CAR_Public/150805.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 5, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 155


                            Headlines


ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ACCO BRANDS: Recalls Magnetic Boards Due to Laceration Hazard
ADVANCED RECOVERY: Judge Narrows Claim in "McWilliams" Suit
AEROPOSTALE INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Settlement Approval Order
AIR CHINA: Air Cargo Class Certified, Hausfeld Named Counsel

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Tilak" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Verduzco" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Jung" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Spotify Subscription Charges
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Prowler 500 HDX Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard

BARCLAYS BANK: Accused of Manipulating Energy Market in New York
BARRICK GOLD: Judge Rejects Motion for Reconsideration
BASIC RESEARCH: Amazing Cupcake Diet Fails to Deliver, Suit Says
BIG LOTS: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Action Claims
BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Body's Suit Can Proceed

BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Class Suit "Unlikely to Win"
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Defective Electrical Components Suit
BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls Mowers, Tractors and Mower Decks
BRIGGS AND STRATTON: Recalls Garden Tractors and Riding Mowers
CAREMARK LLC: E.D. Mo. Judge Stays St. Louis Heart Center Suit

CARGILL INC: Salt Buyers Have Until Aug. 7 to File Claim
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Traffic System
CENTEX HOUSE: Faces "Viera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Mayer" Suit in N.Y. Over FLSA Violation
CENTRAL OHIO GAMING: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

CHAMPION WELL: "Crumpler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Sued Over Proposed Crestwood Equity Merger
CROWDFLOWER INC: Provisional Settlement Class Certified in "Otey"
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Atty Sees Growing Interest in Evacuees' Suit
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 2007 Freightliner Models Due to Fire Risk

DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls SAFT-T-Liner HDX School Bus Models
DETROIT, MI: Class Suit Over Water Services Goes to Trial
DIAMOND SPORTS: Recalls Face Masks Due to Impact Injury Risk
ENERGY CORP: Landowners Can Keep $1.4MM Awarded in Royalty Suit
EPOCA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Glass Round Kettles Due to Burn Risk

FAST RIG: Judge Allows Drivers' Suit to Proceed to Trial
FASTENAL CO: Faces Suit for Charging GMs for Stale Inventory
FORD MOTOR: Bid for Protective Order in "Burd" Case Denied
FREDDIE MAC: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Burns" Lawsuit
GENERAL MOTORS: Cassels Brock to Appeal Damages in Dealer Suit

GLOBAL ITALIAN: Faces "Montana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GREAT DANE: Recalls Semi Trailer Vans 2015 Models
HELGESEN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Hanson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HONDA: Recalls 2013 CBR500RA, CBR500R, and CB500FA Models
HUMANA INC: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Proposed Aetna Merger

HUSQVARNA CONSUMER: Recalls Lawn and Garden Tillers
INTERSTATE MAT: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Sparkle Hill Case
JEFFERIES GROUP: Delaware Plaintiff Firms Win $21.5MM Fee Award
JRP OIL: Faces "Jennings" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KENTON COUNTY, KY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Tax Suit

KOHLS CORP: Judge Tosses Equal Rights Center's Suit
KTP 2014: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KYBER OUTERWEAR: Recalls Children's Animal-Themed Sweaters
LENDERLIVE NETWORK: Settlement in "Murphy" Wins Final Approval
LIVE NATION: Fails to Pay Overtime to Stagehands, Suit Claims

LOOMIS ARMORED: Faces "Vega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAKERBOT: Faces Class Suit Over Shoddy 3D Printers
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sent Unsolicited Ads, Action Claims
MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Notice
MIDLAND FUNDING: Circuit Court Judgment in "Mostofi" Affirmed

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces "Aliano" Suit Over Restraint of Trade
NIPPONFLEX: Recalls Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
OIL PRODUCERS: Kansas Supreme Court Remands "Fawcett" Lawsuit
PEARCE AND DURICK: Sued Over Alleged Unregistered Securities
PHARMALOGICAL INC: E.D.N.Y. Judge Permits Discovery in Gov't Suit

POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
SAINT FRANCIS: Sued for Underfunding Employee's Pension Plan
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Newman Du Wors Files Class Action
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Judge Decertifies Indirect Purchaser Class
SPOKEO INC: ACA Files Amicus Brief on Merits of Class Suit

STORK CRAFT: Recalls Crib Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
TAPMASTERS LLC: "Gerard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
TIMBERCORP: Victims Seek Justice for Poor Financial Advice
TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN: Judge Narrows Claims in "Margulies" Suit
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Cheah" Trespassing Suit in Arizona

UPPABABY: Recalls Strollers & RumbleSeats Due to Choking Hazard
WELLS FARGO: Cal. Ct. App. Upholds Trial Court's Judgment
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Judge Narrows Claims in Boyer et al. Suit
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Recalls Wall Ovens and Microwaves
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Recalls Wall Ovens and Microwaves

XOLLE LLC: Faces "Carbajal" Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ZION MARKET: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

* Hausfeld's NY Office Welcomes 2 Antitrust Litigators


                            *********


ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Brown" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Brown, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ABM Industries, Inc., ABM Janitorial Services, Inc.,
ABM Janitorial Services-North Central, Inc. and Diversco, Inc.,
Case No. 2015-CH-11126 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 22, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendants are in the business of providing janitorial
cleaning services to purchasers of janitorial cleaning services
across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 E. Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 726-3400

         - and -

      Glen J. Dunn Jr., Esq.
      Angel Bakov, Esq.
      Haig A. Himidian, Esq.
      GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 545-5056
      E-mail: gdunn@gjdlaw.com
              abakov@gjdlaw.com
              hhimidian@gjdlaw.com

         - and -

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600312-
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 201-0575


ACCO BRANDS: Recalls Magnetic Boards Due to Laceration Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
ACCO Brands Corp., of Lake Zurich, Ill., announced a voluntary
recall of about 3.3 Million Quartet Magnetic and Dry Erase Boards.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Sharp metal edges on the back of the boards can become exposed
while removing mounted boards, posing a laceration hazard.

This recall involves eight styles of Quartet magnetic and dry
erase boards, including calendar styles and combination boards
with push pins. The boards were sold between January 2005 and
December 2013, in eight sizes: 5 1/2 x 14, 8 1/2 x 11, 11 1/2 x 11
1/2, 11 x 17, 12 x 12, 14 x14, 17 x 17 and 17 x 23, and in various
colors including white, silver, black, blue, green, pink, purple,
grey and multicolor. The Quartet logo is printed on the bottom of
the boards.

The firm has received seven reports of hand, finger and foot
laceration injuries, including four that required stitches.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ace
Hardware, Fred Meyer, Menards, Office Depot and other stores
nationwide and online from January 2005 through December 2013 for
between $5 and $10.

Consumers should immediately contact ACCO for a caution label that
instructs consumers to wear heavy gloves when removing the boards.
This recall does not require that consumers remove the mounted
boards. Consumers should affix the caution label with safe removal
instructions for when needed.


ADVANCED RECOVERY: Judge Narrows Claim in "McWilliams" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carlton W. Reeves of the Southern District of
Mississippi, Northern Division granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss in the case WENDY McWILLIAMS,
individually and, on behalf of others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC.; YOUNG WELLS
WILLIAMS, P.A. Defendants, CAUSE NO. 3:15-CV-70-CWR-LRA (S.D.
Miss.)

In August 2014, Young Wells Williams sent Wendy McWilliams a debt
collection letter, which partly contains the following:

"Your account with ADVANCED RECOVERY SYSTEMS, INC., has been
turned over to this office for collection. The amount you owe is
$2,166.80.UNLESS YOU DISPUTE THE VALIDITY OF THE DEBT WITHIN
THIRTY (30) DAYS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS NOTICE, THE DEBT WILL BE
PRESUMED TO BE VALID.IF YOU NOTIFY US WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS THAT
THE DEBT OR ANY PORTION OF IT IS DISPUTED, WE WILL MAIL
VERIFICATION OF THE DEBT TO YOU.ALSO, UPON YOUR REQUEST WE WILL
PROVIDE YOU THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ORIGINAL CREDITOR, IF THE
ORIGINAL CREDITOR IS DIFFERENT FROM THE CURRENT ONE.THIS LETTER IS
FROM A DEBT COLLECTOR. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR
THAT PURPOSE."

Following her receipt of the letter, McWilliams orally disputed
the debt with Young Wells Williams, got the hospital to waive the
debt, and faxed the hospital's confirmation letter to Young Wells
Williams. Despite the developments, she claims that the defendants
sued her for the debt in the state courts of Mississippi.

Wendy McWilliams filed a class action suit and made claims that
Advanced Recovery Systems and the Young Wells Williams law firm
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C.
Section 1692 et seq., when they attempted to collect a debt
McWilliams allegedly owed to St. Dominic's Hospital.

In Count I, McWilliams alleges that three sentences in the letter
incorrectly communicate the validation notice required by the
FDCPA. In Count II, McWilliams alleges that the threat of
litigation -- "You MUST send your payment to me . . . to avoid the
possibility of being sued" -- overshadowed and rendered
ineffective the validation notice. McWilliams is saying that
disputing the debt would be futile because Young Wells intended to
file suit unless plaintiff made prompt payment. In Count III,
McWilliams claims the summons violated Section 1692e(10) of the
FDCPA because it falsely stated that she owed a debt, that she
still had the right to dispute the debt's validity, and that her
failure to contest the validity within 30 days would result in it
being presumed valid by the court.

Young Wells Williams argues that Counts II and III fail to state a
claim prompting it to file a motion to dismiss.

Judge Reeves granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to dismiss.  A copy of Judge Reeves's order dated June 5, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/nC1B6Yfrom Leagle.com.

Wendy McWilliams, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Michael L. Greenwald --
mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com -- at GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC;
Shireen Hormozdi -- at HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC

Advanced Recovery Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented by Laurie
R. Williams -- lwilliams@cctb.com -- at COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR &
BUSH, PA

Young Wells Williams, P.A., Defendant, represented by Charles Greg
Copeland -- gcopeland@cctb.com -- Laurie R. Williams --
lwilliams@cctb.com -- at COPELAND, COOK, TAYLOR & BUSH, PA


AEROPOSTALE INC: 2nd Cir. Affirms Settlement Approval Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed
the order of the District Court in the appealed case J. ROBERT
ARBUTHNOT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, THE CITY OF PROVIDENCE, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. DONALD
ROBERT PIERSON, II, Objector-Appellant, AEROPOSTALE, INC., THOMAS
P. JOHNSON, MARC D. MILLER, Defendants, NO. 14-2135 (2nd Cir.)

Objector-Appellant Donald Robert Pierson, II, appeals from an
order of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, rejecting Pierson's objections and granting
plaintiff-appellee City of Providence's motions for final approval
of the class action settlement, plan of allocation, and attorneys'
fees and expenses.

Pierson contends that the district court erred in approving the
class action settlement because class members were not provided
adequate notice and erred in approving the requested attorneys'
fees award because the notice there was also inadequate and the
award was excessive and premised on insufficient facts.

A copy of the Second Circuit's summary order dated June 10, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/JjgjX8from Leagle.com.

Joseph Darrell Palmer -- darrell.palmer@palmerlegalteam.com -- at
Law Offices of Darrell Palmer PC, for Appellant

Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Nicole Zeiss --
nzeiss@labaton.com -- Carol Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com --
at Labaton Sucharow LLP, for Appellee

The Second Circuit panel consists of Judges Richard C. Wesley,
Peter W. Hall and Susan L. Carney.


AIR CHINA: Air Cargo Class Certified, Hausfeld Named Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable John Gleeson certified a class of direct purchaser
plaintiffs against defendant airlines in an antitrust lawsuit
concerning illegal price-fixing of air cargo shipping services.
Judge Gleeson also appointed Hausfeld and three other law firms as
class counsel.

The Order is the culmination of years of briefing and hearings to
determine whether the class should be certified. In October 2014,
Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky issued a 112-page decision,
recommending that the Court grant the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. "Class certification will allow hundreds of
thousands of claims to be resolved adequately, efficiently, and
fairly," Judge Pohorelsky wrote. Elsewhere, Judge Pohorelsky
observed that "plaintiffs have submitted a trove of direct and
circumstantial evidence that strongly suggests the existence of an
agreement among the defendants to fix prices," amounting to
"compelling common evidence of a global conspiracy."

"This decision is an important step forward for the class members
seeking compensation for the damage caused by this multi-year
cartel," said Hausfeld Partner Brent Landau, who delivered both
the opening statement and the closing argument at the multi-day
class certification hearing. "We look forward to bringing the
remaining cartelists to trial," he added.

Many of the original airline defendants have already settled with
the plaintiffs, totaling more than $1 billion across twenty-seven
settlements. Remaining in the case are defendants Air China, Air
India, Air New Zealand, and U.S. air cargo carrier Polar Air Cargo
and its parent, Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Tilak" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Tilak, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United
Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No.
0:15-cv-03103 (D. Minn., July 21, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of domestic air
travel services.

