
the trial court did not have jurisdiction to change its earlier
determination of the enforceability of the arbitration agreement.
The appeal with respect to Mr. Pinela has been fully briefed, and
oral argument was held on June 9, 2015. The appeal with respect to
Ms. Monjazeb was dismissed since final approval of the class
action settlement was granted.

Notwithstanding the appeal, the trial court decided to set certain
civil penalty claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for trial on April
1, 2014. In these claims, Ms. Tanguilig sought civil penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act based on the Company's
alleged failure to provide employees with meal periods and rest
breaks in compliance with California law.

On December 10, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all of
Ms. Tanguilig's claims, including the civil penalty claims, based
on her failure to bring her claims to trial within five years as
required by California law. After several hearings, on February
28, 2014, the court dismissed all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims in the
case and vacated the April 1, 2014 trial date. The court has
awarded the Company its costs of suit in connection with the
defense of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, but denied its request of an
attorneys' fees award from Ms. Tanguilig. Ms. Tanguilig filed a
notice of appeal from the dismissal of all her claims, as well as
a second notice of appeal from the award of costs, both of which
are pending before the California Court of Appeal. Should the
California Court of Appeal reverse the trial court's dismissal of
all of Ms. Tanguilig's claims, the litigation will resume, and Ms.
Tanguilig will seek class certification of the claims asserted in
her Third Amended Complaint. If this occurs, the scope of her
class claims will likely be reduced by the class action settlement
and release in the Monjazeb case; however, that settlement does
not cover claims asserted by Ms. Tanguilig for alleged Labor Code
violations from approximately December 19, 2003 to August 20, 2006
(the beginning of the settlement class period in the Monjazeb
case). Briefing on the appeals is underway, but no date has been
set for oral argument.

In Ms. Monjazeb's class action, a settlement was reached at a
mediation held on January 25, 2014, and the court granted final
approval of the settlement after the final approval hearing held
on September 18, 2014.

Notwithstanding the settlement of the Monjazeb class action, Ms.
Tanguilig filed a motion on January 26, 2015 seeking to recover
catalyst attorneys' fees from the Company. A hearing was held on
February 24, 2015, and the court issued an order on February 25,
2015 allowing Ms. Tanguilig to proceed with her motion to recover
catalyst attorneys' fees related to the Monjazeb settlement. On
April 8, 2015, Ms. Tanguilig filed her motion for catalyst
attorneys' fees. Briefing was underway, and the hearing on the
motion was set for June 18, 2015.

"We will continue to vigorously contest this motion," the Company
said.

"Based upon the settlement agreement with respect to Ms.
Monjazeb's class action claims, we recorded our currently
estimable liabilities with respect to both Ms. Monjazeb's and Ms.
Tanguilig's employment class actions litigation claims in fiscal
year 2014, which amount was not material to our financial
condition or results of operations. With respect to the Monjazeb
matter, the settlement funds have been paid by the Company and
have been disbursed by the claims administrator in accordance with
the settlement. We will continue to evaluate the Tanguilig matter,
and our recorded reserve for such matter, based on subsequent
events, new information and future circumstances," the Company
said.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Rubenstein Filed Notice to Appeal Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that Lina Rubenstein has
filed a notice to appeal the court's ruling in her class action
lawsuit.

On August 7, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against The Neiman Marcus Group LLC in Los Angeles County Superior
Court by a customer, Linda Rubenstein, in connection with the
Company's Last Call stores in California. Ms. Rubenstein alleges
that the Company has violated various California consumer
protection statutes by implementing a marketing and pricing
strategy that suggests that clothing sold at Last Call stores in
California was originally offered for sale at full-line Neiman
Marcus stores when allegedly, it was not, and is allegedly of
inferior quality to clothing sold at the full-line stores. Ms.
Rubenstein also alleges that the Company lacks adequate
information to support its comparative pricing labels.

"On September 12, 2014, we removed the case to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California," the Company said.
"On October 17, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,
which the court granted on December 12, 2014."

In its order dismissing the complaint, the court granted Ms.
Rubenstein leave to file an amended complaint. Ms. Rubenstein
filed her first amended complaint on December 22, 2014.

"On January 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint, which the court granted on March 2, 2015. In
its order dismissing the first amended complaint, the court
granted Ms. Rubenstein leave to file a second amended complaint,
which she filed on March 17, 2015," the Company said.

"On April 6, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint. On May 12, 2015, the court granted our motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety, without
leave to amend, and on June 9, 2015, Ms. Rubenstein filed a notice
to appeal the court's ruling," the Company added.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Marney Zaslav Filed Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Neiman Marcus Group LTD LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that a putative class
action complaint was filed on February 2, 2015, against Bergdorf
Goodman, Inc. in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York by Marney Zaslav. Ms. Zaslav seeks monetary
relief and alleges that she and other similarly situated
individuals were misclassified as interns exempt from minimum wage
requirements instead of as employees and, therefore, were not
provided with proper compensation under the New York Labor Law.
The Company is vigorously defending this matter.


NEW YORK, NY: Says Child Welfare System Suit Counterproductive
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for NY Daily News, reported that public
advocate Letitia James filed a class-action lawsuit alleging both
the city and state condemn foster children to a broken child
welfare system.

The papers filed in Manhattan Federal Court name 10 foster
children who she said were caught in "one of the most dangerous
foster care systems in the country."

"Lives are being ruined during our children's most formative
years, and our legal action seeks to put an end to this
injustice," James said.

The city Administration for Children's Services said the suit was
counterproductive.

"Litigation will not achieve meaningful long-lasting improvements
to the well-being of children in foster care and could impede ACS
and its partner agencies from implementing systemic reform," a
spokeswoman said.


NEW YORK, NY: To Allow Visits to Grave Sites on Hart Island
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corey Kilgannon, writing for The New York Times, reported that in
a major policy shift in the way New York runs its potter's field
for the burial of unclaimed bodies, the city has settled a lawsuit
and will allow relatives to visit grave sites on Hart Island, off
City Island in the Bronx.

The city's Department of Correction, which runs burial operations
on Hart Island, has settled a class-action lawsuit brought by the
New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of relatives of people
buried there.

Both sides announced the settlement, calling it historic.

The correction commissioner, Joseph Ponte, said the deal would
help the department "enable access to the cemetery on Hart Island
in a compassionate and safe manner."

"We look forward to implementing this historic settlement," Mr.
Ponte continued, "and pledge to work closely with the N.Y.C.L.U.
in order to make the compassionate access it envisions a reality."

Under the settlement, the city will run monthly visits for
relatives and their guests, said Christopher Dunn, a lawyer with
the civil liberties organization who was the lead counsel in the
case.

The Correction Department takes inmates from Rikers Island to the
island by bus and ferry to bury the deceased, including newborn
children, in mass graves. In recent years, the department has
conducted regular monthly visits, one weekday a month for
relatives to gather at a memorial area on the island at a distance
from the burial areas. But they were barred by officials from
visiting the grave sites, which are unmarked, though the names and
location of the dead are recorded in a city database.

Those weekday trips will continue, but the settlement also adds
monthly weekend visits for relatives, each of whom may bring along
up to four people who do not need to be relatives.

The city will offer two round-trip ferry rides -- with space for a
total of 50 passengers -- starting on July 19, to transport
visitors to the island, and then escort them to grave sites.

The 101-acre island has unceremoniously received the city's
homeless, poor, stillborn and other unclaimed bodies, delivered by
truck and ferry from borough morgues. The city buries up to 1,500
bodies a year, stacked in pine boxes in long trenches.

Correction Department officials have long kept tight restrictions
on burial information and have emphasized the need to keep the
island restricted because of dangerous conditions, security
concerns regarding the inmate laborers and the absence of
amenities and utilities.

The settlement goes into detail in listing possible relatives who
are allowed to visit, including parents, stepsiblings, second
cousins, legal guardians and domestic partners. It specifies what
visitors shall be permitted to leave as mementos at the grave
sites, including flowers (no vases), small stuffed animals, small
flags and blankets.

Mr. Dunn said that three people, from two families, were the lead
plaintiffs in the suit, and that none wished to comment.

He said he believed the settlement would eventually lead to the
burial areas being opened to the public.

"People will start visiting grave sites this month and more people
will want to go, and more people will understand that the
Department of Corrections running a cemetery is a bad idea," he
said.

In fact, a bill pending in the City Council would transfer
jurisdiction over the island to the city's parks department. The
lead sponsor, Councilwoman Elizabeth S. Crowley, a Democrat from
Queens, said a hearing on the bill would be held in the fall.

Saying Hart Island could be "a place schoolkids can take school
trips to," Ms. Crowley said she envisioned the island's becoming
an attraction in much the same way Governors Island has turned
into a popular destination.

"The Department of Correction doesn't want it," she said. "In
unofficial conversations, they've said they'd be happy to give it
to another city agency."

Advocates for opening up Hart Island argue that personnel hired
and trained to oversee the city's jail system are ill equipped to
run a cemetery and interact with bereaved loved ones.

They also argue that the rules stigmatize the visiting process,
with relatives of the dead being treated as prison visitors rather
than mourners by being forced to follow many of the same rules
that apply at Rikers, including a ban on cameras and phones.

The settlement suggests that Correction Department officials may
have more discretion, stating that officials are permitted to
search visitors and "may require visitors to surrender electronic
devices." The settlement also stipulates that the officials
"maintain a respectful distance while visitors are present at a
grave site consistent with legitimate security concerns."

Melinda Hunt, an advocate for easing the restrictions on Hart
Island, called some aspects of the settlement disappointing, such
as the city's right to require relatives to present proof of their
relationship to the deceased. The larger problem, she said, is
that the burial system remains in control of jail officials and
guards.

"The city has to review its 19th-century burial process."

Still, she said, the settlement was "another step to opening Hart
Island."

"We're not at the finish line," she added, "but we're farther
along."


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: March 2017 New Trial Date for Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics (NASDAQ: PTIE) disclosed the following:

As previously disclosed, on December 2, 2011, a securities-related
purported class action was filed against Pain Therapeutics, Inc.
and its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, or the Court. This action, titled KB
Partners I, L.P., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav
Friedmann and Peter S. Roddy, was scheduled for trial to occur on
July 7, 2015 through July 9, 2015 and continue on July 13, 2015 to
July 14, 2015.

On July 7, 2015, the Court set a new trial date of March 2017.

The Company states: "We continue to believe we have substantial
defenses in this matter. As with any litigation proceeding, we
cannot predict with certainty the eventual outcome of this
matter."


PANASONIC CORP: Loses Bid to Remove Judge in Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a New Jersey judge accused of pro-plaintiff bias in issuing a
$94,000 sanction will remain assigned to a discrimination suit
against Panasonic by three current and former employees, including
an assistant general counsel, after the state Supreme Court
declined to hear the issue.

In a July 20 order, the court denied Panasonic's motions for oral
argument and leave to appeal in connection with Essex County
Superior Court Judge Christine Farrington's refusal to disqualify
herself from Cruz v. Panasonic.

Panasonic sought Judge Farrington's removal based on her alleged
partiality, the plaintiffs claimed, pointing to her imposition of
a $94,000-plus sanction on the Chatham firm of Nukk-Freeman &
Cerra, which also represents Panasonic, for violating ethics
rules, according to court documents.

Panasonic alleged in court papers that Farrington prejudged
motions in favor of the plaintiffs, made biased statements on the
record and repeatedly ignored controlling legal precedent to rule
in plaintiffs' favor.

Cruz is a race and sex discrimination case brought by two current
employees, Sandra Karriem and Marilyn Joseph, and one former
employee, Glorina Williams Cruz.  Ms. Karriem is an assistant
general counsel for the consumer electronics company, whose U.S.
operations are based in Newark.

According to court documents, the sanctions were imposed over
Nukk-Freeman & Cerra's handling of allegedly privileged materials
that Cruz, who is African-American, emailed to a lawyer with whom
she consulted after she was allegedly passed over for a promotion
to vice president of human resources, a position that went to a
white man she claims was less qualified.

The emails were sent in September 2012 directly to the personal
email address of lawyer Randy Davenport of Piscataway, from Cruz's
work email account, which she was accessing remotely because she
was then out on a temporary disability leave, according to court
documents.

The materials she sent Davenport included executive compensation
decisions, another employee's performance review, bonus payments
to an executive and communications regarding promotions and
reassignments of other Panasonic employees, according to court
documents.

Ms. Cruz claimed in court documents that within hours of sending
the messages, she recalled them in an attempt to preserve the
confidentiality of what she saw as communications protected by the
attorney-client privilege.

She subsequently retained Smith Mullin of Montclair to file suit.
In February 2014, two of the emails were inadvertently produced
during discovery, and last July, one of them was used to question
Panasonic CEO Joseph Taylor during his deposition, according to
court documents.

Smith Mullin claimed it became aware of the inadvertent disclosure
shortly after, according to court documents.