The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline companies in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
      Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              mlobby@gustafsongluek.com
              jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Daniel N. Gallucci, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
              dgallucci@nastlaw.com
              eburns@nastlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Verduzco" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cherokii Verduzco, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-03374-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for air passenger
transportation services within the United States.

The Defendants operate the largest commercial airlines in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Randy R. Renick, Esq.
      HADSELL STORMER & RENICK LLP
      250 E. 1st Street, Suite 1201
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Telephone: (213) 785-6999
      Facsimile: (213) 221-7246
      E-mail: rrr@hsrlegalfund.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Jung" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Jung, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-03362-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 21, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to fix, raise, and maintain the price of domestic air passenger
transportation through various means, including by eliminating or
restricting the supply of domestic air transportation.

The Defendants operate the largest commercial airlines in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      Joyce Chang, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              swilliams@cpmlegal.com
              azapala@cpmlegal.com
              etran@cpmlegal.com
              jchang@cpmlegal.com


APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Spotify Subscription Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evan Thomas, writing for WSBTv2, reported that Apple looks to have
a fresh antitrust investigation brewing: this time over, the cut
it takes from rival streaming companies using its App Store.

The latest complaints are from Spotify, which has urged its users
to avoid the extra fees of Apple's App Store when subscribing to
the streaming service.  But it's not clear if Spotify has managed
to get the Federal Trade Commission involved yet. Government reps
did not comment when reached by Ars Technica.

It does follow earlier reports that Apple was looking to squelch
Spotify's free tier or take advantage of its heavyweight status to
cut better deals with record labels.

But nothing has come of these complaints yet. So what does it take
to make an antitrust fight with Apple official?

One iTunes complaint started as a class-action case in 2005. The
suit alleged by changing its encoding on iTunes songs, Apple
effectively held a monopoly on downloaded music.  It didn't stick.
The court dismissed the claims.

In 2007, Apple faced inquiry from the European Commission over
allegations it was charging more for iTunes tracks in the UK than
elsewhere in the EU. The Commission found no evidence of the
behavior, but Apple did subsequently lower its prices.

A 2010 Department of Justice suit alleged Apple and a pile of
other high-tech companies had agreed not to poach one another's
employees. This time, a judge agreed and found Apple was in
violation of the Sherman Act, which prohibits antitrust activity.
Apple settled.

And in 2012, the Justice Department took Apple to court over e-
books. The case alleged Apple was colluding with publishers to set
higher prices for digital book downloads and beat Amazon in the
market. And again, a judge found Apple was in violation of the
Sherman Act. Apple lost its appeal, too.

Whether we'll reach that point with Spotify's complaints remains
to be seen. Now Apple is running its own competing streaming
service, it could be at higher risk of antitrust complaints there,
too.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls Prowler 500 HDX Vehicles Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Arctic Cat, announced a voluntary recall of about 2,700 Arctic Cat
Prowler 500 HDX. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Fuel can leak from the fuel fitting at the throttle body, posing a
fire hazard.

This recall involves model year 2014 Arctic Cat Prowler 500 HDX
and model year 2015 Prowler 500 HDX models. The recalled vehicles
include vehicle identification numbers (VIN) from 303194 through
305166. The VIN number is located on the rear frame tube under the
rear of the box. The vehicles are green, red, vibrant red
metallic, or emerald green metallic. "Arctic Cat" is printed on
each side of the hood. Also 500 is printed on each side on the
front fenders, HDX on each side of the rear cargo box, and "Arctic
Cat" on the cargo box tail gate.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Arctic Cat dealers nationwide from August 2013 to July 2015 for
between about $11,000 and $12,400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Prowlers and
contact an Arctic Cat dealer to schedule a free repair.  Arctic
Cat is contacting its customers directly.


BARCLAYS BANK: Accused of Manipulating Energy Market in New York
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service reports that nearly two
years after federal regulators fined Barclays Bank $435 million, a
California irrigation district filed a federal class action
accusing the British bank of similar antitrust violations.

The Merced Irrigation District sued the British bank on June 23,
claiming Barclays and four of its energy traders manipulated
electric prices from November 2006 until Dec. 31, 2008.

The irrigation district seeks damages for the "supracompetive"
prices it paid for electricity.

The 41-page lawsuit cites the July 16, 2013, findings of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which said that traders
Daniel Brin, Scott Connelly, Karen Levine and Ryan Smith engaged
in an "affirmative, coordinated and intentional effort" to steer
index prices published by InterContinental Exchange and Dow Jones
at four major Western U.S. trading hubs to favor the British bank.

FERC took action against the bank and its traders, whose combined
penalties came to $453 million.

Merced's lawsuit targets only Barclays and does not specify the
damages sought.

"Barclays' traders knew their dailies trading was losing money and
that it would prevent free market forces from operating in the
relevant markets, but they were willing to accept such losses
because the uneconomic dailies trading was part of their
manipulative scheme to acquire and maintain monopoly power over
daily index prices to benefit their related financial positions,"
the complaint states.

"This willfulness and intent of Barclays is further demonstrated
through direct evidence, such as emails and instant messages
('IMs'), suspicious timing or repetition of transactions,
execution of transactions benefiting derivative positions, and
trading which would be economically irrational but for the
manipulative scheme," it continues.  "Barclays' traders
coordinated their individual and collective actions in furtherance
of the manipulative scheme."

Quoting extensively from the FERC report, Merced's complaint dives
into "numerous written communications demonstrating Barclays'
traders' knowing participation in the manipulative scheme."

On Nov. 3, 2006, Smith bragged that he "totally fuckked [sic] with
the Palo" Verde market index, according to the complaint.

Smith allegedly added that he "just started lifting the piss out
of the palo."

His colleague Connelly joked about regulators on Feb. 28, 2007,
according to the lawsuit.

Responding to a colleague who called the market a "shitshow,"
Connelly replied: "crazy -I love it . . . your boy started crying
this morning . . . he sent me an ice [InterContinental Exchange]
message -said he wass [sic] calling FERC . . . lol."  (Ellipses in
complaint.)

The complaint says that exchange referred to a FERC order
assessing penalties.

The proposed class includes "Any individual or entity that held
any contract which settled against the ICE [InterContinental
Exchange] or Dow Jones published daily index prices for peak or
non-peak power at either Mid-Columbia, Palo Verde, South Path 15
or North Path 15" during the relevant time frame, and "was damaged
by movements in such index prices caused by Barclays' unlawful
scheme."

A subclass consists of class members "who reside or are
incorporated in California."

Merced seeks class certification, restitution, and damages for
unjust enrichment and violations of the Sherman Act, and the
California Business & Professional Code.

The California energy crisis of 2000-2001 showed that electricity
prices were fairly easy to manipulate, and that federal
regulators, primarily FERC, were unable to keep up with the
traders.  Enron profited hugely during the crisis, for a while,
then collapsed in an accounting scandal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Klafter, Esq.
          KLAFTER OLSEN & LESSER LLP
          Two International Drive, Suite 350
          Rye Brook, NY 10573
          Telephone: (914) 934-9200
          Facsimile: (914) 934-9220


BARRICK GOLD: Judge Rejects Motion for Reconsideration
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York denied defendants' motion for reconsideration in the case
entitled IN RE BARRICK GOLD SECURITIES LITIGATION, NO. 1 CIV. 3851
(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint arguing
that one of the statements relied on in plaintiffs' complaint was
taken out of context, and referred only to compliance with a new
Argentinian law, and not to compliance with Chilean environmental
requirements.

Plaintiffs alleged that the statement was continually repeated
throughout the class period, and defendants had not provided
context for the other instances.

Judge Scheindlin issued an opinion and order on April 1, 2015,
granting in part and denying in part defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiffs' amended complaint.

On April 15, 2015, defendants filed a motion for partial
reconsideration on two discrete issues:

     1. Defendants request that the court find that every
repetition of a particular statement regarding environmental
approvals be dismissed as irrelevant, and therefore dismiss
plaintiffs' claims relating to environmental approvals.

     2. Defendants request that the court dismiss plaintiffs'
section 10(b) claims against defendants Potter, Gonzales, and
Kinver pursuant to Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative
Traders. Defendant Veenman also filed a motion to certify the
April 1 order for interlocutory appeal solely on the issue of the
pleading standard for control person liability under Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act.

Judge Scheindlin denied defendants' motion for reconsideration.
Defendant Veenman's motion for certification for interlocutory
appeal is denied.

A copy of Judge Scheindlin's memorandum opinion and order dated
June 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/sctvvbfrom Leagle.com.

Christopher F. Moriarty, Esq. -- cmoriarty@motleyrice.com -- David
P. Abel, Esq. -- dabel@motleyrice.com -- James M. Hughes, Esq. --
jhughes@motleyrice.com -- William H. Narwold, Esq. --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- at Motley Rice LLC; Jonathan M. Plasse,
Esq. -- Serena Pia Hallowell Esq. -- shallowell@labaton.com --
Christopher J. Keller, Esq. -- ckeller@labaton.com -- Joel H.
Bernstein, Esq. -- jbernstein@labaton.com -- Jonathan Gardner,
Esq. -- jgardner@labaton.com -- at Labaton Sucharow; Brian P.
Murray, Esq. -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Gregory B. Linkh, Esq. --
glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Michael Goldber, Esq. -- Robert V.
Prongay, Esq. -- RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Binkow &
Goldberg LLP; Ira M. Press, Esq. -- ipress@kmllp.com -- at Kirby
McInerney LLP; Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. -- jbarrack@barrack.com --
at Barrack, Rodos & Bacine, For Plaintiffs

Ada Fernandez Johnson, Esq. -- afjohnson@debevoise.com -- Jonathan
Rosser Tuttle, Esq. -- jrtuttle@debevoise.com -- Bruce E. Yannett,
Esq. -- beyannett@debevoise.com -- Elliot Greenfield, Esq. --
egreenfield@debevoise.com -- at Debevoise & Plimpton LLP, New
York, NY, For Defendants


BASIC RESEARCH: Amazing Cupcake Diet Fails to Deliver, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that marketed as "the amazing
Cupcake Diet," Vysera-CLS fails to deliver on miracle weight-loss
promises, a class claims in a federal action against Basic
Research and Bremenn Research Labs.


BIG LOTS: Illegally Procures Background Reports, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shaundrenika Robrinzine, individually and as a representative of
the classes v. Big Lots Stores, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-11064 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., July 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide required disclosures or to obtain written
authorization prior to procuring background reports on applicants
and employees.

Big Lots Stores, Inc. operates Big Lots store locations throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John G. Albanese, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center, 80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      E-mail: jalbanese@nka.com


BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Body's Suit Can Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand News reported that a body seeking compensation
for damage caused by the kiwifruit vine disease Psa has been
granted permission by the High Court at Wellington to pursue its
class action.

The Kiwifruit Claim represents 72 growers and post-harvest
operators who estimate Psa has cost them about NZ$280 million,
while the Government itself has calculated the damages the disease
has caused to New Zealand at NZ$885 million.

The claim alleges Biosecurity New Zealand was negligent by
allowing Psa into the country.

Spokesperson Matthew Hooton said more growers were able to sign up
to the action if they did so by 9 October.

"If growers feel that they have lost money as a result of Psa in
net terms, they've got an opportunity to sign up and be part of
this claim. It'll only cost them [NZ]$500. For large orchards it's
[NZ]$1500.

"If the claim is not successful then growers can't be charged any
more.

"The court has ruled that LPF, the litigation funder, must put
security aside for costs if the claim is unsuccessful.

"What that means is that after a grower has paid their [NZ]$500,
if the Kiwifruit Claim fails and even if in the end the courts say
the Kiwifruit Claim has to pay costs to the Crown, there is no way
that a grower can ever have to pay more than their initial
[NZ]$500."

The national kiwifruit growers body, New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers
Incorporated, has previously stated its opposition to the
Kiwifruit claim, saying it could ruin the industry's relationship
with the Government.


BIOSECURITY NEW ZEALAND: Kiwifruit Class Suit "Unlikely to Win"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Fisher, writing for Sunlive, reported that the High Court
in Wellington has given permission for the Kiwifruit Claim to
proceed against the Crown -- but the industry's grower body doubts
the case will be successful.

Neil Trebilco, president of New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Inc,
says legal advice to the organisation is that the likelihood of
success is slight.

"While it is up to growers to make their own decisions on whether
or not to be part of the claim," explains Neil, "NZKGI's view is
that the industry should be looking forward, not to the past."

The High Court ruled in favour of the class action over claims
Bio-security NZ was negligent in allowing the vine disease Psa to
be introduced into New Zealand.

Initially, 72 growers and the post-harvest company Seeka signed up
to take the case, and the court has also ruled that other growers
and post-harvest operators affected by Psa have until October 9 to
sign up to claim.

Neil says despite the severe impact of Psa on the industry, this
season has seen its biggest-ever harvest of kiwifruit and the
future is looking bright.

"One of the issues for any primary industry is that there is no
guarantee that bio-security incursions won't happen," he says.

"If every time one occurs there is court action, there would be a
lot of cases."

NZKGI is pleased with government moves to increase border
security, including the provisions of additional resources and
plans to implement a levy on passenger arrivals and departures.

"We see these as positive moves," adds Neil. "NZKGI and Kiwifruit
Vine Health work very closely with government on bio-security and
value that partnership."

Kiwifruit Claim spokesperson, Matthew Hooton, says 72 growers and
one post-harvest operator had registered, paid their one-off fee
and completed the formal paperwork to sign up to the claim.

"In a nutshell, the claim alleges that Biosecurity NZ was
negligent in allowing Psa to be introduced into New Zealand,"
explains Matthew.

"It cost New Zealand at least $885 million, according to
Biosecurity NZ's own independent study, and the plaintiffs believe
it should be held accountable and pay damages for all foreseeable
losses.

"All kiwifruit growers and post-harvest operators can join the
claim for a one-off fee of [NZ]$500, [NZ]$1,000 or [NZ]$1,500
depending on the size of their orchard, and post-harvest operators
for a one-off fee of [NZ]$10,000.

"It's totally up to them whether or not to join the claim but only
growers and post-harvest operators that sign up to the action
before the court's October 9 deadline can benefit from any
settlement or award of damages."

The High Court say growers and post-harvest operators should be
allowed to bring the proceedings as a representative or class
action, which had been opposed by the Crown Law Office.

The court says there is no objection to the litigation funder, LPF
Litigation Funding Limited -- a 100 per cent kiwi-owned company --
and approved the terms of the funding agreement, which had been
signed by an initial 72 growers and one post-harvest operator.

An initial [NZ]$250,000 security for costs is to be lodged by LPF,
increasing as the litigation progresses.

The chairman of The Kiwifruit Claim, John Cameron, says the result
was expected.  "We believe we have a strong case and we're getting
our day in court to see this through," says John.

The plaintiffs are represented by a committee consisting of John
Cameron (chairman), Bob Burt and Grant Eynon.  It is expected
additional plaintiffs will join the claim now it has been given
the go-ahead by the High Court.

The combined losses of those who have already signed up is
estimated to be over [NZ]$280 million. Further information on The
Kiwifruit Claim and a forum where growers can lodge their
questions about the claim can be found at: www.kiwifruitcalim.org


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Defective Electrical Components Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that despite over a decade of
reports, BMW has maintained a defective design of installing
electrical components next to drainage tubes, a federal class
action alleges.


BRIGGS & STRATTON: Recalls Mowers, Tractors and Mower Decks
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Briggs & Stratton Corp., of Wauwatosa, Wis., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,800 Briggs & Stratton Simplicity Riding Mowers,
Garden Tractors and Mower Decks. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The chute deflector on the riding mowers and garden tractors can
fail to prevent projectiles from being expelled. This poses a risk
of injury to consumers from projectiles.

This recall involves orange Simplicity brand zero turn riding
mowers, mower deck attachments and garden tractors. Mower deck
sizes range from 44 to 54 inches. The Simplicity logo is on the
side of the mower or garden tractor. Mowers and garden tractors
with the following model and serial numbers are included in the
recall. The model and serial numbers are located on the frame near
the front tires or on the frame rail below the seat.

  Model      Serial Number Range
  -----      --------------------
  1695058    2016939034 - 2017048430
  1696445    2016943253 - 2017107153
  1696446    2016933459 - 2017114841
  1696459    2017100601 - 2017100603
  2691175    2016825203 - 2017125081
  2691176    2016869892 - 2017114891
  2691179    2016893089 - 2017100633
  2691224    2016905124 - 2017114535
  2691280    2016969131 - 2017104015
  5901269    2016868431 - 2016869752

Mowers with a black dot on the label containing the product's
model and serial number are not included in this recall.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured United States and sold at
Briggs & Stratton dealers nationwide from August 2014 through May
2015 for between $3,600 and $16,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
contact a Briggs & Stratton dealer to schedule a free repair.


BRIGGS AND STRATTON: Recalls Garden Tractors and Riding Mowers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 30, 2015
Posting date: July 30, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Miscellaneous
Source of recall: Health Canada
Identification number: RA-54438

This recall involves orange Simplicity brand garden tractors and
riding mowers. Mower deck sizes range from 44 to 54 inches. The
Simplicity logo is on the side of the mower or garden tractor.
Mowers and garden tractors with the following model and serial
numbers are included in the recall. The model and serial numbers
are located on the frame near the front tires or on the frame rail
below the seat. The affected model numbers are 2691175, 2691776,
2691179, and 5901269.

The serial numbers and product names of the affected products are
listed below:

  Sold in    Product Name           Model Number    Serial Number
  -------    ------------           ------------    -------------
  Manitoba   Broadmoor              2691175         2017095411
  Manitoba   Broadmoor              2691175         2017095415
  Manitoba   Broadmoor              2691176         2017104982
  Manitoba   Broadmoor              2691176         2017104983
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2016914437
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2016948736
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2016953277
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2016953278
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2016959230
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2017076132
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2017076134
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2017076147
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2017100183
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2017100189
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2017100194
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2017100204
  Ontario    Broadmoor              2691175         2016869967
  Ontario    Conquest               2691179         2016893122
  Ontario    Conquest               2691179         2016893125
  Ontario    Home Owner Z-Riders    5901269         2016868442
  Ontario    Home Owner Z-Riders    5901269         2016868476
  Ontario    Home Owner Z-Riders    5901269         2016868530
  Ontario    Home Owner Z-Riders    5901269         2016869675
  Ontario    Home Owner Z-Riders    5901269         2016869715
  Ontario    Home Owner Z-Riders    5901269         2016869749

The deflector chute on the riding mowers and garden tractors can
fail to prevent projectiles from being expelled. This poses a risk
of injury to consumers from projectiles.

Neither Health Canada nor Briggs & Stratton Power Products Groups,
LLC have received any consumer reports of injuries or incidents
related to the use of this product.

A total of 21 mowers were sold in Ontario and 4 were sold in
Manitoba by Brigg & Stratton Simplicity dealers.

The affected products were sold from August 27, 2014 to May 11,
2015.

Manufactured in the United States of America.

Manufacturer: Briggs and Stratton Power Products Group LLC
              Wauwatosa
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products
mowers and contact a Briggs & Stratton dealer to schedule a free
repair. Alternatively, call 1-800-227-3798 between the hours of
8:00am- 5:00pm central time from Monday to Friday.

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

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

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

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


CAREMARK LLC: E.D. Mo. Judge Stays St. Louis Heart Center Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Thomas C. Mummert, III of the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division, granted defendant's motion to stay in
the case ST. LOUIS HEART CENTER, INC., Plaintiff, v. CAREMARK,
L.L.C., Defendant, CASE NO. 4:12CV2151 TCM (E.D. Mo.)

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc. filed a suit against Caremark, L.L.C.
for sending an unsolicited facsimile which did not include the
opt-out notice required by 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(a)(3) in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47
U.S.C. Section 227.

Allegations in the amended complaint include that Caremark failed
to correctly determine the legal restrictions on the use of
facsimile transmissions and the application of those restrictions
to the transmission of facsimile advertisements. Plaintiff further
alleges that a class action is merited because, in part, there is
a common question of whether Caremark engaged in a pattern of
sending unsolicited fax advertisements. Plaintiff requests an
award of treble damages on the grounds that Caremark's violation
was knowing.

In a separate motion, plaintiff seeks certification of a class
defined as "'All persons sent one or more telephone facsimile
messages in March 2011 "introducing a new program, Pharmacy
Advisor.'"

Caremark seeks a stay pending resolution by the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) of its petition requesting a
retroactive waiver of the requirement of an opt-out notice in
faxes sent with consent. Plaintiff opposes a stay, arguing that
the possibility of Caremark being granted a waiver is irrelevant
because there is no question of his or any other class member's
consent to the fax and Caremark's request for an indefinite stay
will prejudice the class and unnecessarily and unfairly delay
adjudication of the case.

Magistrate Judge Mummert granted defendant's motion to stay and
the proceedings is stayed until final rulings are issued by the
FCC on the petition of Caremark, L.L.C., requesting a retroactive
waiver of the FCC's opt-out notice regulations and on any appeals
filed in connection with the FCC's rulings. It is further ordered
that every 90 days beginning October 1, 2015, Caremark, L.L.C.,
shall advise the court of the status of the proceedings before the
FCC and any appeal filed in connection thereto.

A copy of Judge Mummert's memorandum and order dated June 9, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/rOnrcrfrom Leagle.com.

St. Louis Heart Center, Inc., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by:

Max G. Margulis, Esq.
MARGULIS LAW GROUP
28 Old Belle Monte Rd
Chesterfield, MO 63017
Telephone: 636-536-7022

     - and -

Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
BOCK AND HATCH LLC
134 N LaSalle St #1000
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-658-5500

Caremark LLC, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Leffel, Esq. --
mleffel@foley.com -- Rebecca R. Hanson, Esq. -- Robert H. Griffith
-- rgriffith@foley.com -- at FOLEY AND LARDNER, LLP; Thomas B.
Weaver -- tweaver@armstrongteasdale.com -- at ARMSTRONG TEASDALE,
LLP


CARGILL INC: Salt Buyers Have Until Aug. 7 to File Claim
--------------------------------------------------------
Henri Gendreau, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reported that
Franklin County communities will be paying more for road salt this
summer, but it won't be the budget-busting prices some Ohio cities
saw last winter.

And a settlement between the state attorney general's office and
two salt giants could mean more financial help down the road.

Local governments and other buyers who paid for salt from Cargill
Inc. and Morton Salt Inc. between July 2008 and June 2011 have
until Aug. 7 to submit a claim to Attorney General Mike DeWine's
office.

DeWine announced a $11.5 million settlement with Cargill and
Morton in June that ended a 2012 lawsuit that accused the
companies of fixing prices, forcing buyers to pay above-market
rates -- in some cases, more than $100 a ton. Both companies have
denied wrongdoing.

Dan Tierney, a DeWine spokesman, said the distribution will come
in late summer or early fall and be based proportionally on the
amount of salt an agency bought. But not all applicants will
receive money, because of limits DeWine's office plans to put in
place. "Sometimes, when you get a class-action (suit), you get a
check for 93 cents," Tierney said. "We don't want to have that
happen."

As of July 29 afternoon, 328 entities -- which include cities,
townships and school districts -- had applied for money. Only four
of the two-dozen agencies in Franklin County eligible for the
settlement submitted claims: Reynoldsburg, Gahanna, Grandview
Heights and the Franklin County engineer's office, which said it
spent $1.8 million on salt over the years the settlement covers.
Columbus, like many other municipalities, has a contract to
purchase salt through the Ohio Department of Transportation. The
city just ordered 7,000 tons of salt through ODOT's summer
contract and has committed to 13,500 tons for the winter, said
Rick Tilton, assistant director of the Department of Public
Service.

Those rates in Franklin County are $73.65 and $68.73 per ton,
respectively. Prices were $63.66 and $70.22.

"I don't want to say it's a gamble, but that's kind of what it
is," ODOT spokesman Matt Bruning said about whether to go for the
summer or winter contract. "It's like deciding whether to fill up
your tank with gasoline."

But those prices are a far cry from winter rates, when 25 counties
were paying more than $100 a ton -- if they could get salt at all.
This winter's highest price is $85.12, in Morgan County. Prices
vary from county to county, mostly because of transportation
costs, Bruning said.

This summer, 310 agencies bought through ODOT, which put 472,832
tons of salt out to bid. The 452 winter partners are seeking
488,832 tons.

"When everyone starts the winter with an empty salt barn,
obviously everybody has to buy more, and that's what's caused our
prices to go up," Bruning said.

"The best thing we can hope for is a couple of mild winters. That
would go a long way in helping us see lower salt prices."

The National Weather Service said it's too soon to say what this
winter will bring. But the past three years saw above-average
snowfall in Columbus, and municipalities aren't taking chances.
ODOT is seeking 961,664 tons of salt and used 947,498 tons; its
10-year average is 693,425 tons a year.

Despite higher summer ODOT prices, salt buyers were mostly pleased
with rates and praised the settlement, which could mean more
revenue for salt down the road.

"Quite frankly, we were unfairly put in a position to buy salt,"
said Chris Mullins, Pickaway County engineer. "I guess it's a
little bit of a return of the taxpayer dollar."

Madison County Engineer David Brand said that his office had just
applied to DeWine's office.