Panasonic began an in-house investigation a few days later and
learned that Ms. Cruz had sent Davenport about 20 emails in total,
which it reviewed with outside counsel at Nukk-Freeman & Cerra,
court documents said.

At least seven of the emails "communicated [Cruz's] thoughts and
conclusions regarding the significance of the documents relative
to her potential claims," Judge Farrington said in an opinion
based on an in camera review she conducted after the plaintiffs
claimed the emails were privileged and sought Nukk-Freeman &
Cerra's disqualification on that basis.

Two days after Panasonic's review of the emails, on Aug. 1, 2014,
Smith Mullin notified Nukk-Freeman & Cerra that the emails were
privileged, claimed it was not previously aware of their existence
and demanded they be turned over, according to court documents.

Panasonic claimed it did not know Ms. Cruz had consulted a lawyer
before Smith Mullin or that the emails were privileged, according
to court documents.  Panasonic's Aug. 4 response to Smith Mullin
asked for the lawyer's name and the basis for the assertion of
privilege, saying nothing in the messages or documents evidenced a
relationship with an attorney.

Smith Mullin's Aug. 5 reply said Ms. Cruz communicated with
Davenport to obtain legal advice, and no further explanation was
needed for Panasonic to comply with the law and ethics rules.

Nukk-Freeman & Cerra did not hand over the emails but subpoenaed
Davenport and tried to depose Cruz about her communications with
him, according to court documents.

Judge Farrington denied the motion to disqualify Nukk-Freeman &
Cerra last Oct. 10, and found that Ms. Cruz did not have a
reasonable expectation of privacy in the emails and waived any
privilege by using company email, contrary to Panasonic policy
regarding private use.

Nevertheless, Judge Farrington found a colorable claim of
privilege and said Nukk-Freeman & Cerra should have realized the
emails were attorney-client communications because Davenport's
name had come up months earlier in connection with Ms. Cruz.

Instead, Nukk-Freeman & Cerra concealed its investigation,
subpoenaed Davenport and failed to produce copies of the emails
until just before oral argument on the motion, Judge Farrington
said.

Judge Farrington held that Nukk-Freeman & Cerra breached Rule of
Professional Conduct 4.4(b), which requires lawyers to cease
reading documents that reasonably appear to have been sent by
mistake, and to return them.

Judge Farrington sanctioned Nukk-Freeman & Cerra, requiring it to
pay the plaintiffs roughly $94,000 in legal fees.

Panasonic filed its recusal motion Dec. 14, 2014, which Farrington
denied Feb. 6.

Ruling from the bench, she claimed "no bias for or against either
party or either party's attorneys," and said her rulings were
based on her understanding of the law and rules of evidence.
Panasonic then asked the Appellate Division for leave to appeal,
arguing in court documents that Farrington's holding gave short
shrift to its motion and failed to address its arguments, which
were based on actual bias and the appearance of bias to a
reasonable observer.

Panasonic also argued that Judge Farrington's attack on
Mr. Taylor's credibility, and her statements criticizing the
veracity and integrity of the company's counsel, created an
appearance of bias.

Smith Mullin argued that a string of adverse rulings doesn't
amount to bias, and that comments on the record disapproving of a
party's or lawyer's position "never provide a basis for recusal
unless such comments reflect deep-seated bias or antagonism toward
a client," according to court documents.

Appellate Division Judges Carmen Alvarez and Harry Carroll denied
leave in April, after which Panasonic moved for leave to appeal
and for oral argument before the state Supreme Court.
The court denied the motions without explanation.

"We understood at the outset that the Supreme Court rarely
intervenes at this stage of an ongoing case," but "felt it was
important to establish, on the record, some of the instances where
the judge's decisions limited our ability to best represent our
client," Nukk-Freeman & Cerra managing partner Kerrie Heslin said
in a statement.

"We look forward to presenting facts that will clearly establish
the allegations against Panasonic are entirely unfounded,"
Ms. Heslin added.  "Panasonic is an employer with a culture of
respect and inclusion, and has strict policies in place that
prohibit any form of discrimination or retaliation."

Nancy Erika Smith of Smith Mullin, reached by phone, said her firm
is "ready to try the case and move beyond the obstruction of seven
appeals," and characterized Panasonic's reaction to the sanction
as a "temper tantrum."

"The delay and obstruction has been extraordinary," Ms. Smith
said, adding that she expects to conclude discovery this fall and
move to trial within the next six months.

Michael Griffinger of Gibbons in Newark, who also represents
Panasonic, deferred comment to the company.  Panasonic spokesman
Jim Reilly declined to comment.


PENNSYLVANIA: Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Salvatore Chimenti, Daniel Leyva and David Maldonado, and all
others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Department Corrections
(DOC); John Wetzel, Secretary of the (DOC); Paul Noel, Chief
Medical Director, Pennsylvania DOC; Christopher Oppman, Director,
Bureau of Health Care Services, DOC; Kephart, Dr., Medical
Director at SCI Smithfield, DOC; William Dreibelbis, Correctional
Health Care Administrator, SCI Smithfield, DOC; Weiner, Dr.,
Medical Director, SCI Graterford;  Joseph C. Korszniak,
Correctional Health Care Administrator, SCI Graterford; Correct
Care Solutions (CCS); Nicholas Scharff, Dr., Medical Director,
CCS; Andrew Dancha, Regional Medical Director, CCS; John Hochberg,
Dr., Assistant Medical Director, CCS; Wexford Health Sources,
Inc.; and Thomas Lehman, Dr., Medical Director, Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03333-JP (E.D. Pa.,
June 12, 2015) is brought under the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Angus R. Love, Esq.
          Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
          PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch St., Suite 304S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-2966
          Facsimile: (215) 925-5337
          E-mail: alove@pailp.org
                  smyeh@pailp.org

               - and -

          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP
          The Cast Iron Bldg., Suite 501 South
          718 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400
          Facsimile: (215) 925-5365
          E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Brown, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 994-2240
          Facsimile: (215) 655-2240
          E-mail: stephen.brown@dechert.com


PETROBAS: Pomerantz LLP Wins Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
On behalf of Lead Plaintiff Universities Superannuation Scheme
Ltd. and a putative class of investors, Pomerantz LLP has secured
a significant victory against Brazil's oil conglomerate Petr leo
Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras.

The Company, together with a slew of Individual Defendants, is
alleged to have perpetrated Brazil's biggest graft and money-
laundering scandal to date. Stemming well over a decade, Petrobras
and the Individual Defendants stand accused of colluding to
inflate bids, with Petrobras executives taking bribes and
politicians sharing in the proceeds.  The bribery and money-
laundering scheme is estimated to have diverted tens of billions
of dollars from Petrobras' coffers.  Pomerantz defeated
Defendants' many challenges to its securities fraud claims under
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act,
paving the way to discovery and prosecution of the case.
Pomerantz also secured a victory against the underwriters of
several multi-billion dollar offerings conducted on behalf of
Petrobras during the class period, alleging violations of Section
11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Petrobras securities between
January 22, 2010 and March 19, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Petr leo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras operates as an integrated oil
and gas company in Brazil and internationally. Its Exploration and
Production segment is engaged in the exploration, development, and
production of crude oil, natural gas liquids, and natural gas;
sale and transfer of crude oil in domestic and foreign markets;
and sale of oil products produced at natural gas processing
plants.

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: (1) the Company overstated its
property, plant, and equipment assets on its balance sheet by
overpricing contracts to certain companies relating to its
refineries and operations and accepting kickbacks from
construction companies approved for those contracts; (2) the
Company was receiving multi-billion dollar bribes from third party
contractors to secure contracts from Petrobras; (3) the Company
was in violation of its own Code of Ethics as its employees and
executives were routinely accepting bribes from certain
construction companies; (4) the Company's internal controls over
financial reporting were ineffective and deficient; and (5) as a
result of the foregoing, Petrobras' public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

At its height in 2009, Petrobras was the world's fifth largest
company, with a market capitalization of $310 billion.  Now, amid
the rampant money-laundering and kickback scheme, Petrobras'
market capitalization is less than $55 billion.

Jeremy Lieberman, Partner at Pomerantz LLP commented:  "We are
pleased with the Court's decision, which acknowledged the
sufficiency of Plaintiffs' pleadings against Defendants.  The
duration and scope of the fraud perpetrated by Petrobras and the
Individual Defendants is unprecedented.  We look forward to
aggressively litigating our case and working to achieve a
substantial recovery for harmed shareholders--the true victims of
Defendants' fraud."

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


PHILIP MORRIS: App. Court Ruled on "Skolnick" Smoking Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert M. Gross of the District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Fourth District ruled on the case PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., and R.J.
REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Appellants, v. BEATRICE SKOLNICK, as
personal representative of the ESTATE OF LEO SKOLNICK, deceased,
Appellee, NO. 4D13-4696 (Fla. Dist. App.)

Beatrice Skolnick joined hundreds of plaintiffs in a New York
class action lawsuit (Hicksville Action) against Verizon
Communications Inc. and other defendants responsible for the
operation of the Sylvania Plant, which was located just 500 meters
from Beatrice and Leo Skolnick's Westbury home. The complaint
alleged the facility emitted toxins into the surrounding
environment located in Hicksville, New York, which contaminated
the air, soil, surface water and ground water in the surrounding
communities. Beatrice recovered compensatory damages from
appellants Philip Morris USA Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco
Company. The jury found for the defendants on claims of fraudulent
concealment and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment. The
class action settled for $10,400,000, with Beatrice receiving a
$60,000 share.

Beatrice executed a settlement agreement, containing a release and
covenant not to sue concurrent tortfeasors, where the injury at
issue was her husband's lung cancer.

However, under New York law, the release and covenant not to sue
do not bar the intentional tort claims of fraudulent concealment
and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment. Beatrice cross-
appealed from the defense verdict on the intentional tort counts.

Prior to trial, the defendants moved for summary judgment on their
affirmative defense that Beatrice's tobacco claims were barred by
the settlement agreement not to sue since Beatrice was suing
"other tortfeasors" for the same loss or injury alleged in the
Hicksville Actions. The defendants argued that because the
settlement agreement was defined to include Beatrice's claim for
Leo's lung cancer and death, the covenant not to sue barred her
from suing any other tortfeasors, even if those tortfeasors were
unknown to her at the time she entered into the settlement
agreement. The trial court entered a written order denying the
summary judgment motion.

Judge Gross reversed the judgment for the plaintiff on the strict
liability and negligence counts, and remanded to the circuit court
for the entry of judgment for the defendants.

On the cross-appeal, the appellate court reversed the judgment for
the defendants on the fraudulent concealment and conspiracy
counts, and remanded for a new trial.

A copy of Judge Gross's opinion dated July 15, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/uQxDjBfrom Leagle.com.

Amir C. Tayrani -- atayrani@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP; Joseph H. Lang, Jr. -- jlang@cfjblaw.com -- at
Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.; Peter M. Henk -- phenk@shb.com
-- at Shook Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P., for appellant, Philip Morris
USA, Inc.

Gregory G. Katsas -- ggkatsas@jonesday.com  -- at Jones Day, for
appellant, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

David J. Sales -- at David J. Sales, P.A.; John S. Mills -- at The
Mills Firm, P.A.; Jonathan R. Gdanski --
jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com  -- at Schlessinger Law Offices, P.A.,
for appellee

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District panel
consists of Chief Judge Cory J. Ciklin and Judges W. Matthew
Stevenson and Robert M. Gross.


QUEENSLAND: Abandon Suit Defense, Flood Victims Urge
----------------------------------------------------
Joel Gould, writing for The Queensland Times, reported that the
multi-billion dollar class action by 2011 flood victims against
the State should be settled out of court by the Queensland
Government before it gets to trial.

That is the view of Cr Paul Tully who said the government should
stick to its word from three years ago and be a model litigant in
the matter.

Cr Tully also has the backing of 73-year-old flood victim Frank
Beaumont who was denied an insurance payout because his insurance
company quibbled over the definition of the word 'flood'.

The class action has been launched by law firm Maurice Blackburn
against Seqwater, Sun Water and the State of Queensland on behalf
of 4500 Ipswich and Brisbane plaintiffs who lost homes and
businesses in the 2011 floods.

The hearing has been set down for the Supreme Court of NSW in
Sydney last July 18, 2016.

"The former Labor Government and the LNP both said in 2012 that
they would act as model litigants in this matter," Cr Tully said.

"A lot of people are suffering and still haven't got back to their
homes and I urge the government to settle the claim prior to the
hearing.

"That would need goodwill on both sides, but we don't want
taxpayer money being wasted to lose the case and have to pay out
even more money.

"This would be an appropriate case, based on the material to be
exchanged between the parties over the next 12 months, for the
government to consider a settlement."

An independent investigation by Maurice Blackburn, which took over
a year to complete, concluded that the flooding of a large number
of properties downriver from Wivenhoe Dam in 2011 would not have
occurred had the dam been operated to the standard expected of a
reasonably competent dam operator.

Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk told the QT any decision about a
settlement would be made by Crown Law and that she was not able to
comment.

Mr Beaumont, who was left with just a roof and three walls after
the 2011 floods destroyed his Goodna home, has backed Cr Tully's
call.

His experience mirrors that of many in the community.

"I'm a pensioner and I had to go back to part-time work because we
didn't get any insurance," he said.

"We were insured but the insurance company said they didn't cover
'floods'.

"It is my aspiration that the government would be prepared to
settle out of court.

"I think there is a better chance of that happening under the
Labor Party, but if they wait until July and fight it that will
just be putting us through more pain.

"It will also cost millions of dollars for lawyers if they do
fight it."

Mr Beaumont got a flood victim payment from the government but
because he and his family lost everything in their house they had
to replace household items such as furniture and white goods, and
find accommodation for six months.

The payment did not cover costs and Mr Beaumont said the family
had to borrow money they didn't have to rebuild their home.

"We had to not just rebuild our house. We had to rebuild our
lives," he said

The class action case is being heard in NSW because Queensland
does not allow for class action suits in its courts.

The initial plaintiff lived in NSW and had a flooded property in
Brisbane, entitling them to launch the initial action in NSW.

"That enabled 4500 plaintiffs in Ipswich and Brisbane to join in
the multi-billion dollar class action," Cr Tully said.

"Goodna was the worst affected suburb in the 2011 flood with over
600 properties flooded which included homes and businesses."

"There were a lot of people who were denied insurance because of
technicalities under the definition of 'flood' in their insurance
policies who are still anxiously awaiting the outcome of the class
action."

Cr Tully's own home was flooded in the 2011 floods and he is a
plaintiff in the case against the State.


RANBAXY LABORATORIES: Judge Certifies Class in Provigil Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has certified a class of direct purchasers of the
drug Provigil in their antitrust case against generic drug makers
Ranbaxy Laboratories and Mylan Pharmaceuticals.

U.S. District Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted class status to direct purchaser
plaintiffs who claimed the drug companies delayed the introduction
of a generic version of the wakefulness drug Provigil into the
market.

A $512 million settlement in the case was reached in April between
the plaintiffs and former defendants Cephalon Inc. and generic
drug makers Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. Mylan and
Ranbaxy were not part of that settlement, however.

The litigation surrounds reverse-payment settlements, paid out in
2005 and 2006 between Cephalon and each of the generic
manufacturers, which are alleged to be anti-competitive for
delaying the market entry of generic Provigil, according to
Judge Goldberg's memorandum.

Judge Goldberg said the issues presented in the case, paired with
the number of plaintiffs, favored class status.

"The complexity and extensive history of this case, the expansive
discovery conducted, and the geographic dispersion of the parties
all favor class treatment," Judge Goldberg said.  "While some
factors weigh in defendants' favor, I find those factors less
compelling.  Accordingly, plaintiffs have demonstrated by a
preponderance of the evidence that the parties are sufficiently
numerous so as to make joinder impracticable."

Additionally, Judge Goldberg reasoned that class status was the
most appropriate way to serve judicial economy, given the
exhaustive discovery in the litigation.

The class itself, consisting of 22 members, was defined as "all
persons or entities in the United States and its territories who
purchased Provigil in any form directly from Cephalon at any time
during the period from June 24, 2006, through Aug. 31, 2012,"
according to Judge Goldberg.

The class members alleged that "Cephalon entered into a conspiracy
with each of its generic competitors to restrain trade, and
engineered a larger, overall conspiracy in restraint of trade and
a scheme to monopolize the United States market for modafinil.
The purpose and effect of these conspiracies and scheme were to
prevent and delay generic competition for Provigil," according to
the plaintiffs' court papers.

Cephalon knew, according to the plaintiffs' court papers, that it
would lose "enormous" profits if generic versions of the drug
entered the market.  The plaintiffs alleged that Cephalon entered
into noncompete agreements with the generic drug makers, paying
them large sums to delay the sale of generic Provigil.

However, prior to the $512 million settlement with the direct
purchasers, Cephalon had claimed in its court papers that the
class action was an attempt to "second-guess" the settlements with
the generic manufacturers, which Cephalon maintained did not
violate antitrust laws.

Cephalon argued that as long as the settlements did not restrict
competition to any greater extent than the patent itself, then
they were lawful.

Secondly, Cephalon also had argued in court papers that the class
members lacked standing in the case because they could not
demonstrate that they suffered any concrete, nonspeculative
damages, or that the generic manufacturers would have prevailed in
the underlying patent infringement litigation.

"The courts have recognized that such settlements, rather than
being subject to antitrust scrutiny, should be encouraged to
promote efficiencies and to stimulate innovation by protecting
patent rights," Cephalon's papers said.  "Furthermore, plaintiffs'
claim that they were injured by the settlements rests on
impermissible speculation about what might have happened had the
patent litigation continued."

According to Judge Goldberg, the plaintiffs' expert, Jeffrey
Leitzinger, said that had a generic version of Provigil been
available sooner, the purchasers would have saved a significant
amount of money.

Conversely, the defendants' expert, Janusz Ordover, opined that
while buyers on the lower end of the distribution chain would buy
generics from the direct purchasers, the direct purchasers, who
often buy brand-name drugs exclusively, would actually lose money
once generic drugs entered the market.

Lead plaintiffs attorney in the case, Dianne Nast of NastLaw, did
not return a call seeking comment.  Mylan's attorney, C. Fairley
Spillman -- fspillman@akingump.com -- of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld in Washington, D.C., and Ranbaxy's attorney, Danielle Foley
-- drfoley@Venable.com -- of Venable LLP in Washington, D.C., did
not return calls seeking comment.

In May, Judge Goldberg approved a $1.2 billion settlement between
the Federal Trade Commission and Cephalon over the same
allegations of reverse payments regarding Provigil.

Prior to the settlement, Judge Goldberg denied class certification
to a group of end payors who sued Cephalon for antitrust
violations, among other claims.  The plaintiffs, like those in the
current class, had argued the delay of generic Provigil's entry
into the market forced them to pay more for the medication.


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Guidance Issued on Use of Discount Coupon
---------------------------------------------------------------
Restoration Hardware Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11,
2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that a court in
California has provided additional guidance regarding the manner
in which members in a class action lawsuit can use the 33%
merchandise discount coupon.

On October 21, 2008, Mike Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, filed a class action in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego
against Restoration Hardware, Inc. alleging principally that the
Company violated California's Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of 1971
by requesting and recording ZIP codes from customers paying with
credit cards.

On May 23, 2014, in response to a directive from the Court, the
parties filed a joint statement as to the parties' agreed-upon
claims process for the class members as well as to other matters
related to this proceeding.

On September 5, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees, costs, and awards, and awarded $9.5 million in
fees and costs to plaintiffs' attorneys. The Court entered
judgment on September 29, 2014 and, on November 21, 2014, a class
member filed a notice of appeal from the judgment.

As a result of the appeal, the judgment was stayed until January
10, 2015. The appeal remains pending but the judgment is
enforceable.

As a result of these developments, during fiscal 2014, the Company
recorded a $9.5 million charge related to this matter that was
subsequently decreased to approximately $8 million. The decrease
of approximately $1.5 million was based on a revision of estimated
class member response. On March 16, 2015, the Company, through the
third party claims administrator, began mailing the class action
award to class members.

The Company, through the third party claims administrator, paid
approximately $2.4 million in cash awards to the class members and
mailed 33% discount coupons, good for one year, on purchases up to
$10,000, to class members that did not request the cash award.
During a hearing on April 16, 2015, the Court provided additional
guidance regarding the manner in which class members can use the
33% merchandise discount coupon. Specifically, the court ordered
that the 33% coupons may be combined with the Company's other
promotional offers.


RIDGEWOOD, NJ: Trial Court Judge Erred in Transferring Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division reversed and
remanded the case of TOWNSHIP OF WYCKOFF, BOROUGH OF GLEN ROCK,
and BOROUGH OF MIDLAND PARK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF
RIDGEWOOD, Defendant-Respondent, NO. A-2703-13T4 (N.J. Super. App.
Div.)

Village of Ridgewood is a municipal corporation that owns and
operates the Ridgewood Water Utility. In addition to providing
potable water to the residents of Ridgewood, the Utility fulfills
the potable water needs of the residents of the Township of
Wyckoff, the Borough of Glen Rock, and the Borough of Midland Park
pursuant to franchise agreements.

Wyckoff, Glen Rock, and Midland Park filed an action in lieu of
prerogative writs in the Superior Court, Law Division, challenging
the validity of three ordinances enacted by Ridgewood that
increased the water rates charged by the Utility to its customers
by a total of 31% over the course of 2010, 2011, and 2012.

Plaintiffs contend that the Utility rate ordinances Ridgewood
adopted in 2010, 2011, and 2012 are:

     (1) inconsistent with N.J.S.A. 40A:31-10(a), which requires
annual rental charges to be uniform and equitable for the same
type and class of use;

     (2) in violation of N.J.S.A. 40A:31-10(c), which limits the
type of costs that can be included in establishing water rates;

     (3) in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United
States and New Jersey Constitutions; and

     (4) arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
Defendant asserts the rates established by the three challenged
ordinances are in accordance with the Act and were set at levels
sufficient to pay all of its operational expenses, as authorized
by N.J.S.A. 40A:31-10(c)(1), as well as include sufficient revenue
to establish a surplus or contingency fund to meet unanticipated
expenses, as permitted under N.J.S.A. 40A:31-10(c)(2).
Plaintiffs' case was certified as a class action and after nearly
three years of discovery and motion practice, the parties filed
cross-motions for summary judgment, with both sides claiming the
case was ripe for disposition as a matter of law. Instead of
deciding the summary judgment motions, the Law Division judge
invoked her authority under Rule 1:13-4(a) and sua sponte
transferred the case to the Board of Public Utilities (BPU).
By leave granted, plaintiffs argue the trial court's
interpretation of N.J.S.A. 40A:31-23(e) improperly deprived the
Superior Court of subject matter jurisdiction to decide the
statutory claims raised in the class action. Plaintiffs argue the
Superior Court has express subject matter jurisdiction to
determine legal challenges to municipal ordinances under the
Prerogative Writ Clause of the New Jersey Constitution, N.J.
Const. Art. VI, Section 5.

Alternatively, plaintiffs maintain the Law Division has concurrent
jurisdiction with the BPU to determine the uniformity of the rates
charged by Ridgewood, and the interests of justice and judicial
economy favor allowing the parties to proceed in the Law Division.

Defendant argues that plaintiffs' claims based on a lack of
uniformity in the rates support the motion judge's decision to
transfer the case to the BPU. It argues that the motion judge's
decision is supported by the jurisdictional provision in N.J.S.A.
40A:31-23(e).

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division reversed and
remanded the suit, holding that the motion judge erred in applying
the doctrine of primary jurisdiction transferring the case to the
BPU.

A copy of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division's
opinion dated July, 15, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/28unSi
from Leagle.com.

Steven Siegel -- ssiegel@sillscummis.com -- Joseph B. Fiorenzo --
jfiorenzo@sillscummis.com -- at Sills, Cummis & Gross, counsel for
appellants

William W. Northgrave -- wnorthgrave@msbnj.com -- at McManimon,
Scotland, & Baumann, L.L.C., counsel for respondents

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division panel
consists of Judges Victor Ashrafari, Jose L. Fuentes and Amy
O'Connor.


ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Clerk Sued For Denying Marriage Licenses
----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Fan, writing for WOWKTV.com, reported that the battle
over same-sex marriage continues to rage on in many communities.
Nearly two weeks after the Supreme Court ruling legalized gay
marriage across the country, at least two Kentucky counties are
refusing to issue licenses.

Protestors are still demonstrating outside the Rowan County
courthouse following Clerk Kim Davis's decision to withhold
marriage licenses from same-sex and heterosexual couples. She
denied 13 News's request for an interview on, July 8, but has
stated publicly on many other occasions that she will not issue
licenses because of her religious beliefs.

"I don't understand why you would want to deny the right to love,
because to me one of the fundamental values in the Bible is love,"
said Keisha Reid, who has been protesting outside the courthouse.

Besides the protests, Davis has also be facing warnings of legal
liability. The American Civil Liberties Union in Kentucky filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of four couples against the clerk.

"Ms. Davis has the absolute right to believe whatever she wants
about God, faith, and religion, but as a government official who
swore an oath to uphold the law, she cannot pick and choose who
she is going to serve, or which duties her office will perform
based on her religious beliefs," wrote cooperating attorney Laura
Landenwich in a press release.

But there are also many people in the community that have come to
Davis's defense. One man who did not want to be named stood in
front of her offices with a sign to show his support.

"I think she's doing the right thing," he said. "It's a shame and
a disgrace how Christian people are being attacked."