"We're waiting to hear just like everybody else," he said. "Any
bit would help, but in the long run, what I think we all hope for
is a level playing field where we can count on a competitive bid
for rock salt so we can keep the roads safe for the travelling
public."

While not topping the $100 mark, salt prices remain high, Brand
said. This winter's rates are $23 more than what he paid in 2013.

"That costs us an extra $70,000 to $100,000," he said. "That's one
less mile of road that's going to be paved."

But prices aren't as high as some of the years cited in the
settlement, he said. "One of those years I had to get salt from
Chile at $150 a ton because there was no other salt available."

Lisa Koppin, salt-bid coordinator for the Southwest Ohio
Purchasers for Government, said her 73 members got much lower salt
rates -- between $65 and $70 a ton -- with a total request of
125,000 tons.

One of those members is Whitehall, which contracts with ODOT but
is using Southwest as a backup, said Zachary Woodruff, director of
public service.

"Given a full year to recover, the salt price has dropped to a
much more manageable amount, (with) less demand from," he said. At
the end of 2014, Whitehall was "paying upwards of $120 a ton, so
these (prices) are substantially better," Woodruff said.

For Rob James, Dublin's director of streets and utilities, ODOT
prices also come as welcome news, comparatively.

"They've been escalating in recent years," he said. "It seems like
anything under $100 a ton is a great deal."


CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Judge Dismisses Suit Over Traffic System
----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Linda R. Reade of the Northern District of
Iowa, Cedar Rapids Division, granted defendants' motion to dismiss
in the case GARY HUGHES et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CEDAR
RAPIDS, IOWA & GATSO USA, INC., Defendants, NO. 14-CV-111-LRR
(N.D. Iowa)

The City of Cedar Rapids in Iowa implemented an Automated Traffic
Enforcement (ATE) system pursuant to the Cedar Rapids Code of
Ordinances. The city contracted with defendant Gatso USA, Inc.
(Gatso) to assist the city in installing and operating the ATE
system.

Under the ATE system, a camera captures an image of a vehicle
either failing to stop at a red light or traveling faster than the
posted speed limit. The city then mails a notice of violation to
the registered owner of the vehicle, as required by the Cedar
Rapids Code of Ordinances. A notice of violation informs the
registered owner of the vehicle of the violation and that he or
she may either waive the right to a hearing by paying the civil
penalty or contest the violation.

Plaintiff Gary Hughes is a resident of Iowa. Hughes brings a claim
because he believes that he rightfully has feared that, as a
vehicle owner regularly using the roads in Cedar Rapids, he may be
subject to civil liability resulting from the operation of the
City's ATE system. He has not yet received a civil penalty under
the ATE ordinance.

Plaintiffs Arash Yarpezeshkan, Edward G. Robinson and James Louis
Sparks are all residents of Iowa. Yarpezeshkan, Robinson and
Sparks all received notices of determination.  Yarpezeshkan,
Robinson and Sparks all paid the fines contained in the notices of
determination.

Plaintiffs Krisanne M. Duhaime and Gerald Reid Duhaime are married
and are residents of Iowa. They received a notice of violation and
traveled to Cedar Rapids and appeared for an administrative
hearing. The administrative appeal board found the Duhaimes
liable.

Plaintiff David Mazgaj is a resident of Iowa. Mazgaj received a
notice of determination. Mazgaj appeared for an administrative
hearing, at which the administrative appeal board found him
liable. Mazgaj paid the fine.

Plaintiff Susan M. Dumbaugh is a resident of Iowa. Dumbaugh
received a notice of violation. Dumbaugh appeared for an
administrative hearing. At the hearing, the administrative appeal
board found Dumbaugh liable. The Cedar Rapids Police Department
subsequently sent Dumbaugh a letter dismissing the citation and
finding that Dumbaugh had no liability for the citation.

Plaintiff Jerry Northrup is a resident of Florida. Northrup
received a notice of violation and paid the fine. Plaintiff Daniel
Ray French is a resident of Minnesota. Plaintiff Jeffrey V.
Stimpson is a resident of West Virginia. French and Stimpson both
received notices of determination and also paid the fine.

Plaintiff Roger L. Lee is a resident of Minnesota. Lee received a
notice of violation. Lee appeared telephonically for an
administrative hearing to challenge the notice of violation. The
administrative appeal board found Lee liable and issued him a
notice of determination. Lee requested a Municipal Infraction be
filed in the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Small Claims
Division. The action is still pending.

Plaintiffs filed a class action petition in the Iowa District
Court for Linn County, Iowa, Case No. EQCV081602. On October 3,
2014, defendants removed the case to the federal district court on
the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

On December 17, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss arguing that plaintiffs Gary
Hughes, David Mazgaj and Roger Lee lack standing to bring any
claim, all plaintiffs lack standing to bring a due process claim,
plaintiff Susan M. Dumbaugh's claim is moot and all plaintiffs
fail to state claims on which relief can be granted.

Chief District Judge Reade granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint.  A copy of Chief District Judge
Reade's order dated July 2, 2015 is available at
http://goo.gl/XVqB7efrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by James C Larew -
James.Larew@LarewLawOffice.com -- at Larew Law Office; Claire M
Diallo -- cdiallo@bdrlawoffice.com -- at Browne, Diallo & Roy, LLP

City of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Defendant, represented by:

James H Flitz, Esq.
Cedar Rapids Attorney's Office
Cedar Rapids City Hall
101 First Street SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Telephone: 319-286-5025

     - and -

Elizabeth D Jacobi, Esq.
Linn County
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401-1205
Telephone: 319-286-5025

     - and -

Paul David Burns -- pburns@bradleyriley.com -- at Bradley & Riley

Gatso USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by:

James H Flitz, Esq.
Cedar Rapids Attorney's Office
Cedar Rapids City Hall
101 First Street SE
Cedar Rapids, IA 52401
Telephone: 319-286-5025

     - and -

Paul David Burns -- pburns@bradleyriley.com -- Laura Michelle Hyer
-- lhyer@bradleyriley.com -- at Bradley & Riley


CENTEX HOUSE: Faces "Viera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crecencio Viera Viera, Marcelino Hernandez, Pedro Hernandez, and
Carlos Ramos Perez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Centex House Leveling, Austin- L.L.C., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00612 (W.D. Tex., July 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Centex House Leveling, Austin- L.L.C. operate as a foundation
repair and house leveling company providing services to
residential and commercial properties in central Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Willett, Esq.
      EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
      510 S. Congress Ave., Suite 206
      Austin, TX 78704
      Telephone: (512) 474-0007
      Facsimile: (512) 474-0008
      E-mail: chris@equaljusticecenter.org


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Mayer" Suit in N.Y. Over FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Issac Mayer and Bruchy Mayer, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated consumers v. Central Credit Services LLC,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04258 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CENTRAL OHIO GAMING: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Camilla Perez, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Central Ohio Gaming Ventures,
LLC and Penn National Gaming, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-02636-MHW-NMK
(S.D. Ohio, July 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate the Hollywood Casino Columbus in
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew James Porter Coffman, Esq.
      COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
      1457 S. High St.
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 949-1181
      Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
      E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

         - and -

      Gregory R. Mansell, Esq.
      MANSELL LAW LLC
      1457 S High St
      Columbus, OH 43207
      Telephone: (614) 610-4134
      Facsimile: (513) 826-9311
      E-mail: Greg.Mansell@Ohio-EmploymentLawyer.com


CHAMPION WELL: "Crumpler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Crumpler, Chance Lopez, and Ethan Durnell and all other
similarly situated employees v. Champion Well Service, LLC and B.
Kurt Herrington, Case No. 4:15-cv-02099 (S.D. Tex., July 21,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oil and gas services company in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop W, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Sued Over Proposed Crestwood Equity Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Aron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-02101
(S.D. Tex., July 21, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
unit-holders of Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, to enjoin the
proposed merger between Crestwood Midstream and Crestwood Equity
Partners LP, for an inadequate consideration.

Crestwood Midstream Partners LP is a Delaware limited partnership
headquartered in Houston, Texas, that develops, acquires, owns and
operates primarily fee-based assets and operations within the
energy midstream sector.

Crestwood Equity Partners LP is a Delaware limited partnership
with principal executive offices located at 700 Louisiana Street,
Suite 2550, Houston, Texas, 77002.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM LLP
      700 Louisiana, Ste 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 227-7720
      E-mail: tbilek@bileklaw.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      Miles D. Schreiner, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, Tenth Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
              mschreiner@faruqilaw.com


CROWDFLOWER INC: Provisional Settlement Class Certified in "Otey"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the Northern District of California
ruled on the plaintiffs' motions in the case CHRISTOPHER OTEY, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. CROWDFLOWER, INC., et al., Defendants, CASE
NO. 12-CV-05524-JST (N.D. Cal.)

CrowdFlower, Inc. is an internet-based company that distributes
small and simple repetitive tasks to individuals in exchange for
pay on a per-task basis. CrowdFlower gets projects from various
customers, breaks the projects into pieces, and assigns the pieces
to contributors.

Named plaintiffs Christopher Otey and Mary Greth performed tasks
for CrowdFlower through a website called Amazon Mechanical Turk
(AMT). The gravamen of their complaint is that CrowdFlower pays
its contributors, whom it classifies as independent contractors,
less than the minimum wage under FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Section 206(a),
and Oregon law, ORS Sections 653.025 and 652.150.  Plaintiffs
bring their Oregon law claims as class action claims under
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23.

The court granted plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification
of a collective action, and conditionally certified the following
class:

All persons who performed crowdsourced work in the United States
and its territories in response to any online request by
CrowdFlower for crowdsourced work, or any online notification by
CrowdFlower that crowdsourced work was available at any time from
three years prior to the date on which notice is issued to the
date on which notice is issued.

On January 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of
FLSA collective action settlement, final collective action
certification for settlement purposes only, and authorization for
the parties to effectuate their settlement, which the court denied
on April 15, 2014.

On December 16, 2015, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
approval of a modified settlement agreement, identifying several
remaining deficiencies that precluded approval at that stage.

Plaintiffs moved for approval of the parties' second modified
settlement agreement, final collective action certification for
settlement purposes, authorization for the parties to effectuate
their settlement agreement, and equitable tolling.

Defendants have filed a statement in support of plaintiffs' motion
for approval pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(b).

Judge Tigar grants approval of the parties' second modified
collective action settlement and decertifies the conditionally
certified collective action, and certifies a provisional
settlement class of:

all contributors who performed CrowdFlower managed tasks on behalf
of customers posted on AMT at any time from October 26, 2009,
through the Approval Date, who accessed said tasks from an IP
address located in the United States or any of its territories
(specifically, American Samoa, Guam, U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto
Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands), and whose cumulative
earnings from performing said tasks during this period are equal
to or greater than $5.00 (Five Dollars).

The court approves the class notice, subject to the revision and
appoints the law firms of Weinhaus & Potashnick and Feinstein
Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC, as class counsel.

The court approves claims administration expenses in an amount not
to exceed $70,000; attorneys' fees in the amount of $146,377.00;
costs in the amount of $50,457.34; and representative service
awards in the amount of $5,000.00 for Mary Greth and $6,000.00 for
Christopher Otey and denies plaintiffs' request for equitable
tolling.

A copy of Judge Tigar's order dated July 2, 2015 is available at
http://is.gd/Xt6P4Hfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by William Thomas Payne --
wpayne@fdpklaw.com -- Edward J. Feinstein --
efeinstein@fdpklaw.com -- Ellen Mary M. Doyle --
edoyle@fdpklaw.com -- at Feinstein Doyle Payne & Kravec, LLC; Ira
Spiro -- info@spiromoore.com -- at Spiro Law Corp.; Jennifer Lynn
Connor -- JConnor@CKSLaw.com -- at Cohelan Khoury & Singer; Mark
Alan Potashnick -- markp@wp-attorneys.com -- at Weinhaus &
Potashnick

Defendants represented by Tracy Thompson -- tracythompson@dwt.com
-- M. Michael Cole -- mmichaelcole@dwt.com -- at Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP; Brian Maschler -- bmaschler@gordonrees.com -- at
Gordon & Rees, LLP


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Atty Sees Growing Interest in Evacuees' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Wade, writing for The Daily Times, reported that the Maryville
attorney representing evacuees in a class action lawsuit against
CSX Transportation Inc. said interest in the litigation is growing
after a CSX train car carrying a toxic chemical derailed and
caught fire July 2.

Attorney Kevin Shepherd filed the lawsuit in Blount County Circuit
Court along with Maryville residents Kelli and Aaron Johnson. The
husband and wife are the only named plaintiffs at this time, but
represent the estimated 5,000 who were forced to leave their homes
after a train car carrying a hazardous chemical called
acrylonitrile derailed and caught fire in the area of Mt. Tabor
Road and Old Mt. Tabor Road on July 2.