The case against Davis will be heard at the federal courthouse in
Ashland. According to the ACLU, the Casey county clerk is also
continues to refuse to issue licenses. As of now, no legal action
has been taken there.


SHERIDAN PRODUCTION: "Whisenant" Suit to Remain in W.D. Okla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange of the Western District of
Oklahoma denied plaintiff's motion to remand in the case TONY R.
WHISENANT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SHERIDAN PRODUCTION COMPANY, LLC, CASE NO. CIV-15-
81-M (W.D. Okla.)

Tony Whisenant filed a class action petition, on behalf of himself
and the class of all others persons similarly situated, in the
District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma. Plaintiff bases his
claim on defendant's prior underpayment or non-payment of
royalties owed to plaintiff on natural gas and/or constitutes of
the gas stream produced from wells in Beaver County, Oklahoma.

Plaintiff alleges that defendant, who owned a part of the working
interest in and paid royalty to plaintiff on the wells, breached
the implied covenant of the leases between the parties by its
action and/or inaction. Plaintiff further alleges that defendant
breached its fiduciary duty to the class members by failing to
properly report, account for, and distribute gas to the class
members for their proportionate royalty share of gas production.

Defendant removed the case to the present court alleging
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Plaintiff filed a motion to remand alleging the court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction.  District Judge Miles LaGrange denied
the motion to remand.  A copy of Judge Miles-LaGrange's order
dated July 1, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/WH2Zabfrom
Leagle.com.

Tony R Whisenant, Plaintiff, represented by Rex A Sharp --
rsharp@midwest-law.com -- at Gunderson Sharp & Walke LLP; Michael
E Grant -- at Grant Law Firm

Sheridan Production Company LLC, Defendant, represented by John J.
Griffin, Jr. -- john.griffin@crowedunlevy.com -- Erin P. Sullenger
-- erinpotter.sullenger@crowedunlevy.com -- L Mark Walker --
mark.walker@crowedunlevy.com -- at Crowe & Dunlevy


SILVER WHEATON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Market Watch reported that The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor
rights law firm, announces that it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Silver Wheaton Corp. SLW, -
1.05% securities from March 30, 2011 through July 6, 2015, all
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Silver Wheaton investors under the federal securities
laws.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Silver Wheaton's financial
statements contained errors concerning income tax owed from the
income generated by its foreign subsidiaries; (2) Silver Wheaton
lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Silver Wheaton's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 8, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-662.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.


STORM FINANCIAL: $34MM Deal a Win, Atty Behind Class Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier Mail, reported that the lawyer
behind the class action argued the $34 million settlement was a
win of sorts.

Stewart Levitt of Levitt Robinson contended while 143 litigants
had lost some of their settlement in legal fees, they had still
gotten to take CBA to open court and air internal concerns at CBA
about Storm.

The litigants had had their cake "and got to eat most of it too",
Mr Levitt said.

He further argued litigants had benefited with a longer moratorium
on mortgage repayments.

CBA, in a statement, welcomed the settlement but noted individual
customers would get the same amount offered in 2012 "less legal
costs and plus interest".

Townsville-based Storm Financial was an advisory business with
thousands of clients that saw their share investments smashed in
the global financial crisis. Many had, under Storm's advice, taken
out loans against their homes from banks including CBA to invest
in shares.

Some banks later compensated clients. CBA offered $132 million
under its own resolution scheme.

Then, after the class action started, the Australian Securities
and Investments Commission and CBA brokered a separate deal for up
to $136 million. Some people rejected that offer, continuing with
the class action.

"The people that didn't (settle initially), didn't because they
didn't want the bank off the hook," he said.

But Mr Levitt said a subsequent Federal Court ruling last in a
separate financial case, Quikfund versus Airmark had "effectively
undermined our claim". He had received legal advice that that
ruling put their own case in jeopardy, hence the decision to
settle for the original 2012 offer was put to litigants and
finalised in Federal Court.

"It's still not such a bad offer," he said. "There was not a
single objector" among litigants to setting.

Mr Levitt argued issues including CBA executives' concern about
Storm as far back as 2003 were aired during court hearings, but
the media had lost interest given the collapse occurred more than
five years ago.

Those engaged in litigation will get a $33.7 million settlement,
which falls within CBA's original offer of up to $136 million.
Legal costs were $9.8 million, which Mr Stewart said included the
price of counsel and was actually $4 million less than typical
costs.

Levitt Robinson had success elsewhere, such as it and ASIC
reaching a settlement with Bank of Queensland for $20 million in
September. Mr Levitt estimated litigants in various actions with
banks had won more than $200 million.


SUCCESS ACADEMY: Bronx Parents Intervene in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Chapman and Lisa L. Colangelo, writing for New York Daily
News, reported that 19 Bronx parents whose children were set to
attend a growing Success Academy charter school are trying to
intervene in a lawsuit that could prevent the school from opening
as planned in August.

The class action suit against the charter school -- filed by labor
attorney Arthur Schwartz on behalf of another group of parents --
says the charter at P.S. 145 would take needed resources from
other schools and disabled students.

"It's a school where every single classroom is used," Schwartz
said. Charter school officials and the city dispute that claim and
say the building has excess space.

If the suit succeeds, Success Academy officials say almost 100
third-graders in its Bronx 3 program will have no classrooms when
school starts in six weeks.

"My son needs a space to go to school," said Bernadette Soobyiah,
a full-time mom from Castle Hill, whose son is set to enter third
grade at the charter school when classes start in August. "There's
not another option for him in the area."

A spokesman for the city Law Department said the city is taking
steps to have the lawsuit blocking the charter dismissed.


SUNBELT RENTALS: All-South Subcontractors' Suit Remanded
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge W. Louis Sands, Sr. of the Middle District of
Georgia, Albany Division, ruled on the parties' motions in the
case ALL-SOUTH SUBCONTRACTORS, INC., Plaintiff, v. SUNBELT
RENTALS, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-124 (WLS) (M.D. Ga.)

Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. rents equipment and machinery to
construction companies. All-South Subcontractors was its customer.

All-South filed a complaint before the Superior Court of Dougherty
County, Georgia, alleging breach of contract and related claims.
All-South alleges that Sunbelt assessed customers subject to the
referenced terms more than the amount of money necessary to cover
its direct and indirect costs in violation of the contract.
It proposes two classes, the Refueling Class and the
Transportation Fee Class.

Sunbelt removed the matter to the federal district court. All-
South filed a motion to remand the suit, while Sunbelt filed
motion for judgment on the pleadings and for protective order.

Judge Sands granted plaintiff's motion to remand and denied
defendant's motion for protective order as moot. The case is
remanded to the Superior Court of Dougherty County, Georgia.
Since the case is remanded the court declines to consider the
motion for judgment on the pleadings.

A copy of Judge Sands's order dated July, 14, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/qF86mgfrom Leagle.com.

ALL-SOUTH SUBCONTRACTORS INC, Plaintiff, represented by:

Charles Edward Peeler, Esq.
Patrick S Flynn, Esq.
FLYNN+PEELER+PHILLIPS ATTORNEYS AT LAW
517 W Broad Ave
Albany, GA 31701
Telephone: 229-518-4050
Facsimile: 229-446-4884

     - and -

Nicholas W Armstrong, Esq.
Oscar M Price, Iv, Esq.
PRICE ARMSTRONG LLC
2421 2nd Ave North, Unit 1
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: 205-208-9588
Facsimile: 205-208-9598

     - and -

Taylor C Bartlett, Esq
W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
2224 1st Avenue North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: 205-326-3336
Facsimile: 205-326-3332

SUNBELT RENTALS INC, Defendant, represented by DONALD W LEE --
fredlee@leedurham.com -- at Lee Durham, LLC; IRENE BASSEL FRICK --
irene.bassel@akerman.com -- JASON L MARGOLIN --
jason.margolin@akerman.com -- L JOSEPH SHAHEEN, JR. --
joseph.shaheen@akerman.com -- at Akerman LLP


TARGET CORP: "Barber" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Barber v. Target Corporation, a
Minnesota Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00568, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-05113 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Target Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing And Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2622.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          3636 4th Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: skye@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
          E-mail: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com


TARGET CORP: "Farrell" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Farrell v. Target Corporation,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00635, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05112 to
the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Target Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing And Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2622.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq.
          Tran Hai Thi Nguyen, Esq.
          John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
          E-mail: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com


TARGET CORP: Data Breach Case May Move to Class Action Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Orem, writing for Credit Union Times, reported that five
financial institutions have asked a U.S. District Court for class
action status in their ongoing battle over Target's 2013 data
breach, which compromised approximately 110 million credit and
debit cards.

In their filings, the five plaintiffs -- Umpqua Bank, Mutual Bank,
Village Bank, CSE Federal Credit Union and First Federal Savings
of Lorain -- told the court a combined total of nearly 25,000 of
their issued debit and credit cards were affected by the data
breach.

The vast majority were issued by Umpqua Bank, which said 14,282 of
its Visa-branded debit cards were compromised in the Target data
breach, according to court documents. Umpqua noted that at the
time of the breach, it also had an impending merger with Sterling
Savings Bank, which had approximately 7,314 debit and credit cards
compromised.

First Federal Savings of Lorain reported that approximately 490 of
its debit and credit cards were compromised in the data breach.
Village Bank reported approximately 970 debit cards were
compromised, Mutual Bank reported approximately 1,391 debit cards
were compromised and CSE FCU said approximately 445 of its debit
cards were compromised. All four financial institutions said the
cards were Visa-branded.

"As Target implicitly conceded by its recent failed attempt to
institute a class-type settlement with MasterCard, we believe this
case is appropriate for certification as a class," Charles
Zimmerman of Zimmerman Reed PLLP and Karl Cambronne of Chestnut
Cambronne PA, co-lead plaintiffs' counsel, said in a statement to
CU Times. "We will continue working to hold Target accountable for
the significant losses financial institutions suffered, including
for the costs of reissuing compromised cards and fraud losses that
occurred as a result of the data breach."

Earlier, Target and MasterCard negotiated a $19 million settlement
for card issuers affected by the breach, but the five financial
institutions fought it, telling a Minnesota District Court judge
that, among other things, card issuers should've been included in
the negotiations and that $19 million didn't cover their costs of
dealing with the breach.

The judge denied the injunction request, saying that although "the
terms of the settlement do not appear altogether fair or
reasonable," MasterCard and Target were free to negotiate a
settlement on their own in part because the card issuers lacked
class action status. In May, the settlement derailed anyway when
fewer than the requisite 90% of issuers accepted the offer by
Target's May 20 deadline.

In the latest filings, attorney Gordon Rudd told the court he met
twice with the defendants' counsel to discuss the class
certification but the two sides couldn't agree on the resolution
of any part of the motion. The hearing on class certification is
scheduled for Sept. 10.


TEVA PARENTERAL: Recalls Adrucil(R) Injections Due to Silicone
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teva Parenteral Medicines announced a voluntary recall of six lots
of Adrucil(R) (fluorouracil injection, USP) 5 g/100 mL (50 mg/mL)
due to the potential presence of particulate matter identified as
aggregate of silicone rubber pieces from a filler diaphragm and
fluorouracil crystals. The recalled lots are as follows:

  Lot #     Exp.      Vial     NDC# individual   NDC# carton
  -----     Date      Size     ---------------   of 5 vials
            ----      -----                      -----------
31317857B   8/2015    100 mL   0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31317859B   12/2015   100 mL   0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31317920B   12/2015   100 mL   0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31317957B   12/2015   100 mL   0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31318136B   12/2015   100 mL   0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12
31318138B   12/2015   100 mL   0703-3019-11      0703-3019-12

Administration of an intravenous product with particulate matter
has the potential to result in inflammation, allergic reactions,
or blockage of blood vessels, leading to tissue death, which may
be life-threatening if vital organs are affected. To date, Teva
has not received any reports of adverse events related to this
recall.

Adrucil(R) Injection is used in the palliative management of
carcinoma of the colon, rectum, breast, stomach and pancreas and
is packaged in pharmacy bulk packages. The pharmacy bulk package
has five 5 g/100ml vials per shelf pack. Individual Adrucil(R) 5
g/100 ml vials have the NDC code 0703-3019-11 and the pharmacy
shelf pack has the NDC code 0703-3019-12. The Adrucil(R) 5 g/100
ml vial can be further identified by the statement on the label in
red that states "PHARMACY BULK PACKAGE NOT FOR DIRECT INFUSION".
Adrucil(R) 5 g/100 ml vials were distributed in the United States.
Teva has distributed this product nationwide through wholesalers,
retailers, and pharmacies.

Teva has notified its direct customers by mail and has issued an
Urgent Drug Recall Letter to direct customers. Teva is arranging
for impacted product to be returned to Inmar. Anyone with an
existing inventory of the recalled lots should stop use and
distribution, and quarantine the product immediately. Customers
should notify all users in their facility. Customers who have
further distributed the recalled product should notify any
accounts or additional locations which may have received the
recalled product and instruct them if they have redistributed the
product to notify their accounts, locations or facilities to the
user level.

For medical related questions please contact Medical Information
at 888-838-2872, option 3, then option 4. For a customer service
related question, please contact Teva Customer Service at 800-545-
8800 Monday - Friday; 8:00 - 5:00 EST. Consumers should
immediately contact their physician or healthcare provider if they
have experienced any problems that may be related to taking this
drug product. Teva Parenteral Medicines is voluntarily recalling
the aforementioned product lots with the knowledge of the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm456098.htm


TILLY'S INC: Class Cert. Hearing in "Christiansen" in August
------------------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, in the case, Kristin
Christiansen, Shellie Smith and Paul Haug, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated vs. World of Jeans & Tops,
Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-
2013-00139010, hearing on class certification is expected in
August 2015.

The Company said, "On January 29, 2013, the plaintiffs in this
matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging
violations of California Civil Code Section 1747.08, which
prohibits requesting or requiring personal identification
information from a customer paying for goods with a credit card
and recording such information, subject to exceptions. In June
2013, the Court granted our motion to strike portions of the
plaintiffs' complaint and granted plaintiffs leave to amend.
Plaintiffs have amended the complaint and the parties are
proceeding with discovery on class certification issues. Class
certification briefing is currently expected to conclude in July
2015 with a hearing in August 2015. The complaint seeks
certification of a class, unspecified damages, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees. We intend to defend this case vigorously."


TILLY'S INC: Defending Against "Rebolledo" Action
-------------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. is defending the case, Maria Rebolledo, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated and on behalf of
the general public vs. Tilly's, Inc.; World of Jeans & Tops,
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, Case
No. 30-2012-00616290-CU-OE-CXC, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June
11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015.

The Company said, "On December 5, 2012, the plaintiff in this
matter filed a putative class action lawsuit against us alleging
violations of California's wage and hour, meal break and rest
break rules and regulations, and unfair competition law, among
other things. An amended complaint was filed on February 22, 2013,
to add a claim for penalties under the California Private
Attorneys General Act. In March 2013, we filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which was denied in June 2013 and later affirmed on
appeal. In October 2014, we filed an answer to the amended
complaint. We intend to defend this case vigorously."


TILLY'S INC: Filed Answer to "Whitten" Action
---------------------------------------------
Tilly's, Inc. has filed its answer to the complaint in the case,
Karina Whitten, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Tilly's Inc., Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, Case No, BC 548252, the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June
11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015.

The Company said, "On June 10, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative
class action and representative Private Attorney General Act
lawsuit against us alleging violations of California's wage and
hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair
competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class
certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff filed a first amended
complaint on December 3, 2014, removing the expense reimbursement
claim. We answered the complaint on January 8, 2015. We intend to
defend this case vigorously."


TILLY'S INC: Parties in "Ortiz" Case Discuss Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Herbert Ortiz and Audra Haynes, individually, and on
behalf of the generally public, v. Tilly's Inc., United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California, Case No,
1:15-CV-00108-MJS, the parties stipulated to stay the action while
they discuss settlement, Tilly's said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11,
2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015.

The Company said, "On November 6, 2014, plaintiff filed a putative
class action and representative Private Attorney General Act
lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of California,
County of Fresno, alleging violations of California's wage and
hour, meal break and rest break rules and regulations, and unfair
competition law, among other things. The complaint seeks class
certification, penalties, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees and costs."

"On January 21, 2015, we answered the complaint and removed the
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California. On March 2, 2015, the parties stipulated
to stay the action while they discuss settlement. The parties also
stipulated that if settlement negotiations are unsuccessful, the
plaintiffs' claims will be arbitrated on an individual, and not a
class or representative, basis, as required under the terms of the
arbitration agreements they signed. If the matter does not settle,
the Company intends to defend the case vigorously."


TIME WARNER: Ordered to Pay $230K to Texas Woman in Robocall Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post, reported that it wasn't a robocall, but a
federal judge left a message anyway for companies when he awarded
nearly $230,000 to a Texas woman, finding that a cable company
crossed the line when it harassed her with 153 robocalls even
after she complained about the wrong numbers.

U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan ordered Time
Warner Cable to make the $229,500 payment to Araceli King of
Irving, Tex., citing the New York-based company's "particularly
egregious" behavior as it violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.

King sued last year, saying she had repeatedly asked the company
to stop making the calls.

Susan Leepson, a Time Warner Cable spokeswoman, said the company
is reviewing its options and determining how to proceed.

Hellerstein said he tripled the penalty to $1,500 for each call
because Time Warner Cable's actions were "particularly egregious"
-- it continued making the calls even after King complained in a
seven-minute phone conversation in October 2013 with a company
representative that the calls to her phone were apparently meant
for a customer she did not know.

The judge noted that 74 of the calls were made after the company
received a copy of King's lawsuit in March 2014.

King's attorney, Sergei Lemberg, said the decision sends a message
to consumers to "stop taking it on the chin" when robocalls don't
stop and a message to companies that it's necessary to pay
attention to human beings, even when technology is used to make
repeated calls.


TRACFONE: Pays $45-Mil. to Settle Suit Over Deceptive Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge approved a $45 million judgment against
TracFone for making false claims that its mobile phone contracts
gave customers "unlimited" data.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen approved the settlement on July 2.
TracFone will pay $40 million to the Federal Trade Commission, for
distribution to 1.9 million class members, and another $5 million
in attorneys' fees.

The 2014 consolidated class action claimed TracFone's deceptive
ads misled customers about its prepaid Straight Talk, Net10,
Simple Mobile and TelCel America data plans.

In fact, TracFone "throttled," suspended or terminated service to
customers once they reached a 30-day data limit.

The class sued TracFone under California's Unfair Competition Law,
its Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

The FTC filed a separate enforcement action in January this year.
Chen's approval puts the consolidated class action to rest.

"Depending on the precise injury, a class member experienced
(i.e., whether their service was throttled, suspended or
terminated) and when that injury occurred, class members who made
a claim will receive between roughly $15 and $65 per affected
phone line," Chen wrote. "TracFone further agreed to the entry of
injunctive relief regarding its advertising and disclosure
practices with respect to its 'unlimited' data plans."

Chen said that 1.8 million to 1.9 million customers will
automatically receive payment without filing a claim, while others
must submit a "simple" claims form to recover under the
settlement.

As of June 22, more than 800,000 forms had been submitted,
according to the settlement administrator.

TracFone attorney Ryan Sandrock told Courthouse News he could not
comment on the settlement. The FTC did not return a phone call.

Class counsel will get $5 million in attorneys' fees, plus the
full requested amount of $63,644.75 for costs.


TRUEBLUE INC: "Smalls" Suit Transferred to W.D. North Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the Western District of
Washington, Tacoma, granted defendants' motion to transfer the
case of CRAIG SMALLS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TRUEBLUE, INC., a Washington
corporation; LABOR READY MID-ATLANTIC, INC., a Washington
corporation; and FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., a
Florida corporation, Defendants, CSE NO. 15-CV-5126 RBL (W.D.
Wash.)

Craig Smalls applied for a temporary position at Labor Ready in
North Carolina. Labor Ready required a background check, as it
does with all applicants, and required Smalls to sign an
employment agreement that included an arbitration clause.

Labor Ready engaged a consumer reporting agency, defendant First
Advantage, to assist with the background check, and to grade
applicants either eligible or ineligible for employment. Smalls
was given a score of ineligible.

Smalls sued Labor Ready, claiming the background check process
violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide FCRA-
required notices, disclosures, and documentation related to the
background check. He purports to represent a class of similarly
situated temporary work applicants. Smalls specifically claims
that Labor Ready accepted First Advantage's grade at face value,
without further investigation, and that by failing to notify him
in advance of the adverse action, Labor Ready violated his FCRA
rights.

Smalls asserted that bringing his cause of action in the Western
District of Washington is proper because his injuries allegedly
arose at Western District of Washington. He also maintains that
venue is proper because Labor Ready and TrueBlue are both
Washington corporations. In his claim, Smalls states that the FCRA
disclosure and pre-adverse action notices he challenges were
drafted from the Western District of Washington.

Labor Ready argues that the action could have been brought in
North Carolina and the interests of justice and convenience favor
transferring the case under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).  Defendants
filed a motion to transfer the case to the Western District of
North Carolina.

Judge Leighton granted defendants' motion to transfer, and the
case is transferred to the Western District of North Carolina
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404.

A copy of Judge Leighton's order dated June 26, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/MW6V1sfrom Leagle.com.

Craig Smalls, Plaintiff, represented by Patrick Peluso --
ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com -- Steven L. Woodrow --
swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- Woodrow & Peluso, LLC; Clifford A
Cantor -- at Clifford A Cantor Law Offices

Trueblue, Inc. and Labor Ready Mid-Atlantic, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Bradley Bishop Jones -- bjones@gth-law.com --
Reuben Schutz -- rschutz@gth-law.com -- at GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL
LLP

First Advantage Background Services Corp., Defendant, represented
by Esther Slater McDonald -- emcdonald@seyfarth.com -- Frederick
T. Smith -- fsmith@seyfarth.com -- Thomas J Wybenga --
twybenga@seyfarth.com -- at SEYFARTH SHAW LLP


TUBELITE INC: Fax Sent Not "Advertisement," Says Judge
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Victor A. Bolden of the District of Connecticut
granted defendant's motion to dismiss in the case P&S PRINTING
LLC, d/b/a/ MINUTEMAN PRESS, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Tubelite, Inc.; and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-1441 (VAB) (D. Conn.)

P&S Printing LLC doing business as Minuteman Press, filed a
complaint as a proposed class action against Tubelite, Inc., a
company that specializes in eco-efficient storefront, curtain wall
and entrance systems.

Plaintiff alleges that Tubelite sent an unsolicited advertisement
to its fax, a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, 47
U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA).

Minuteman alleges that Tubelite's conduct violated the TCPA
because Minuteman did not authorize Tubelite to send a fax, nor
did it have a business relationship with Tubelite before the fax
was sent. It further alleges that the fax was an advertisement
that did not have a provision explaining how the recipient could
opt-out or stop receiving the fax, as required by the statute and
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation.  Minuteman
claims that the allegations establish that Tubelite negligently
violated of the TCPA and, accordingly, seeks damages and
injunctive relief.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Bolden granted in
his ruling dated July 17, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://goo.gl/2RpGPWfrom Leagle.com.

P & S Printing LLC, Plaintiff, represented by:

Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
Alexander T. Hornat, Esq.
Stephen F Taylor, Esq.
Lemberg & Associates, LLC
1100 Summer St
Stamford, CT 06905
Telephone: 855-301-2100

Tubelite, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles K. Seyfarth --
charles.seyfarth@leclairryan.com -- Michael G. Caldwell --
michael.caldwell@leclairryan.com -- at LeClairRyan


UBER: Challenges Class Suit Over Employee Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Katy Steinmetz, writing for Time, reported that Uber filed a
motion in a California court opposing a class action lawsuit
against the company, marking the latest salvo in the increasingly
pitched battle over how workers are treated in the multi-billion
dollar on-demand economy.

The lawsuit filed in California's Northern District Court alleges
that Uber drivers in California should be classified as employees
rather than independent contractors. Uber challenged the
certification of the class in its motion, arguing that the more
than 160,000 Uber drivers in the state have "little or nothing in
common," aside from having downloaded and used the Uber app "at
some point over the past six years."

The suit is one of several pending cases that could have profound
implications for the on-demand economy, which includes some of the
world's hottest technology startups. Companies like six-year-old
Uber, now valued at $50 billion, have been able scale fast in part
because they classify many of their workers as independent
contractors, which frees them from costly obligations like
remitting payroll taxes and paying worker's compensation and other
duties that typically accompany an employer-employee relationship.
Nor does the company reimburse drivers for expenses like gas and
car maintenance, which the lawsuit alleges are owed to tens of
thousands of drivers for years of work.

In its motion, Uber argues that a successful class action suit
"could force Uber to restructure its entire business model." It
could also have a ripple effect across the burgeoning startup
culture, leading other companies with similar structures to
recalibrate. In addition to the case against Uber, lawsuits
challenging the status of workers are pending against Lyft, Uber's
chief U.S. rival; Postmates, which offers on-demand delivery;
Homejoy, which offers on-demand cleaning; and Instacart, an on-
demand grocery shopping service.

The lawyers pursuing these cases believe that the companies are
skirting labor laws by identifying themselves as technology
platforms that connect willing workers with users who need
services, rather than, say, a taxi service that employs drivers.
"They're claiming there's something new and different because
their services are provided through technology, through a
smartphone," Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lawyer for the plaintiffs
in the suit against Uber, told TIME in an earlier interview. "But
there's nothing new about this."