Evacuation suit

The litigation, which seeks unspecified damages, wasn't filed
regarding any personal injuries people may have sustained due to
possible exposure to the burning and leaking chemical. As Shepherd
explained, the lawsuit was filed to recoup fair and appropriate
costs associated with the forced evacuation and the general
"nuisance" of the incident.

While CSX is already working to reimburse more than 4,100
households who were evacuated, Shepherd said he wants to ensure
people are fairly compensated. A CSX spokesperson, who said the
company doesn't comment on pending litigation, said residents are
being reimbursed for the costs of hotel, food and other expenses
incurred as a result of the evacuation. CSX has also been handing
out $500 checks to reimburse individuals for their inconvenience.
Shepherd told The Daily Times that the purpose of the lawsuit is
to make sure people are properly compensated.

"I think obviously CSX would get credit for any contributions
they've made," Shepherd said. "If there are additional damages
claimed by anybody, whatever payment CSX has made would be an
offset or credit that would be considered." He went on to say that
he and the Johnsons are appreciative of CSX's efforts so far in
handling reimbursement, but that it's not uncanny for a company to
get out in front of the situation.

"I do appreicate the fact that CSX is doing this," Shepherd said.
"But this is very common nationwide. Whenever there are
derailments or other accidents of a similar nature, they do very
quickly move into the area and try to address some immediate
(monetary concerns)."

Interest grows

Shepherd told The Daily Times while working from his office
afternoon that since the lawsuit was filed shortly after 3 p.m.,
several residents have contacted him expressing interest in the
litigation.

"It's getting a lot of response and people wanting to get
information," Shepherd said. "So I expect it to get busier before
it slows down. There's been several people who've contacted us to
be either a named plaintiff or to make sure they're part of the
process."

Shepherd said he would be spending a lot of time meeting with
interested parties. But he's also received some criticism for the
lawsuit, he said. And it's a sentiment he feels is unwarranted.

"We're not the ones who dumped this chemical into the air or into
the ground water," Shepherd said. "We didn't want this to happen,
but it has happened, and so we need to address it and make sure
that people are taken care of."

Shepherd said his firm is getting help from the Tucson, Ariz.,
based law firm of Bellovin and Karnas, which has experience in
both class action and toxic chemical litigation. Shepherd said
Bellovin and Karnas has handled litigation against railroad
companies in the past, including several cases against CSX.
Shepherd said he expect additional lawsuits to be filed against
CSX, including for personal injury and regarding businesses who
were forced to close and lost revenue.

Shepherd said he would be willing to handle those kinds of
lawsuits as well.

Cleanup continues

In the meantime, CSX is working with federal and state officials
in cleanup efforts at the derailment site. The Environmental
Protection Agency reported that about 4,000 tons of soil was
removed from the derailment site. A CSX spokesperson said that
soil has since been replaced. CSX is continuing to move out
equipment no longer needed at the site, and air, water and soil
monitoring is continuing.

As of, officials had received requests to monitor 112 wells in the
area. Results on 83 wells have come back. Other than one well
located about 350 feet from the derailment site, no acrylonitrile
contamination has been found. The one contaminated well is still
showing elevated levels of the chemical, officials said.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls 2007 Freightliner Models Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 172
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015336TC
ID number: 2015336
Manufacturer recall number: FL-681

On certain vehicles equipped with Cummins Westport ISL-G engines,
excessive engine crankcase pressure could cause the vent tube
assembly molded rubber adapter to detach from the breather. This
could allow engine oil to come in contact with hot surfaces,
increasing the risk of fire resulting in injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will install clamps at both ends of
the adapter of the breather tube assembly and reprogram the
Electronic Control Module (ECM) to improve diagnostic
capabilities.

  Make            Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----               ----------------------
  FREIGHTLINER    BUSINESS CLASS M2   2007
  FREIGHTLINER    114SD               2007


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls SAFT-T-Liner HDX School Bus Models
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 14
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015335TC
ID number: 2015335
Manufacturer recall number: FL-681

On certain school buses equipped with Cummins Westport ISL-G
engines, excessive engine crankcase pressure could cause the vent
tube assembly molded rubber adapter to detach from the breather.
This could allow engine oil to come in contact with hot surfaces,
increasing the risk of fire resulting in injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will install clamps at both ends of
the adapter of the breather tube assembly and reprogram the
Electronic Control Module (ECM) to improve diagnostic
capabilities.

  Make            Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----            -----               ----------------------
  THOMAS BUILT    SAF-T-LINER HDX    2007
                  SCHOOL BUS


DETROIT, MI: Class Suit Over Water Services Goes to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the Eastern District of
Michigan, Southern Division denied the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment in the case, LaSALLE TOWN HOUSES COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION, NICOLET TOWN HOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION,
LAFAYETTE TOWN HOUSES, INC., JOLIET TOWN HOUSES COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION, ST. JAMES COOPERATIVE, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
DETROIT, Defendant, CASE NO. 12-CV-13747 (E.D. Mich.)

The City of Detroit provides water and sewerage services to
residential, commercial, and industrial buildings and facilities.
Wastewater services are provided on a retail basis within Detroit
city limits. When providing these services, the City acts through
its Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD).

Plaintiffs LaSalle Town Houses Cooperative Association, Nicolet
Town Houses Cooperative Association, Lafayette Townhouses, Inc.,
Joliet Town Houses Cooperative Association, and St. James
Cooperative are owners of various residential cooperatives within
Detroit city limits and are consumers of DWSD.

The individual residential units of plaintiffs' cooperatives do
not have individual water meters. Instead, on average, the larger
cooperatives have four or five water meters that service an entire
building. The majority of these meters are one-and-a-half to two
inches in size. The city classifies plaintiffs' cooperatives as
commercial structures and consequently charges plaintiffs at a
commercial rate rather than a residential rate for its water and
sewage removal services.

Plaintiffs filed a class action suit under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article 1, Section 2 of the Michigan
constitution. They allege that the City of Detroit, acting through
its DWSD, arbitrarily overcharges them for water drainage
services. Plaintiffs assert that defendant charges them the
commercial rate for drainage services as opposed to the
residential rate. Plaintiffs further assert that the residential
rates and the commercial rates are substantially different for
structures with water meters that are either one and-a-half or two
inches in size. They contend that there exists no rational basis
for charging the commercial rate to housing cooperatives with more
than five residential units.

Before the court are the parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment. Both parties contend that they are entitled to summary
judgment on plaintiffs' claim for violation of the United States
and Michigan Constitutions.

Judge Drain denied both motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Drain's opinion and order dated July 1, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/3Gwwnyfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiffs, represented by Kerry L. Morgan -- kmorgan@pck-law.com
-- Randall A. Pentiuk -- rpentiuk@pck-law.com -- at Pentiuk,
Couvreur

City of Detroit, Defendant, represented by Kathryn J. Humphrey --
khumphrey@dykema.com -- Lauren M. Phillips --
lmphillips@dykema.com -- Robert J. Franzinger -- Thomas H.
Trapnell -- ttrapnell@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett


DIAMOND SPORTS: Recalls Face Masks Due to Impact Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Diamond Sports Inc., of Santa Ana, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 10,000 Diamond Sports face masks. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Stitching on the face mask's harness can fail causing the mask to
loosen or come off, posing a risk of impact injury.

This recall involves Diamond Sports umpire and catcher face masks
with Diamond harnesses. The masks and harnesses are black. Diamond
is printed in white on the harness. The face masks have lot number
D-0143, D-0842, D-1041, D-1142, D-0152 or D-0451.  Lot numbers can
be found on a sticker on an inside metal bar in the face mask.
Only faces mask harnesses that do not have box stitching, a
reinforced "X" stitching inside a box, located on the harness
straps are included in this recall.

The firm has received 36 reports of the stitching failing on the
harnesses. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/c8Xgo6

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Sporting goods stores nationwide from February 2014 through May
2015 for between $31 and $106 for the complete mask with harness.
The harnesses were also sold separately for between $3 and $6.

Consumers should immediately stop using recalled face masks and
contact Diamond Sports for a free replacement harness.


ENERGY CORP: Landowners Can Keep $1.4MM Awarded in Royalty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pennsylvania landowners holding oil and gas leases with Energy
Corp. of America can keep the $1.4 million awarded for unlawful
deductions from their royalties, reports Erin Mcauley, citing a
federal court ruling.

Energy Corp. renewed motions for judgment notwithstanding verdict
after a jury ruled in early March for the landowners, who claimed
that ECA and Eastern American Energy Corp. breached lease
contracts by improperly deducting interstate transportation
charges and marketing fees from oil and gas royalties.

Two classes of landowners were certified, one for each type of fee
wrongfully deducted.  The court before trial observed that the
landowner leases were not identical but that "all generally
provide that the plaintiffs are entitled to a royalty of one-
eighth of the net proceeds received from the sale of gas."

The court granted pre-trial partial summary judgment to the class
for interstate transportation charges deducted after ECA
transferred gas titles to third-party purchasers at the five
points where gas is received into the interstate pipeline system.
The court ruled that under terms of its Gas Purchase/Sales
Contract, "ECA retains title to the gas until it passes to third
party purchasers at the five points where the gas is received into
the interstate system. Thus the gas is 'sold' at these points and
ECA cannot recover costs incurred thereafter."

But ECA was permitted to try to show at trial "that it incurred
these costs while it still held title to the gas."

The court dismissed several claims before trial, including that
ECA used wrong gas prices, took excessive or unauthorized expense
deductions and underpaid royalties.

In February the court denied ECA's motion for summary judgment,
claiming it was proper to deduct post-production marketing costs
from royalties, finding that "the nature of the transactions . . .
is ambiguous" since the gas purchase/sales contract provides that
ECA's marketing subsidiary "never holds title to the gas."

The jury was asked only to determine whether ECA breached leases
from the conduct complained of by the class. It found for the
class after the two-day trial on March 2-3, then the court awarded
$911,922.16 plus prejudgment interest.

The court rejected ECA's post-trial motion claiming insufficient
evidence.  It found again there was enough evidence on all counts,
that the class did not receive a one-eighth royalty of net
proceeds, that subsidiary post-production costs were deducted on
behalf of ECA, that ECA did not incur the transportation charges
and marketing fees before titles were transferred to third-party
purchasers, and paid smaller royalties than if the gas had been
directly sold to an end user without using ECA's marketing
subsidiary.

The court also dismissed ECA's request for a new trial, which
claimed that plaintiffs' expert Julia Bodamer should not have been
allowed to testify on where the title passed.  Approaching the
matter as a motion for reconsideration, U.S. Magistrate Judge
Robert Mitchell wrote: "This Court will not 'rethink what [it has]
already thought through rightly or wrongly."  (Brackets in
ruling.)

The case is David F. Pollock, et al. v. Energy corporation of
America, Case No. 2:10-cv-01553-RCM, in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert C. Sanders, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. SANDERS
          12051 Old Marlboro Pike
          Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
          Telephone: (301) 627-2300
          Mobile Phone: (410) 371-2132
          E-mail: rcsanders@rcsanderslaw.com

               - and -

          William R. Caroselli, Esq.
          David A. McGowan, Esq.
          CAROSELLI, BEACHLER, MCTIERNAN & COLEMAN, L.L.C.
          20 Stanwix St., Seventh Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 567-1232
          Toll Free: (866) 466-5789
          Facsimile: (412) 391-7453

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kevin C. Abbott, Esq.
          Justin H. Werner, Esq.
          Nicolle R. Snyder Bagnell, Esq.
          Stacey L. Jarrell, Esq.
          REED SMITH
          Reed Smith Centre
          225 Fifth Avenue
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 288-3131
          Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
          E-mail: kabbott@reedsmith.com
                  jwerner@reedsmith.com
                  nbagnell@reedsmith.com
                  sjarrell@reedsmith.com


EPOCA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Glass Round Kettles Due to Burn Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 30, 2015
Posting date: July 30, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Burn Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54428

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

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

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

Epoca International has received nine reports of incidents,
including three injuries and one report of property damage.

Approximately 11000 recalled kettles were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from January 2012 to June 2015 at
various retailers.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Epoca International
          Boca Raton
          Florida
          UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using the product immediately.

Customers should either return the product to the retailer or
contact Epoca International at (800) 241-7940 anytime or online
and click on "Recalls" in the upper right-hand corner of the
homepage for instructions on how to return the product for a full
refund.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8OcYtJ


FAST RIG: Judge Allows Drivers' Suit to Proceed to Trial
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the Middle District of
Pennsylvania allows plaintiffs' claim to proceed to trial in the
case ALPHONSE MAZZARELLA, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated employees, Plaintiffs, v. FAST RIG SUPPORT, LLC and FIRST
AMERICANS SHIPPING AND TRUCKING, INC., Defendants, CIVIL ACTION
NO. 3:13-2844 (M.D. Pa.)