Uber is adamant that they are not a traditional employer. Its
motion challenging the class certification emphasizes the variety
among drivers, the different amounts and ways they use Uber's app
and the various terms of agreement they have with the company. The
filing also included declarations of from about 400 drivers in the
state, many of whom say they value the freedom of the current
arrangement and don't want anything to change. "I don't want
anyone to take away this flexibility by suing Uber," writes an
L.A.-based UberX driver named Janice Fry.

The company says a ruling against it could eliminate that
independence. "As employees, drivers would drive set shifts, earn
a fixed hourly wage, and lose the ability to drive using other
ridesharing apps as well as the personal flexibility they most
value," Uber said in a statement.

For example, Uber emphasizes that many of its drivers also work
for competing companies like Lyft and Sidecar, and sometimes have
multiple companies apps on at once. In its motion, Uber claims the
suit "would force drivers to pick one app over all others."


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Under Probe for Deceptive Practices
----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Flaherty, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
University of Phoenix, which runs an online college popular among
military veterans, is under federal investigation for possible
deceptive or unfair business practices, its parent company the
Apollo Education Group told shareholders on July 29.

The for-profit, publicly traded company is the largest recipient
of federal student aid for veterans and often a sponsor at
military education and employment events.  Since 2009, when the GI
Bill expanded student aid benefits for veterans, the University of
Phoenix online program has collected more than $488 million in
tuition and fees for veterans -- a figure that dwarfs nearly every
other institution identified as a GI recipient by the Department
of Veterans Affairs.

In a filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the company
disclosed that it had received a "civil investigative demand" from
the Federal Trade Commission.  According to the document,
investigators asked for information on a "broad spectrum" of
matters, including marketing, recruiting, enrollment, financial
aid, tuition, academic programs, billing and debt collection, as
well other facets of the business.  The filing lists "military
recruitment" as one of the areas the FTC is examining.

The filing said Apollo is "evaluating the demand and intends to
cooperate fully with the FTC."

Apollo and the FTC declined to comment further.

The FTC probe is the latest of several state and federal
investigations into the for-profit college industry.  Critics say
many of these colleges are aggressive in recruiting students who
qualify for large amounts of federal student aid, including GI
money.  But the credits often don't transfer to other schools and
aren't recognized by employers.

Industry officials say they are unfairly being scrutinized, and
say for-profit schools have expanded education opportunities to
communities that wouldn't otherwise have access.

On July 1, new federal rules went into effect for any school with
a career-training program. Graduates have to be able to earn
enough money to repay their student loans, or a school risks
losing access to financial aid. Consumer advocates say the
regulation is a first step toward reining in the industry.  But,
they add, because the regulation looks at employment rates for
graduates, it won't affect schools with high dropout rates.

The University of Phoenix has collected more than a half a billion
dollars in GI assistance since 2009.  While its online program
received $488 million, its campuses also took in large sums to
educate vets.  In San Diego, Calif., for example, its campus
received $134 million in GI tuition assistance, while its campus
in Costa Mesa, Calif., received $122 million.

By comparison, the top recipient of GI tuition assistance among
public institutions is the University of Maryland-University
College, with $150 million in GI tuition since 2009.


URANERZ ENERGY: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU
-----------------------------------------------------
Uranerz Energy Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 11, 2015, that
counsel for the parties in a class action lawsuit have entered
into a memorandum of understanding, in which they agreed on the
terms of a settlement of the consolidated action.

On January 4, 2015, Uranerz Energy Corporation, a Nevada
corporation ("Uranerz" or the "Company"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Energy
Fuels Inc., an Ontario corporation ("Energy Fuels"), and EFR
Nevada Corp., a Nevada corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
a subsidiary of Energy Fuels ("Merger Sub"). The Merger Agreement
provides for a business combination whereby Merger Sub will merge
with and into the Company (the "Transaction"), and as a result the
Company will continue as the surviving operating corporation and
as an indirectly wholly owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels.

This Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed in connection with
a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement
of certain litigation related to the Merger Agreement.

As contemplated by the MOU, Uranerz is providing certain
additional disclosures to those contained in the definitive proxy
statement/prospectus on Schedule 14A filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on May 27, 2015 (the "proxy
statement/prospectus") and mailed on or about May 29, 2015 to the
Uranerz shareholders of record as of the close of business on May
26, 2015 in connection with the solicitation of proxies for use at
the special meeting of shareholders of Uranerz to be held on June
18, 2015, at 10:00 A.M., local time, at Casper Petroleum Club,
1301 Wilkins Circle, Casper, Wyoming, U.S.A., 82601. The purpose
of the special meeting of shareholders of Uranerz is to vote on
the approval of the Transaction and related matters.

Litigation Related to the Merger

As disclosed on pages 24 and 151 of the proxy statement/prospectus
under the caption "Litigation Related to the Transaction,"
Uranerz, all of its directors, Energy Fuels, and Merger Sub were
named as defendants in the following putative shareholder class
action suits in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada and the
District Court of Washoe County, Nevada: Barrett v. Uranerz Energy
Corp., et al., No. A-15-711942-C (Clark Cnty.); Foreman v.
Catchpole, et al., No. A-15-712125-C (Clark Cnty.); Travirca v.
Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-712318- C (Clark Cnty.);
Heims v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-712379 (Clark
Cnty.); Bouch v. Uranerz Energy Corp, et al., No. A-15-712441-B
(Clark Cnty.); Toderash v. Higgs, et al., No. A-15-712433-C (Clark
Cnty.); Stern v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-712618-B
(Clark Cnty.); Lang v. Higgs, et al., No. CV-15-00115 (Washoe
Cnty.); Zimmer v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-712718-B
(Clark Cnty.); Prewitt v. Uranerz Energy Corp., et al., No. A-15-
713683 (Clark Cnty.). These suits generally allege claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and related claims regarding the
Transaction and seek, inter alia, prohibition and/or rescission of
the Merger Agreement, and attorneys' fees and costs. All of the
cases in Clark County have been consolidated under the caption In
Re Uranerz Energy Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Lead Case
No. A-15-711942-B. A motion is pending to transfer the Washoe
County case to Clark County, or stay the Washoe County case
pending resolution of the consolidated case in Clark County.

On May 18, 2015, the lead plaintiffs in Clark County filed a
consolidated amended complaint, asserting claims similar to those
brought in the original complaints and adding claims relating to
the disclosures included by Uranerz and Energy Fuels in the Form
F-4 registration statement filed by Energy Fuels with the SEC on
May 8, 2015.

On June 10, 2015, counsel for the parties in the lawsuit (as
consolidated) entered into the MOU, in which they agreed on the
terms of a settlement of the consolidated action, including the
dismissal with prejudice of the action and a release on behalf of
individual plaintiffs and the class of shareholders alleged in the
consolidated amended complaint of all claims made therein or that
could have been made therein against all of the defendants. The
proposed settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the
execution of an appropriate stipulation of settlement,
consummation of the Transaction, and final approval of the
proposed settlement by the Court. In addition, in connection with
the settlement and as provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate
that plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance that
the Transaction will be consummated, that the parties ultimately
will enter into a stipulation of settlement, or that the Court
will approve the settlement even if the parties enter into such
stipulation. If the settlement conditions are not met, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU would become void.
The settlement will not affect the amount of the Transaction
consideration that Uranerz stockholders are entitled to receive in
the Transaction.

The defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have
committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the consolidated
action described above or otherwise in relation to the
Transaction, and believe that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the proxy statement/prospectus under any applicable
laws. The defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed
settlement described above solely to avoid the substantial burden,
expense, risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued
litigation, including the risk of delaying or adversely affecting
the Transaction.


VIRGINIA: Solitary-Confinement Suits Head to Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
legal challenges to solitary-confinement policies are working
their way through the federal courts to the U.S. Supreme Court
faster than one justice in particular may have anticipated.

On June 18, in a concurring opinion in Davis v. Ayala, Justice
Anthony Kennedy signaled his concerns about the "terrible price"
exacted by prolonged solitary confinement on prisoners' mental and
physical health, as well as the "many issues" that confinement
presents.

He ended by saying, "In a case that presented the issue, the
judiciary may be required, within its proper jurisdiction and
authority, to determine whether workable alternative systems for
long-term confinement exist, and, if so, whether a correctional
system should be required to adopt them."

Less than three weeks later, a petition for review in Prieto v.
Clarke was filed in the high court raising a due-process challenge
to Virginia's policy of permanently assigning death-sentenced
prisoners to solitary confinement.

"Some Virginia inmates have been maintained in solitary
confinement for over 15 years without any review of whether their
conditions are appropriate," wrote Alfredo Prieto's counsel,
Michael Bern -- michael.bern@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins.

Before the year ends, at least two federal court trials are
scheduled in solitary-confinement challenges: a California class
action involving Pelican Bay State Prison inmates who raise Eighth
Amendment and due-process claims, and a due-process challenge by
Albert Woodfox, the last of the so-called Angola 3, who has spent
more than 40 years in solitary confinement for the 1972 murder of
a Louisiana prison guard.

On its way back for trial is a South Carolina case -- Incumaa v.
Stirling -- in which a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit found a triable question of whether a prisoner,
serving life without parole, has ever had meaningful review of his
20 years in solitary confinement.

"It's very, very hard to raise these issues, but the reality is
there are a lot of people in solitary confinement," said
Steven Goldblatt, director of the appellate litigation program at
Georgetown University Law Center.  Mr. Goldblatt and the program's
supervising attorney, Ruthanne Deutsch, represented Lumumba
Incumaa in the Fourth Circuit.

The difficulty is that the cases generally are pro se litigation,
Mr. Goldblatt said.  "[The prisoners] are not making the right
record and not articulating issues when they get up on appeal," he
said. And if confinement is anything less than five years, he
added, it is nearly impossible to succeed.

"We're hoping that with cases like Incumaa, and with Justice
Kennedy's language in Ayala, we're going to see lawyers making
these records and we may see a huge difference," he said.

                     Death and Due Process

Mr. Prieto, convicted of two capital murders, is one of eight
death-sentenced Virginia inmates who, under state policy, must be
confined permanently to single cells in a prison unit known as
death row until executed.  The solitary-confinement conditions,
the Fourth Circuit panel that ultimately ruled against him said,
are "undeniably severe.  Indeed, the district court, perhaps
correctly, described the isolation that characterizes Virginia's
death row as 'dehumanizing.' "

After six years on death row, Mr. Prieto brought an action
claiming his confinement violated his procedural due-process and
Eighth Amendment rights.  The district court dismissed his Eighth
Amendment claim, but found that conditions on Virginia's death row
were "eerily reminiscent" of those the Supreme Court in a 2005
decision said implicated a liberty interest protected by the due-
process clause.

And because these conditions were "uniquely severe" and pervasive
compared to the conditions of the general prison population, the
district court held that Mr. Prieto had established a due-process
liberty interest in avoiding them.  Mr. Prieto's automatic and
permanent assignment to death row did not afford him
constitutionally adequate process, the judge said.

A divided three-judge appellate panel reversed. The majority held
that Mr. Prieto was wrong in arguing that harsh and atypical
confinement itself gave rise to a due-process liberty interest.
Instead, Mr. Prieto first had to show that some state law or
policy gave rise to his due process right or liberty interest in
avoiding those conditions.  And second, he had to demonstrate that
those conditions were harsh and atypical in relation to the
"ordinary incidents of prison life."

The state's policy of automatic and permanent assignment to death
row, the majority said, foreclosed any due-process expectation or
right of capital offenders to any other housing assignment.  And
under Virginia law assigning capital offenders to death row, it
added, the "ordinary incidents of prison life" for those inmates
are housing on death row.

In his high court petition, Mr. Prieto's counsel urges the
justices to resolve differences among the circuits on two issues:
whether inmates must point to an entitlement in state laws or
rules and not to the confinement conditions themselves to
establish a due-process liberty interest; and what is the baseline
for measuring the "ordinary incidents of prison life" in any
particular prison system.

                      From Seven to 40 Years

Four months after the Prieto decision, a different Fourth Circuit
panel (except for one member) reached a different result when
applying the two-step test in Prieto to Lumumba Incumaa's claim
that his 20 years in solitary confinement violated his due-process
rights.

The unanimous panel held that he had established a protected
liberty interest in avoiding that confinement because department
policy required review of the lifer's confinement every 30 days.
And, it said, Mr. Incumaa's solitary confinement amounted to
atypical and significant hardship in relation to the ordinary
conditions for the general prison population.  Mr. Incumaa has had
no disciplinary infractions in 20 years.

The panel remanded his case for trial on whether the corrections
department's process for determining which prisoners are fit for
release from solitary confinement meets minimum requirements of
procedural due process.

"There is a role for solitary confinement in American prisons,"
said George Kendall of Squire Patton Boggs.  "If somebody is a
danger or threat to the general order of prison, and the state can
make the case for that, it can continue to hold the prisoner
there.  But you can't hold someone there for something that
happened four decades ago."