Plaintiff Alphonse Mazzarella is a truck driver employed by
defendants FAST Rig Support, LLC, and First Americans Shipping and
Trucking, Inc.  Plaintiff and his fellow drivers transport water
from sources within Pennsylvania to natural gas rigs also located
within Pennsylvania.

Plaintiffs contends that they are owed overtime for all hours
worked in excess of 40 per week as mandated by the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq., and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), 43 P.S. Sections 333.101, et
seq.

Plaintiffs brought suit against defendants for violations of the
FLSA's overtime provision, 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a)(1), and for
violations of the PMWA's overtime provision, 43 P.S. Section
331.104(c). The FLSA claim was brought as a collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b). The PMWA action was brought
as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. Plaintiff filed a
motion for conditional class certification but later withdrew the
request as the parties stipulated that all drivers employed by
defendants in Pennsylvania since May 1, 2011 were conditionally
certified as a collective pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss but were denied by the court.
Trial is set for August 3, 2015. At the pre-trial conference on
May 20, 2015, it was decided that the parties should brief two
issues: whether the water that plaintiffs haul is considered
property subject to the Secretary of Transportation's
jurisdiction; and whether the water is so integral to interstate
commerce that even its intrastate transport directly affects
interstate commerce to determine whether or not plaintiff's claim
can proceed to trial.

Judge Mannion ruled plaintiffs' claims under FLSA and PMWA can
proceed against defendants to trial.  A copy of Judge Mannion's
memorandum dated June 30, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/yFitogfrom Leagle.com.

Alphonse Mazzarella, Plaintiff, represented by:

Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO LLC
Twining Office Center, Suite 211
715 Twining Road
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: 215-884-2491
Facsimile: 215-884-2492

Defendants, represented by:

William E. Vinsko, Jr., Esq.
VINSKO & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
253 South Franklin Street
Wilkes-Barre, PA 18701
Telephone: 570-266-8147
Facsimile: 570-970-9711


FASTENAL CO: Faces Suit for Charging GMs for Stale Inventory
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Fastenal Co. charges its
general managers for stale inventory and is going to start
charging other employees for it, a class action claims in King
County Court.


FORD MOTOR: Bid for Protective Order in "Burd" Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert of the Southern District of West
Virginia, Huntington Division, denied plaintiffs' motion for
protective order in the case CHARLES T. BURD, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:13-CV-20976 (S.D.W.
Va.)

Former plaintiffs Laura Elsinger, Gabriel Kletschka, Dean
Richardson, and Christine Salamone filed voluntary notices of
dismissal on November 26, 2014, approximately twenty months after
filing the suit against defendant Ford Motor Company, and after
defendant had served written discovery on them and orally
requested dates for their depositions.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for protective order. Plaintiffs object
to any discovery of the four former plaintiffs on the ground that
they are absent class members, and defendant has not made the
requisite showing to justify taking their depositions.

Magistrate Judge Eifert denied plaintiffs' motion for protective
order.  A copy of Magistrate Judge Eifert's memorandum opinion and
order dated June 4, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/Y4Ompqfrom
Leagle.com.

Charles T. Burd, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Anne
M. Tarvin, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, Benjamin L.
Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Bradley D. Honnold, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, C. Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY
DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III,Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L.
Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John
H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Malcolm T. Brown, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW
FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B.
Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS &
BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Robert F.
DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli, GOMEZ & IAGMIN,
Stephen J. Fearon, SQUITIERI & FEARON, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Thomas C. Jones, DAVIS BETHUNE &
JONES, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

William S. Troutman, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Anne M. Tarvin, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Bradley D.
Honnold, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, C. Calvin Warriner,
III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E. Powell Miller,
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL,
III,Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M.
Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI
BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, James L. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY
& MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT,
Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,Kyle J. McGee, GRANT
& EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja
Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Malcolm T. Brown,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW
FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ,
Stephanie Poli, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen J. Fearon, SQUITIERI &
FEARON, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY,
Thomas C. Jones, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI
BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V.
Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Jolene Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Anne
M. Tarvin, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, Benjamin L.
Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Bradley D. Honnold, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, C. Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY
DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III,Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L.
Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John
H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Malcolm T. Brown, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW
FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B.
Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS &
BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Robert F.
DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli, GOMEZ & IAGMIN,
Stephen J. Fearon, SQUITIERI & FEARON, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Thomas C. Jones, DAVIS BETHUNE &
JONES, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Shane Mayfield, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Anne
M. Tarvin, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, Benjamin L.
Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Bradley D. Honnold, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, C. Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY
DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III,Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L.
Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John
H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Malcolm T. Brown, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW
FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B.
Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS &
BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Robert F.
DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli, GOMEZ & IAGMIN,
Stephen J. Fearon, SQUITIERI & FEARON, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Thomas C. Jones, DAVIS BETHUNE &
JONES, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Andrea Martin, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Anne
M. Tarvin, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, Benjamin L.
Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Bradley D. Honnold, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, C. Calvin Warriner, III, SEARCY
DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL, III,Grant
Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M. Travalio, ISAAC
WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, James L.
Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT & EISENHOFER, John
H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, John
Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, John E.
Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT, Keith G.
Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,Kyle J. McGee, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja Lukic,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Malcolm T. Brown, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW
FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKOLDER & TEETOR, Nathan B.
Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A. Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS &
BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Robert F.
DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly Breen, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli, GOMEZ & IAGMIN,
Stephen J. Fearon, SQUITIERI & FEARON, Stephen M. Gorny, BARTIMUS
FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Thomas C. Jones, DAVIS BETHUNE &
JONES, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Timothy C.
Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II, LAFFEY BUCCI &
KENT

Thomas Porter, and, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE BROWN &
O'MEARA, Anne M. Tarvin, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA,
Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Bradley D.
Honnold, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, C. Calvin Warriner,
III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E. Powell Miller,
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL,
III,Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M.
Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI
BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, James L. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY, Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY
& MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT,
Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,Kyle J. McGee, GRANT
& EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja
Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Malcolm T. Brown,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM, Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen J. Fearon, SQUITIERI & FEARON, Stephen M.
Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Thomas C. Jones,
DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II,
LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Hasen Design Build & Development, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Adam J. Levitt, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Alison K. Hurley, BREMER WHYTE
BROWN & O'MEARA, Anne M. Tarvin, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GOZA, Benjamin L. Price, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA,Bradley D.
Honnold, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GOZA, C. Calvin Warriner,
III, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY, E. Powell Miller,
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, Edgar F. Heiskell, III, EDGAR F. HEISKELL,
III, Grant Lavalle Davis, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Gregory M.
Travalio, ISAAC WILES BURKHOLDER & TEETOR, Guy R. Bucci, BUCCI
BAILEY & JAVINS, James Bartimus, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON &
GORNY, James L. Murray, MURRAY & MURRAY,Jeff A. Almeida, GRANT &
EISENHOFER, John H. Gomez, GOMEZ & IAGMIN, John T. Murray, MURRAY
& MURRAY, John Scarola, SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY,
John E. Tangren, GRANT & EISENHOFER, Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT,
Keith G. Bremer, BREMER WHYTE BROWN & O'MEARA, Kyle J. McGee,
GRANT & EISENHOFER, L. Lee Javins, II, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS, Maja
Lukic, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Malcolm T. Brown,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Mark A. DiCello, THE
DICELLO LAW FIRM, Mark H. Troutman, ISAAC WILES BURKOLDER &
TEETOR, Nathan B. Atkinson, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Niall A.
Paul, SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE, Richard L. Merpi, II, THE MILLER
LAW FIRM,Robert F. DiCello, THE DICELLO LAW FIRM, Stacey Kelly
Breen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ, Stephanie Poli,
GOMEZ & IAGMIN, Stephen J. Fearon, SQUITIERI & FEARON,Stephen M.
Gorny, BARTIMUS FRICKLETON ROBERTSON & GORNY, Thomas C. Jones,
DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES, Timothy C. Bailey, BUCCI BAILEY & JAVINS,
Timothy C. Gaarder, DAVIS BETHUNE & JONES & V. Paul Bucci, II,
LAFFEY BUCCI & KENT

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Trask,
MCGUIRE WOODS, Bradley J. Schmalzer, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH &
BONASSO, Jill Crawley Griset, MCGUIRE WOODS, John Tracy Walker,
IV, MCGUIRE WOODS, Michael Bonasso, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH &
BONASSO,Perry Watson Miles, IV, MCGUIRE WOODS, Peter J. Fazio,
AARONSON RAPPAPORT FEINSTEIN & DEUTSCH, Sarah Virginia Bondurant,
MCGUIRE WOODS, Susan W. Romaine, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH & BONASSO,
Tennille Jo Checkovich, MCGUIRE WOODS, William J. Hanna, FLAHERTY
SENSABAUGH & BONASSO & Jeffrey A. Holmstrand, FLAHERTY SENSABAUGH
& BONASSO


FREDDIE MAC: Judge Recommends Dismissal of "Burns" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix of the District of Colorado has
recommended the dismissal of the case, SUSAN BURNS, Plaintiff, v.
FREDDIE MAC, BANK OF AMERICA, and DOES 1 THROUGH 30, INCLUSIVE,
Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-CV-02109-WJM-KLM (D. Colo.)

In June 2001, Susan Burns signed a promissory note in the amount
of $275,000 amortized over 30 years and a deed of trust over her
residence at 548 South Pearl Street, Denver, Colorado, 80209. The
note was later sold to defendant Bank of America.

Plaintiff alleges that in 2005 she failed to make two mortgage
payments to the Bank, but that she reached an agreement with the
Bank and resumed making monthly payments.  Plaintiff avers that in
the summer of 2007 the Bank began to foreclose on the property and
in September 2007 refused to accept her payments toward the note.

In or around 2009 plaintiff discovered that defendant Freddie Mac
had purchased the note. Plaintiff spoke to an employee of
defendant Freddie Mac and reached an agreement regarding a
modification to the note and was told that the documents would be
mailed to her for signature, but the same came to her many months
later and the letter did not reflect the agreed terms. Plaintiff
maintains that after she refused the new terms, defendant bank set
a foreclosure sale date either in retaliation or as inducement.

Plaintiff filed a suit asserting claims for breach of contract,
usury, fraud and deceit, intentional misrepresentation, and
slander against the defendants and seeks injunctive relief, actual
damages, punitive damages, costs, and fees.

The matter has been referred to Magistrate Judge Mix and after
analyzing plaintiff's claims against defendant Bank of America,
the Magistrate Judge Mix recommended that all claims except the
slander claim be dismissed. Plaintiff objected and the District
Judge overruled her objections and adopted the recommendation.

Defendant Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss and argues that
plaintiff's claims asserted against it should be dismissed for the
same reasons that the court dismissed the claims asserted against
defendant Bank of America.  With regard to the slander claim that
was not dismissed as to defendant Bank of America, defendant
Freddie Mac argues that plaintiff has not alleged any facts to
support a slander claim against it.

Magistrate Judge Mix recommends that the motion to dismiss be
granted and all of plaintiff's claims against defendant Freddie
Mac be dismissed.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Mix's recommendation dated June 8,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/Ga9ZRYfrom Leagle.com.

Susan Burns, Plaintiff, Pro Se

Defendants, represented by:

James N. Phillips, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LLP
90 South Cascade Avenue, Suite 1300
Colorado Springs, CO 80903-1615
Telephone: 719-473-3800
Facsimile: 719-633-1518


GENERAL MOTORS: Cassels Brock to Appeal Damages in Dealer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Brown, writing for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, reported
that Justice Thomas McEwen found Cassels Brock owed contractual
and fiduciary duties to some or all of GM dealers in the class.
One of the lawyers representing GM dealers in the class action
against law firm Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP says the case
represents "the conflicts issue in a perfect storm."

"When you look at what went on in May 2009 and the need these
dealers had to be represented, then layer on to it the conflict of
interest, it was going to be two trains coming down the same track
and that's why there was a significant damages award made," says
David Sterns, a partner with Sotos LLP in Toronto.

An Ontario Superior Court judge awarded damages against Cassels
Brock in the amount of C$45 million for breach of fiduciary duty,
breach of contract, and professional negligence.

In his 160-page decision issued July 8 in Trillium Motor World
Ltd. V. General Motors of Canada Ltd., Justice Thomas McEwen found
that Cassels Brock owed contractual and fiduciary duties to some
or all of the class members in the case and breached those duties.
As well, he found it also owed a duty of care, which was also
breached.

McEwen wrote: "I find that Cassels was retained by the Class
Members including Trillium to protect their interests in any
complex restructuring of the dealer network and to represent them
in any GMCL CCAA proceedings. I further find that Cassels breached
its contractual and fiduciary duties by accepting the retainer
having already agreed to act for the Federal Government (through
Industry Canada) in relation to any GMCL CCAA proceedings. Cassels
knew about this conflict from the outset; yet, rather than
declining to act for the GMCL dealers and referring to an
unconflicted law firm, or even telling the dealers about the
retainer with the Federal Government, continued to act for both
the Federal Government and the dealers."