Albert Woodfox, now 68, entered solitary confinement more than 40
years ago after his conviction with two others for his role in the
1972 murder of a prison guard.  Mr. Woodfox was serving a 50-year
sentence for armed robbery in Louisiana's Angola prison at the
time of the murder.  Mr. Kendall has represented him since 2005.

Mr. Woodfox's conviction has been overturned twice, and a federal
district judge recently barred a third trial and ordered his
release based on his age and poor health; his limited ability to
present a defense at a third trial in light of the unavailability
of witnesses; the court's lack of confidence in the state to
provide a fair third trial; the prejudice done to him by more than
40 years in solitary confinement; and the state's inability to
secure a valid conviction after two trials.

A Fifth Circuit panel on June 12 blocked the judge's order in
Woodfox v. Cain, pending the state's appeal.  Besides the Fifth
Circuit litigation, Mr. Kendall has a separate lawsuit raising
Mr. Woodfox's due-process challenge to his solitary confinement.
The trial is scheduled for Nov. 9.A Dec. 15 federal trial is
scheduled in Ashker v. Brown, a class action filed by the Center
for Constitutional Rights in 2012 on behalf of prisoners in
California's Pelican Bay Security Housing Unit who have spent
between 10 and 28 years in solitary confinement.  The prisoners
argue that prolonged solitary confinement violates the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, and
that the absence of meaningful review for security-unit placement
violates the prisoners' rights to due process.

"Where there is real assessment of these prisoners in about half
the states, most states are finding you can drop these populations
and have fewer security problems," said Mr. Kendall, pointing to
Mississippi as an example.

If the Supreme Court ultimately takes up a solitary-confinement
case, he added, much will depend on the facts.  "You could see a
rule that would say [that] if someone is in solitary confinement
for more than five years, there has to be some clear, recurring
reason," he said.  "Things are clearly turning on some of this
stuff.  There's a broad bipartisan coalition in Congress for
[criminal justice] reform.  I think there's hope."


WALGREEN CO: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Clemmons v. Walgreen Co., Case
No. 5:15-cv-05032, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05071 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Judy Simmons Henry, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
          200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 212-1391
          Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
          E-mail: jhenry@wlj.com


WALGREEN CO: "Kardasz" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kardasz v. Walgreen Co., Case No.
4:15-cv-00251, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05077 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Medler, Jr., Esq.
          MEDLER LAW FIRM
          7700 Bonhomme, Suite 360
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 727-8777
          Facsimile: (314) 727-7001
          E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale L. Beckerman, Esq.
          DEACY AND DEACY, LLP
          920 Main Street, Suite 1900
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-4000
          Facsimile: (816) 421-7880
          E-mail: dlb@deacylaw.com


WALGREEN CO: "Trinidad" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Trinidad v. Walgreen Co., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00090, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05102
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723-1600
          Facsimile: (513) 723-1620
          E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          Robert Brent Sherwood, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  rsherwood@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com


WAL-MART STORES: Gender Discrimination Suit Reinstated
------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reported that a
federal appeals court has reinstated one of the cases filed by
smaller groups of plaintiffs in the long-standing Wal-Mart Stores
Inc. gender discrimination lawsuit, overturning a lower court
ruling that had dismissed the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court held in its 2011 ruling in Betty Dukes et
al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that a proposed gender discrimination
class of 1.5 million failed to identify a "common mode of
exercising discretion that pervades the company." Since then,
smaller groups of plaintiffs have filed lawsuits around the United
States seeking class certification.

In its ruling the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati
held in Cheryl Phipps et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. that
plaintiffs were not time-barred from pursuing their litigation and
reinstated the case.

Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart had successfully persuaded
the U.S. District Court in Nashville, Tennessee, that plaintiffs
were not eligible to pursue their case because the statute of
limitations had run out.

Wal-Mart said an earlier case established that the statute of
limitations was not suspended in the case because it prohibited
any class action brought after a previous denial of class
certification was applicable, according to the ruling.

An appeals court panel disagreed, in a 2-1 ruling. "Courts may be
required to decide whether a follow-on class action or particular
issues raised within it are precluded by earlier litigation, but
we would eviscerate (the federal rule governing class actions) if
we were to approve the blanket rule advocated by Wal-Mart . . .
that bars all follow-on class actions," said the 2-1 ruling.

The ruling said, however, that its opinion was limited to whether
the plaintiffs may initiate the lawsuit. "Whether the proposed
classes are appropriate for certification is not at issue here,"
said the ruling.

In a related case in 2013, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer
in San Francisco ruled that a proposed class of 150,000 plaintiffs
faced the same problems that led the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011 to
reject the 1.5 million-member class: They did not identify a
"common mode of exercising discretion that pervades the company,''
as the high court had ruled in 2011.

The smaller group of women that worked in the California area, as
did the larger group, alleged they were paid less and promoted
less often than men.

In the ruling, Judge Breyer basically said that while there may be
a certifiable class in the group of 150,000, "it has to be a whole
lot smaller," said one observer.


WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jones v. Wal Mart Stores Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00085, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05081
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney MacCarone, Esq.
          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com
                  srowley@zlk.com

               - and -

          Nancy Kulesa, Esq.
          Shannon Hopkins, Esq.
          Stephanie Bartone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com
                  sbartone@zlk.com

               - and -

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates, III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 312-5800
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  hbates@carneywilliams.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com
                  quattlebaum@qgtb.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Marshall" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Marshall, et al. v. Walmart
Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60246, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-05088 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Rachel Lynn Soffin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          One Tampa City Center, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dora Faye Kaufman, Esq.
          HALEY, SINAGRA, PAUL & TOLAND, P.A.
          100 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1900
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 467-1300
          Facsimile: (954) 467-1372
          E-mail: DKaufman@lgplaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Sparks" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sparks v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-05031, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05082 to
the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          Facsimile: (479) 845-2198
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
                  bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq.
          12870 U.S. Hwy. 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Toll Free: (888) 837-2281
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          Facsimile: (850) 837-4093

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          E-mail: piercegore@gorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 380-5018
          Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          PO Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628

The Defendant is represented by:

          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com
                  quattlebaum@qgtb.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Stevens" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Stevens v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00243 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05103 to
the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Estok, Esq.
          LINDSAY HART LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503) 226-7677
          Facsimile: (503) 226-7697
          E-mail: mestok@lindsayhart.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anne M. Talcott, Esq.
          SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, PC
          1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1800
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 796-2991
          Facsimile: (503) 796-2900
          E-mail: atalcott@schwabe.com


WEN BY CHAZ DEAN: Loses Bid to Dismiss Case Over Product Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the Central District of
California denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case CARYN
COLLAZO; KYM HALL; CINDY PETERSON; CAROL SAUER; KRIS THORSEN
MICHELS; and AMANDA TAPSCOTT, Plaintiffs, v. WEN BY CHAZ DEAN,
INC.; GUTHY-RENKER LTD.; GUTHY-RENKER PARTNERS, INC.; and GUTHY-
RENKER LLC, Defendants, CASE NO. 2:15-CV-01974-ODW-AGR (C.D. Cal.)

WEN by Chaz Dean is a hair care product line developed by Los
Angeles-based hair stylist, Chaz Dean, in collaboration with
Guthy-Renker, a large direct-marketing company. WEN products are
primarily distributed through direct marketing techniques,
including infomercials, television ads, magazine ads, QVC, and the
WEN website. Defendant Wen by Chaz Dean, Inc. is a California
corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Monica,
California. Defendants Guthy-Renker, Ltd., Guthy-Renker Partners,
Inc., and Guthy-Renker LLC are Delaware corporations with their
principal place of business in Santa Monica, California.

Caryn Collazo, Kym Hall, Cindy Peterson, Carol Sauer, Kris Thorsen
Michels, and Amanda Tapscott alleges that they purchased WEN hair
care products after viewing defendants' various advertisements,
which consisted of an extensive marketing campaign, including the
use of ubiquitous infomercials and television advertising with
celebrity testimonials, the internet and widely circulated popular
style and fashion magazines. Plaintiffs claim that one or more of
WEN products acts as a depilatory or caustic agent, that damages
the hair strand and/or follicle, and that defendants failed to
disclose and properly warn plaintiffs of the hazardous ingredient.
Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or should have known of
WEN's hazards, but they continued to conceal the dangers of the
products and continued to claim that WEN products were safe when
properly applied.

Plaintiffs raise six causes of action: (1) breach of warranty; (2)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus.
& Prof. Code Sections 17200 et seq.; (3) violation of California's
False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17500
et seq.; (4) failure to warn negligence; (5) failure to test
negligence; and (6) strict product liability.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' UCL and FAL
causes of action.

Judge Wright denied defendants' motion to dismiss

A copy of Judge Wright's order dated July 17, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/sTIqh2from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Amy E Davis -- adavis@cdbfirm.com -- at
Christiansen Davis LLC; & David E Rosen -- drosen@murphyrosen.com
-- at Murphy Rosen LLP

Wen By Chaz Dean, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael B
Giaquinto -- mgiaquinto@hptylaw.com -- Barry R Schirm --
bschirm@hptylaw.com -- at Hawkins Parnell Thackston and Young LLP

Guthy-Renker Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jonathan Michael
Jackson -- jonathan.jackson@lw.com -- at Latham and Watkins LLP

Guthy-Renker Partners, Inc. and Guthy-Renker LLC, Defendants,
represented by Dina M Cox -- dcox@lewiswagner.com -- at Lewis
Wagner LLP; Jonathan Michael Jackson -- jonathan.jackson@lw.com --
at Latham and Watkins LLP


WILLIAM WARREN: Removes "Holbach" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Holbach v. The William Warren
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-002758-CI, was removed from the
Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Tampa).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-
01387-RAL-EAJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in unlawful
employment practices and discriminated against him on account of
his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew E. Costello, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          18100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 750
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 202-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 202-3001
          E-mail: matthew.costello@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          Tamara I. Devitt, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          600 Anton Blvd., Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 202-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 202-3001
          E-mail: tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          W. Drew Sorrell, II, Esq.
          LOWNDES, DROSDICK, DOSTER, KANTOR & REED, PA
          215 N Eola Dr.
          PO Box 2809
          Orlando, FL 32802-2809
          Telephone: (407) 843-4600
          Facsimile: (407) 843-4444
          E-mail: drew.sorrell@lowndes-law.com


WINDSOR SURRY: Judge Narrows Claims in "Cover" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick of the Northern District of
California granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
in the case MCLANE COVER, Plaintiff, v. WINDSOR SURRY COMPANY, et
al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14-CV-05262-WHO (N.D. Cal.)

McLane Cover installed TrimBoard manufactured and marketed by
Windsor Surry Company on his home in Rhode Island in 2005. He
selected TrimBoard in reliance on the recommendations of his
architect, contractor, and carpenter, all of whom were familiar
with TrimBoard, including its marketing materials and warranty.
Windsor's warranty guarantees the TrimBoard's "end and edge gluing
for 10 years and its primer for 5 years.

Cover alleges that, contrary to Windsor's representations,
TrimBoard is unable to withstand normal weather conditions,
absorbs moisture and water at an extremely rapid rate, is
manufactured utilizing low cost, low performance pine, and uses
adhesive that is non-waterproof and unsuitable for exterior use.
He alleges that these deficiencies lead to water absorption and
prematurely decayed, rotted, split, warped and discolored trim.

Cover alleges seven causes of action: (i) violation of
California's False Advertising Law (FAL), Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code
Sections 17500, et seq.; (ii) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Profs. Code Sections 17200, et
seq.; (iii) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750, et seq., (iv) breach of
express warranty; (v) breach of implied warranty of
merchantability; (vi) negligence; and (vii) declaratory and
injunctive relief.

Defendants move to dismiss the complaint arguing that the UCL,
FAL, and CLRA claims are time-barred because they accrued in 2005
when Cover's agents purchased the TrimBoard. Windsor argues that
the claims are not tolled by the discovery rule or equitable
tolling.

Judge Orrick granted in part and denied defendants' motion to
dismiss. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 30 days of
the order.

A copy of Judge Orrick's order dated July 17, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/pjAhNwfrom Leagle.com.

McLane Cover, Plaintiff, represented by:

Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq.
Michael Andrew McShane, Esq.
Audet & Partners LLP
221 Main St #14160
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: 415-568-2555
Facsimile: 415-568-2556

     - and -

Charles E. Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- at Levin Fishbein
Sedran Berman; Shawn J. Wanta -- sjwanta@baillonthome.com -- at
Baillon Thome Jozwiak Wanta LLP

Defendants, represented by Raymond Edward Loughrey --
ray@loughreylaw.com -- at Law Office of Raymond E. Loughrey;
Robert Ted Parker -- at Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Preston Gates &
Ellis LLP


WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Schubert Jonckheer Probes Officers, Directors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP is
investigating whether certain officers and directors of World
Acceptance Corporation (NASDAQ: WRLD) breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company and its shareholders.