McEwen also determined GM Canada did not breach the Arthur Wishart
Act (franchise disclosure), 2000. Therefore he dismissed the
action against GMCL. He also dismissed the counterclaim by GMCL
against each of the class members.

The case dates back to 2009, when about 200 General Motors dealers
were eliminated during the federal auto bailout. The class action
was seeking $750 million in damages on behalf of those dealers.
Also named in the suit was Cassels Brock, which had been retained
to represent Canadian dealers in a GM restructuring bankruptcy.

In light of the decision against the firm, in a statement July 9,
Cassels Brock general counsel John Birch said it's business as
usual and the firm is actively pursuing an appeal. He noted the
judgment "creates potentially indeterminate liability for
lawyers."

"Of course, we are disappointed," Birch said. "But we remain
confident that we conducted ourselves properly and in accordance
with our professional responsibilities."

"We feel that the findings are not justified on the evidence and
that there are significant legal errors in the decision. We
continue to believe that Trillium Motor World and the other
automotive dealers had not become our clients in the
circumstances, and they were each represented by their own
independent legal counsel."

In his decision, McEwen wrote: "Cassels takes the position that
there was only ever the potential for a conflict to arise on
account of the two retainers. In other words, Cassels accepts that
there was indeed a risk that immediate legal interests of Industry
Canada and the GMCL dealers would be directly adverse."

He referred to testimony that indicated "Cassels would have
dropped the GMCL dealers if the risk became reality ("if an
adverse interest arose with respect to that retainer, it's
conceivable that we could not act for the dealers at that time"),
there can be little doubt that there was a risk that Cassels'
representation of the GMCL dealers would have been materially
affected.

"Thus, the issue is really whether this risk was a substantial
one. In my view, the evidence supports a finding that it was,"
McEwen wrote.

Cassels Brock held the position there was no retainer because the
only retainer it would have had was for a Companies' Creditors
Arrangement Act proceeding that did not happen. However, the judge
found the retainer extended to the negotiation and advice on the
dealer wind-down agreements.

"That was critical because if he found the scope of the retainer
was more narrow it is likely Cassels Brock would not have been
found to be liable," says Brian Radnoff, a partner at Lerners LLP.
"That determination was informed by inferences the trial judge
made. Another judge looking at the same evidence could have come
to a different conclusion."

The other issue was Cassels Brock's conflict over the retainer
with Industry Canada. Radnoff says in any CCAA proceeding there
would have been a conflict between the law firm's representation
of the GM dealers and its representation of Industry Canada.

"In my view Justice McEwen's finding on that is unimpeachable. The
evidence was quite clear and he makes it clear you can't take on
these retainers and take a wait-and-see approach, which frankly
has, to some extent, been the practice of some firms on Bay
Street," says Radnoff.

Most law firms typically have sophisticated conflict systems and
databases that if accurately populated will identify potential
conflicts at the outset, says Gavin MacKenzie of DLA Piper in
Toronto.

"Sometimes it can be difficult to determine whether acting for two
clients involved in the same matter really does give rise to a
conflict," he says. "I think that was a large part of the issue in
this trial. The trial judge certainly concluded that the interests
of the government of Canada and the dealers who entered into the
wind-down agreements were potentially adverse. Whether they
actually became adverse was very much an issue at trial."

Co-counsel for Trillium Motor World says McEwen made comments
about the importance of collective retainers both in the
insolvency context and in general for the purpose of access to
justice.

"The fact is people have collective counsel and some may have
individual counsel and that is not an irreconcilable position. In
fact, it's quite common in the context of a collective retainer,"
says Marie-Andr‚e Vermette, a partner with WeirFoulds LLP.

The dealers had banded together and hired Cassels Brock to protect
them.

"Each one that testified was asked who they thought their lawyer
was and each one thought it was Cassels Brock," says Sterns. "They
paid money into Cassels Brock, checked a form saying they wanted
to be represented by Cassels Brock, and were advised by Cassels
Brock. To suggest they weren't a client of Cassels Brock is to go
against the overwhelming evidence."

Vermette says Cassels Brock's position at trial was it had a
retainer for the GM dealers but it was only to be triggered if
there was a CCAA filing.

Sterns says this case will be a "resounding reminder to the
profession" the issue of conflicts "isn't some kind of red tape
bureaucracy rule. This goes to the heart of what we do as
lawyers."

He adds there was a "huge power imbalance" at play with small
independent dealers who had a lot at stake but lacked the
sophistication and knowledge of what was going on.

"They reached out to what they thought was a sophisticated
powerful Bay Street firm, paid them a substantial retainer with a
view to having someone in their corner," he says.

While the damages award appears significant, Sterns says so were
the losses suffered by the dealers.

"We're still digesting [the decision] and have some decisions to
make ourselves regarding appeals," he says.

So what does a damages award of C$45 million mean to the future of
a firm like Cassels Brock? Most large law firms that do commercial
transactions have excess insurance, typically in the range of tens
of millions of dollars.

"If they didn't have insurance to cover the damages awarded it
would likely put the firm at risk, but it is likely they have
sufficient excess insurance to cover all or most of the judgment,"
says Radnoff.


GLOBAL ITALIAN: Faces "Montana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Montana, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. Global Italian Food LLC, d/b/a Piola and Stefano Carniato, Case
No. 2015-016496-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., July 21, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Piola restaurant in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GREAT DANE: Recalls Semi Trailer Vans 2015 Models
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 28, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Heavy Trailer
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 42
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015340TC
ID number: 2015340

On certain trailers, brake chamber diaphragm(s) may not be
properly seated. This could lead to brake drag, causing brake
overheating or unintended spring brake application. These issues
could increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will replace the brake chambers.

  Make          Model               Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----               ----------------------
  GREAT DANE    SEMI TRAILER VANS   2015


HELGESEN INDUSTRIES: Faces "Hanson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hanson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Helgesen Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00878-CNC
(E.D. Wis., July 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Helgesen Industries, Inc. designs and manufactures hydraulic tank
reservoirs and fluid conditioning devices out of its U.S.
headquarters located in Hartford, Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HONDA: Recalls 2013 CBR500RA, CBR500R, and CB500FA Models
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 27, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 3376
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015338TC
ID number: 2015338

On certain motorcycles, the fuel level sensor float arm holder
could deform and allow the arm to separate from the fuel level
sensor body. If the float arm separates from the sensor body, the
fuel meter would provide inaccurate information. In some cases the
separated metal float arm could contact both the positive and
negative terminals at the base of the fuel pump, causing a short
that results in a blown (fuel injection, ignition or main) fuse.
Either symptom could result in an engine stall, which could
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will replace the fuel level sensor
assembly.

  Make       Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----         ----------------------
  HONDA      CBR500RA      2013
  HONDA      CBR500R       2013
  HONDA      CB500FA       2013


HUMANA INC: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Proposed Aetna Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Humana Inc., et al., Case No. 11323-VCL (Del. Ch.,
July 22, 2015), on behalf of the public stockholders of Humana
Inc., to enjoin the attempt to sell the Company to Aetna Inc. for
inadequate consideration.

Humana Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates as a health
and well-being company.

Aetna Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its headquarters in
Hartford, Connecticut. Aetna is an American managed health care
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th St. N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, D.C. 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290


HUSQVARNA CONSUMER: Recalls Lawn and Garden Tillers
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A. Inc., of Charlotte, N.C.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 24,000 Lawn and garden
tillers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The tiller's transmission shift rod and clip can come into contact
with the control cable during shifting and cause the tiller to
unintentionally move forward or backward, posing a risk of bodily
injury and/or laceration.

This recall involves Ariens(R), Husqvarna(R), Jonsered(R) and
Poulan Pro(R) brand rear tine tillers used for plowing,
cultivation and ridging gardens and lawns. The tillers have an
engine to power the wheels and the rear tines, an operator handle
with forward and reverse transmission and tilling widths ranging
from 17 to 19 inches. "Sold at" section. The brand name is printed
on the side of the tiller.  They were sold in red, orange and
yellow/black colors. The following model and serial numbers are
included in the recall.

  Brand Name      Model Number       Serial Number Range
  ----------      ------------       -------------------
  Ariens          A600DRT            101514MXXXXX through
  Husqvarna       CRT900, CRT900L,   053115MXXXXX
                  DRT900, DRT900E,
                  DRT900H

  Jonsered        J208C14, J208D14
  Poulan Pro      PRRT900

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/gNebp8

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Hardware stores, home centers and independent outdoor power
equipment dealers from October 2014 through May 2015 for between
$600 and $850.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tillers and
return it to the nearest Husqvarna dealer for a free repair.


INTERSTATE MAT: 1st Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Sparkle Hill Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Kayatta of the United States Court of Appeals,
First Circuit, affirmed the dismissal and denial of the motion by
the trial in the appealed case SPARKLE HILL, INC. and WILLIAM
WARMING, individually and as the representatives of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. INTERSTATE
MAT CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee, NO. 14-1618 (1st Cir.)

Interstate is a Massachusetts corporation with four employees. It
paid a marketing firm to fax to 10,000 potential customers a one-
page advertisement for Interstate's anti-fatigue floor mats. In
May 2006, the marketing firm transmitted Interstate's
advertisement to 8,416 recipients. One of those recipients was
Sparkle Hill, a New Jersey corporation. Another was West Concord
5-10-1.00 Store, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation.

On January 28, 2010, West Concord filed a class action against
Interstate in Massachusetts superior court for sending unsolicited
fax advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA). More than one year after West Concord filed
the state class action and nearly five years after the fax
transmissions, Sparkle Hill, Inc., and its vice president and
owner William Warming filed a suit against Interstate in federal
district court alleging violation of the TCPA, 47 U.S.C. Section
227.

On May 22, 2012, West Concord filed a motion in state court to
certify a class.  About a month later, Sparkle Hill moved in
federal district court to certify a class. The federal district
court acted first, and certified Sparkle Hill's requested class on
December 18, 2012.

In federal court, Sparkle Hill filed a motion for summary judgment
on May 28, 2013. Interstate opposed Sparkle Hill's motion by
disputing both that the faxes were unsolicited advertisements and
also that it willfully and knowingly violated the Act. Interstate
also cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that the
applicable four-year statute of limitations barred Sparkle Hill's
claim under the Act.

The district court entered summary judgment for Interstate on May
23, 2014, dismissing the case. The district court also addressed
the merits of Interstate's statute of limitations defense and
concluded that Sparkle Hill's claim under the Act was time-barred.

Sparkle Hill filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b)(6) to vacate the district court's order and clarify the
memorandum opinion. The district court denied Sparkle Hill's
motion without explanation. Sparkle Hill timely appealed.

Circuit Judge Kayatta, who penned the First Circuit decision,
affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment to
Interstate on the claims of the named plaintiffs and also affirmed
the district court's denial of Sparkle Hill's Rule 60(b)(6)
motion.

A copy of Judge Kayatta's opinion dated June 3, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/CKWuVOfrom Leagle.com.

For Appellants:

Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
BOCK & HATCH, LLC
134 N LaSall St # 100
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: 312-658-5500

     - and -

Edward M. Swartz -- Alan L. Cantor -- acantor@swartzlaw.com -- at
Swartz & Swartz; Brian J. Wanca -- BWanca@andersonwanca.com --
David M. Oppenheim -- Doppenheim@andersonwanca.com -- at Anderson
+ Wanca

For Appellee, Scott T. Ober -- sober@hassettanddonnelly.com --
David F. Hassett -- dhassett@hassettanddonnelly.com -- Margarita
I. Warren -- mwarren@hassettanddonnelly.com -- at Hassett &
Donnelly, P.C.

The First Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Juan R.
Torruella, O. Rogeriee Thompson and William J. Kayatta, Jr.


JEFFERIES GROUP: Delaware Plaintiff Firms Win $21.5MM Fee Award
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the consolidated case entitled In re Jefferies Group, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, CONSOLIDATED C.A. NO. 8059-CB (Del. Ch.),
Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard of the Court of Chancery of Delaware:

     -- awards $21.5 million in fees to four Delaware-based law
firms, inclusive of expenses which equate to approximately 23.5%
of the gross value of the settlement; but

     -- denied New York plaintiffs' motion for a share of the fee
award.

A stock-for-stock merger was closed on March 1, 2013 by the
Jefferies Group, Inc. and Leucadia National Corporation.  On
November 14, 2012, two days after the transaction was announced,
the first of seven actions challenging the proposed transaction
was filed in New York state court. After some initial activity in
New York, this case proceeded in Delaware.

Plaintiffs alleged that the transaction was tainted by conflicts
affecting half of the Jefferies board of directors and as a result
had to meet the exacting standards of the entire fairness standard
under Delaware law.