On April 22, 2014, a class action was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the World Acceptance stock during the period January
30, 2013 through April 28, 2014.  The class action alleges that
the company violated the federal securities laws by issuing false
and misleading statements regarding the company's value and
growth, and engaging in and concealing deceitful business and
lending practices, which caused the market price of World
Acceptance shares to be inflated during the class period.  The
suit further alleges that during the class period, World
Acceptance routinely boosted its effective interest rates through
two practices: the company bilked customers into purchasing
worthless credit insurance products and manipulated them into
refinancing loans, ignoring underwriting standards and improperly
recording such loans in violation of GAAP, in order to create the
misleading perception of significant loan growth.

On May 28, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss the class
action complaint was denied.

Current World Acceptance shareholders who purchased their shares
prior to January 30, 2013 may be able to pursue a shareholder
derivative action through which World Acceptance insiders may be
held accountable for their actions, prevent future misconduct, and
bring long-term value back to the company.
If you currently own World Acceptance stock and wish to obtain
additional information about the investigation and your legal
rights, please contact Miranda P. Kolbe either via email at
mkolbe@schubertlawfirm.com or by telephone at (415) 788-4220, or
fill out the form on our website at
http://classactionlawyers.com/worldacceptance

                About Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe

Schubert Jonckheer & Kolbe has extensive experience in prosecuting
securities claims, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits.  Attorney advertising.  Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


* Angeion Expands West Cost Class Suit Presence with Kyle Mason
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angeion Group announced the addition of Kyle A. Mason as Vice
President of Class Action & Mass Tort Services. Kyle brings over a
decade of legal consultative experience with him to Angeion Group
where he is responsible for developing customized solutions for
clients' unique project demands. Kyle is known in the industry as
having both "deep institutional knowledge" and an "impeccable bed-
side manner" according to Christopher Chimicles, President of
Angeion Group.

"Kyle provides keen consultative advice on all aspects of class
action and mass tort settlement administration, from notice
planning and implementation through disbursements, and we are
pleased to have him on our team," said Chimicles. "His background
fits seamlessly with Angeion's strength in leveraging innovative
technologies to ensure that each settlement administration is
completed accurately, efficiently, and cost-effectively."

Prior to joining Angeion Group, Kyle was employed by a nationally-
recognized class action settlement administrator and was central
to building a stronger brand presence in the Western Region's
major markets as well as establishing relationships and expanding
opportunities with key class action attorneys and firms on both
sides of the bar. Kyle achieved success by honing his consulting
skills on several key areas, includng consumer finance, data
breach and products; TCPA; antitrust; and mass tort matters. Prior
to claims administration, Kyle held leadership positions in the
medical record review and medical record retrieval industries,
including prominent positions at one of the largest national
record retrieval companies in the United States as well as tenure
at one of the leading companies providing medical record reviews,
medical bill audits and life care planning services in the mass
tort space.

                        ABOUT ANGEION GROUP

Angeion Group is an industry-leading provider of turnkey services
for claims administration and litigation support. The company's
service offerings include class action claims administration,
legal noticing services including mass mailings of data breach
notification letters, bankruptcy administration, mass tort
administration, electronic discovery, document review and court
reporting. Headquartered in Philadelphia in a state-of-the-art
14,000 square foot processing center, Angeion is operationally-
equipped to meet the needs of the largest and most complex cases.
Additional information on the company can be found at
www.angeiongroup.com.

Angeion Group
Douglas S. Clauson
Director, Communications
(215) 563-4116


* Capstone Law APC Hires Class Suit Lawyer, Bevin Pike
------------------------------------------------------
Capstone Law APC, a Los Angeles-based class action firm, has hired
Bevin Allen Pike as Senior Counsel. Ms. Pike, who has been
recognized as a California Super Lawyers "Rising Star" every year
from 2012 through 2015, previously practiced with Khorrami Boucher
Sumner Sanguinetti. She will focus primarily on wage-and-hour
class actions at Capstone Law.

"We are thrilled to have Bevin Pike join our accomplished team of
class action litigators as Senior Counsel. Bevin brings to
Capstone Law her wealth of experience in certifying and litigating
employment class actions up through the appeals process, and is a
valued addition to the firm," remarked Capstone Law partner
Rebecca Labat.

Ms. Pike has extensive experience in the prosecution of labor and
employment class actions, including both courtroom experience and
appellate work. Over the course of her career, Bevin has
successfully certified dozens of employee and consumer classes for
such claims as meal and rest breaks, unpaid overtime, off-the-
clock work, and false advertising.

She is admitted to practice before all federal district courts in
California and has argued before the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

Pike formerly worked alongside Robert Drexler, another Senior
Counsel at Capstone Law. Ms. Pike explained her interest in making
the move to Capstone Law: "What drew me to Capstone is the
talented team of attorneys who have consistently been at the
forefront of emerging law while diligently standing up for
California's aggrieved employees."

Bevin Allen Pike is a graduate of Loyola Law School, where she was
an Editor for the International and Comparative Law Review. She
received a B.A. in Spanish from the University of Southern
California.

Capstone Law APC is a California-based plaintiffs' side class
action law firm representing employees and consumers across the
country in litigation involving labor and workplace rights,
privacy laws, automobile and other product defects, consumer
protection, false advertising or other deceptive trade practices,
and financial fraud.

Contact:

         Stephen Gamber, Esq.
         Capstone Law APC
         1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Tel: 310-556-4811
         Email: Stephen.gamber@capstonelawyers.com


* Supreme Court to Consider Effect of Rule 68 in Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy M. Creelan, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
during its next term, the Supreme Court will consider whether
class-action defendants can end the cases against them simply by
offering complete relief to individually named plaintiffs and
offering nothing to the classes those plaintiffs purport to
represent.  The legal issue involves the intersection of two
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, namely the effect that Rule
68 -- which allows defendants to serve offers of judgment on
specified terms -- has on Rule 23, which governs class actions.
The court's guidance cannot come too soon, as circuit courts
around the country have answered the question in different ways,
and it remains an open question in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit.

Different Theories

Rule 68(a) authorizes defendants to "serve on an opposing party an
offer to allow judgment on specified terms, with the costs then
accrued."  Under Rule 68(d), if the plaintiff rejects the offer
and ultimately obtains less relief than was included in the offer,
the plaintiff "must pay the costs incurred after the offer was
made."

Federal courts of appeals outside of our own have embraced one of
three different theories when considering the effect that Rule 68
offers of complete relief have on putative class actions brought
under Rule 23.  The Seventh Circuit has held that a defendant's
Rule 68 offer of complete relief moots both the plaintiff's
individual and class claims.  The Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh
Circuits have held that a Rule 68 offer moots neither a
plaintiff's individual nor his class claims.  Finally, the Third
Circuit has held that while a Rule 68 offer moots a putative class
action plaintiff's individual claims, his class claims survive
because they "relate back" to the filing of the complaint.

Complicating matters further, in 2013 the Supreme Court held in
Genesis Healthcare v. Symczyk that a Rule 68 offer of complete
relief could moot both a plaintiff's individual claim under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as well as the plaintiff's ability
to invoke the FLSA's protections on behalf of "similarly situated"
employees.  In so holding, however, the court distinguished class
actions brought under Rule 23 from collective actions brought
under the FLSA, concluding in part -- without analysis -- that
"Rule 23 actions are fundamentally different from collective
actions under the FLSA."  Accordingly, no circuit has yet seen fit
to change its rule as it relates to Rule 68's effect on Rule 23
classes in light of Genesis Healthcare.

Campbell-Ewald Case

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez in the
coming term.  In that case, the plaintiff received an unsolicited
automated marketing text message that tried to recruit him to join
the U.S. Navy from an advertising vendor contracted by the Navy.
In response, he filed a putative Rule 23 class action in the
Central District of California alleging a single claim under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on behalf of all
recipients of the message.  The TCPA provides statutory damages of
$500 per violation, and treble damages for violations that are
willful or knowing.  Before Gomez moved for class certification,
Campbell-Ewald made a Rule 68 offer that included $1,503 per
violation -- more than Gomez could have obtained by litigating the
case under the TCPA.  After Gomez rejected the Rule 68 offer,
Campbell-Ewald moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing that
its Rule 68 offer for complete relief to Gomez mooted both his
individual and class claims.  U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee denied
that motion, though she ultimately granted Campbell-Ewald's motion
for summary judgment on unrelated derivative sovereign immunity
grounds.

On appeal by Gomez, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit unanimously held that neither Gomez's individual claims
nor his class claims were moot after he rejected Campbell-Ewald's
Rule 68 offer.  The panel relied on that circuit's prior
precedents and distinguished the Supreme Court's opinion on FLSA
claims in Genesis Healthcare as inapplicable to Rule 23 actions.
The panel also rejected Campbell-Ewald's other arguments for
summary judgment, including its "novel" theory of immunity, and
remanded to the district court for additional proceedings.  On
May 18, 2015, the Supreme Court granted Campbell-Ewald's petition
for certiorari.

Second Circuit

The Supreme Court's ruling in this case may be particularly
welcome in the Second Circuit, where the court has painted an
overly complicated and unsettled picture in this area.  On the
narrow question of whether an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of complete
relief moots a plaintiff's individual claims, the Second Circuit
recently clarified that it does not.  In Tanasi v. New Alliance
Bank, the court clarified that a plaintiff's claims do not become
moot when a defendant makes a Rule 68 offer of complete relief,
but rather, when the court enters judgment in favor of the
plaintiff according to the terms of the offer.

The court noted that "[i]f the parties agree that a judgment
should be entered against the defendant, then the district court
should enter such a judgment" and "[a]bsent such agreement,
however, the district court should not enter judgment against the
defendant if it does not provide complete relief."  In short, it
is the district court's entry of judgment that moots the
plaintiff's claim, not the defendant's Rule 68 offer.

Moreover, because the Tanasi panel found that the unaccepted offer
of judgment did not render moot the plaintiff's individual claims,
the court expressly declined to decide whether such an unaccepted
offer would render moot the plaintiff's claims on behalf of the
putative class.  That question remains an open one in the Second
Circuit.

Unfortunately, the clarity ends there.  As noted, the Tanasi panel
ruled that absent the parties' agreement that judgment should be
entered against the defendant, "the district court should not
enter judgment against the defendant if [the rejected offer of
judgment] does not provide complete relief."  In other words, the
court appeared to suggest that a plaintiff must agree that
judgment should be entered against the defendant before any
default judgment may be entered and the plaintiff's claims
rendered moot as a result.

The apparent requirement that a plaintiff must agree to the entry
of a default judgment after rejecting a Rule 68 offer stems from
McCauley v. Trans Union, in which the plaintiff did not raise any
class allegations, yet nonetheless rejected the defendant's Rule
68 offer of complete relief in part because it included a
confidentiality provision.  At oral argument before the Second
Circuit, the parties agreed that if the district court entered a
default judgment against the defendant, both parties would be
satisfied: The plaintiff would receive the relief he sought, the
defendant would not have to litigate the case further, and the
outcome would be neither confidential nor preclusive.
Accordingly, the Second Circuit held that the Rule 68 offer itself
did not moot the plaintiff's claims, but that the district court
should enter default judgment in favor of the plaintiff and
enforce the offer's substantive terms.

Nonetheless, despite the apparent holdings in McCauley and Tanasi,
in a summary order issued after Tanasi, the Second Circuit has
indicated that district courts retain the discretion to enter
judgment in favor of the plaintiff according to a rejected Rule 68
offer's terms, even absent the plaintiff's agreement.  In Hepler
v. Abercrombie & Fitch, the court concluded that "the court should
(absent additional procedural complications) enter judgment
pursuant to the terms of [the Rule 68] offer, with or without the
plaintiff's consent."

Thus, notwithstanding the murky language of Tanasi cited above,
the law of the Second Circuit appears to be that a complete Rule
68 offer can lead to an individual plaintiff's claims being
rendered moot through the entry of judgment according to the
offer's terms, even absent the plaintiff's agreement.  As noted,
whether that analysis changes in the context of a putative class
action under Rule 23 remains an open question under Second Circuit
law.

Implications

Campbell-Ewald has major practical implications for class action
litigants. If the court reverses the Ninth Circuit, it could hold
that a rejected Rule 68 offer of complete relief moots a putative
class plaintiff's ability to bring claims on behalf of himself and
a class.  Under such a rule, class action defendants would be
armed with a powerful tool to end the cases against them quickly.
By offering the individually named plaintiffs everything they
seek, defendants could avoid lengthy litigation expenses and any
potential classwide exposure.

By contrast, if the court affirms the Ninth Circuit, it could
ensure that, no matter where class action plaintiffs bring their
claims, defendants cannot employ Rule 68 to moot the litigation.
Regardless of what it holds, the court is all but guaranteed to
reverse the law of at least one circuit, and class action
litigants will have to plan accordingly.



                            *********

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  * * *