Defendants argued strenuously that the business judgment rule
should govern the case because, among other things, a transaction
committee of independent directors working with an independent
financial advisor had recommended the merger, four of the six
directors on the Jefferies board who ultimately approved the
transaction were free of conflict, and a majority of the company's
disinterested stockholders approved the transaction in a fully-
informed vote.

On October 31, 2014, about five weeks before trial was scheduled
to begin, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle
the case. On March 10, 2015, the New York Plaintiffs filed a
motion in the Delaware Chancery Court seeking an award of 20% of
the amount of any fees to be awarded to Delaware Counsel.

Delaware Counsel consists of four law firms that were named as co-
lead counsel in this action under a consolidation order entered on
January 29, 2013:

     * Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP,
     * Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.,
     * Saxena White, P.A., and
     * Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

The New York Plaintiffs, who pursued related litigation in New
York, are Howard Lasker IRA, Dr. Robert Lowinger and Michael
Jiannaras.

New York Counsel consists of three law firms:

     * Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
     * Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP, and
     * Stull, Stull & Brody.

The settlement, which was approved on March 26, 2015, will result
in a payment of $70 million in cash to the class. The parties
structured the settlement to guarantee that the class would
receive $70 million and that any award of attorneys' fees would
come on top, with defendants retaining the right to oppose the fee
application.

Delaware Counsel seeks an award of attorneys' fees in the amount
of $27.5 million plus expenses in the amount of $1,002,603.28.
They claim the requested fee amount equates to approximately 27.5%
of the gross value of settlement after taking into account the
requested fee, the expenses incurred by Delaware counsel and an
assumed amount of administrative expenses to be paid by
Defendants.

Defendants acknowledge that Delaware counsel is entitled to a
reasonable fee award, but argue that their request is excessive.
Defendants contend that the fee award should be calculated as a
percentage of the net fund for Jefferies' stockholders rather than
as a percentage of the gross value of the settlement. Focusing on
the midpoint of that range, defendants suggest that the court
should award $15.75 million or 22.5% of the $70 million net
settlement fund plus reasonable expenses.

A copy of Chancellor Bouchard's decision dated June 5, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/f1Mt3xfrom Leagle.com.

Stuart M. Grant Esquire Gregory V. Varallo Esquire, Michael J.
Barry Esquire, Richard P. Rollo, Esquire Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A.
Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire 123 Justison Street Richards, Layton
& Finger, P.A. Wilmington, DE 19801 920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801 James R. Banko Esquire, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP
Bradley R. Aronstam, Esquire 20, Montchanin Road, Suite 145, Ross
Aronstam & Moritz LLP Wilmington, Delaware 19807, 100, S. West
Street, Suite 400, Wilmington, Delaware 19801 David A. Jenkins,
Esquire Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins LLP 800, Delaware Avenue,
Suite 1000, Wilmington, DE 19899


JRP OIL: Faces "Jennings" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terrie Jennings, individually and on behalf of a class of persons
similarly situated v. JRP Oil Co., Inc. and Jagjit Mann, Case No.
3:15-cv-02436-L (N.D. Tex., July 22, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the correct overtime rate in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Subway(R) restaurant franchise
located in Lone Oak, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Jeffrey Grant Brown, Esq.
      JEFFREY GRANT BROWN PC
      221 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1414
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 789-9700
      Facsimile: (312) 789-9701
      E-mail: jeff@jgbrownlaw.com


KENTON COUNTY, KY: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of Tax Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Donna L Dixon of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed
the Kenton Circuit Court's order dismissing the proposed class
action in the appealed case EDWARD AND JOHANNA MEIMAN, Appellants,
v. KENTON COUNTY, KENTUCKY, Appellees, NO. 2013-CA-002115-MR (Ky.
Ct. App.)

Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 91A.080 authorizes local
governments to impose and collect taxes and fees on the insurance
premiums charged by insurance companies for the privilege of
engaging in business in the Commonwealth.  Pursuant to KRS
91A.080, Kenton County adopted Ordinance 225.45, imposing a
license fee for the privilege of engaging in the business of
insurance in Kenton County.

On June 19, 2008, the Meimans, on behalf of themselves and a
similarly situated class of plaintiffs, filed a complaint in the
Kenton Circuit Court, alleging that Kenton County, as
representative of a class of municipal defendants, improperly
received insurance taxes under KRS Section 91A.080 from persons
and entities who did not reside in or did not have insured risks
in the unincorporated areas of the county as designated in the
ordinance. The Meimans did not challenge the validity of Kenton
County's ordinance but rather the manner in which the tax was
being imposed and collected.

On August 26, 2008, the Meimans filed an amended class complaint
adding Franklin County as an additional named defendant. Nearly
one year later, the Meimans moved to file a second amended class
complaint. They alleged that KRS 91A.080 only authorizes the
counties to impose a tax on the insurance companies, not on the
policyholders. The Meimans claimed that the counties and the
insurance companies were violating the statute by collecting the
tax directly from the policyholders as a surcharge on their
premiums. Kenton and Franklin Counties filed motions opposing the
second amended class complaint arguing, in part, that the
insurance companies collecting the tax premiums were indispensable
parties.

The Meimans filed motions for class certification and for summary
judgment. The parties did not brief the motion for class
certification, agreeing that it should be held in abeyance pending
the trial court's disposition of the Meimans' summary judgment
motion.

On May 13, 2010, the trial court entered an order wherein instead
of ruling on the Meimans' motion, it held that the insurance
companies, which collected and retained a percentage of the
disputed taxes, were indispensable parties to the action.

On June 10, 2010, appellants filed their third amended class
complaint naming Allstate and Travelers Insurance Companies as
representatives of a defendant class of insurance companies. By
agreed order, AIC-Hartford and Standard Fire were substituted for
Travelers.

On July 16, 2010, Allstate Insurance Company removed the case to
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky. Allstate, AIC-Hartford, Standard Fire, and Franklin
County then filed motions to dismiss, arguing that because the
Meimans had not exhausted the administrative remedies provisions
of KRS 91A.0804, the federal court did not have subject matter
jurisdiction. The federal court agreed and, by opinion and order
entered on February 21, 2011, granted all motions to dismiss.

Subsequently, by order entered on August 8, 2011, the federal
court ruled that with the dismissal of the defendants who had
removed the action to federal court, it did not have jurisdiction
to adjudicate the claims between the Meimans and Kenton County.
The action was remanded to the Kenton Circuit Court. The Meimans
did not appeal the federal court's rulings.

On May 20, 2013, Kenton County filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure (CR) 12.02, arguing that no
justiciable controversy existed between the parties in the absence
of the insurance companies and, as such, the Meimans' complaint
failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. The
trial court adopted and incorporated the federal court's ruling,
and dismissed all claims with prejudice.

The Meimans appealed arguing that the trial court erroneously
relied upon CR 21 to force joinder of the insurance companies,
Kenton County did not properly raise the issue of failure to name
indispensable parties, the insurance companies were neither
necessary nor indispensable parties to the litigation and KRS
91A.080(4) was inapplicable to their request for declaratory
relief.

Judge Dixon affirmed Kenton Circuit Court's order dismissing the
suit for failure to join indispensable parties.

A copy of Judge Dixon's unpublished opinion dated June 5, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/5glGkcfrom Leagle.com.

For Appellants:

Ron R. Parry, Esq.
STRAUSS TROY CO. LPA
Federal Reserve Bldg.
150 E. Fourth St.
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: 513-629-9485
Facsimile: 513-241-8259

Roger N. Braden -- rnb@bhdlaw.net -- Luann Devine -- ld@bhdlaw.net
-- at Bradern Humfleet & Devine, PLLC, for Appellee

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky panel consists of Chief Judge
Glenn E. Acree, and Judges Donna L. Dixon and James H. Lambert.


KOHLS CORP: Judge Tosses Equal Rights Center's Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the Northern District of
Illinois granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in
the case The Equal Rights Center, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kohl's
Corporation, et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14 C 8259 (N.D. Ill.)

The Equal Rights Center (ERC) and six individual plaintiffs sue
Kohl's Corporation and Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. (Kohl's) for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the
New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL). Plaintiffs, who either have or
represent individuals who have mobility disabilities and have
allegedly encountered barriers at certain Kohl's stores, seek to
represent a class defined as follows:

All people with mobility disabilities who use wheelchairs or are
otherwise disabled due to mobility-related issues, who were denied
the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any Kohl's Department
Store in the United States on the basis of disability because of
the presence of a narrow aisle, inaccessible sales or service
counter, inaccessible merchandise display, inaccessible parking
spaces, inaccessible fitting rooms, or inaccessible restrooms,
among other barriers.

Kohl's argues that ERC lacks associational standing to assert
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief under the ADA and the
NYHRL. That the ADA claim that ERC asserts necessarily requires
evidence of what ERC is trying to enjoin, which can only come from
the experience of its individual members. Kohl's further argues
that the Court must dismiss the complaint in its entirety or limit
the individual Plaintiffs' standing to the Kohl's stores discussed
in the complaint

In addition to the challenges to standing, Kohl's argues that the
class allegations should be stricken because class certification
is inappropriate in the case.

Judge Guzman granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to strike class allegations and dismiss the complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Guzman's memorandum opinion and order dated June
3, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/SZteHPfrom Leagle.com.

The Equal Rights Center, a not-for-profit, Plaintiff, represented
by Tracy Ellen Stevenson -- TStevenson@rsplaw.com -- Andres Javier
Gallegos -- AGallegos@rsplaw.com -- Jennifer Lundy Sender --
JSender@rsplaw.com -- at Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd.; Matthew K
Handley -- matthew_handley@washlaw.org -- at Washington Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights

Devora Fisher, by and through Sheila Fisher, Plaintiff,
represented by Tracy Ellen Stevenson -- TStevenson@rsplaw.com --
Andres Javier Gallegos -- AGallegos@rsplaw.com -- Jennifer Lundy
Sender -- JSender@rsplaw.com -- at Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd.;
Deepa Goraya -- deepa_goraya@washlaw.org -- Matthew K Handley --
matthew_handley@washlaw.org -- at Washington Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights

Sheila Fisher, her legal guardian, Plaintiff, represented by Tracy
Ellen Stevenson -- TStevenson@rsplaw.com -- Andres Javier Gallegos
-- AGallegos@rsplaw.com -- Jennifer Lundy Sender --
JSender@rsplaw.com -- at Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd.; Deepa
Goraya -- deepa_goraya@washlaw.org -- Matthew K Handley --
matthew_handley@washlaw.org -- at Washington Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights

Edith Prentiss, Monica Kamal, Regina Lee, Jean M Ryan, Plaintiffs,
represented by Tracy Ellen Stevenson -- TStevenson@rsplaw.com --
Andres Javier Gallegos -- AGallegos@rsplaw.com -- Jennifer Lundy
Sender -- JSender@rsplaw.com -- at Robbins, Salomon & Patt, Ltd.;
Deepa Goraya -- deepa_goraya@washlaw.org -- Matthew K Handley --
matthew_handley@washlaw.org -- at Washington Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights

Defendants, represented by Joel Griswold --
jcgriswold@bakerlaw.com -- Brian C Blair -- bblair@bakerlaw.com --
at Baker & Hostetler LLP


KTP 2014: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated v. KTP 2014 Inc. and Timmy Joy Polackal a/k/a
Timmy Joy, Case No. 1:15-cv-06383 (N.D. Ill., July 22, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours a week.

The Defendants own and operate BP gas stations and car washes
located at 5210 N. Northwest Highway, Chicago, Illinois, and 4444
W. Fullerton Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq.
      Martin K. Denis, Esq.
      BARLOW KOBATA & DENIS
      525 W. Monroe St., #2360
      Chicago, IL 60661
      Telephone: (312) 648-5570
      E-mail: bhilbert@bkd-law.com
              mdenis@bkd-law.com


KYBER OUTERWEAR: Recalls Children's Animal-Themed Sweaters
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Kyber Outerwear USA Corp., of Ogdensburg, NY, announced a
voluntary recall of about 3,100 Children's Animal-themed Sweaters.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The sweaters have a drawstring around the neck area that poses a
strangulation hazard to children. Drawstrings can become entangled
or caught on playground slides, hand rails, school bus doors or
other moving objects, posing a significant strangulation and/or
entanglement hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines about drawstrings in children's upper outerwear. In
1997, those guidelines were incorporated into a voluntary
standard. Then, in July 2011, based on the guidelines and
voluntary standard, CPSC issued a federal regulation. CPSC's
actions demonstrate a commitment to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on neck and waist drawstrings in
upper outerwear, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

These animal-themed, hooded children's sweaters are 100 percent
wool when produced in Nepal and 50 percent wool and 50 percent
acrylic when produced in Bangladesh. The sweaters have a tag sewn
on the left seam several inches above the hem with the company
name and the place of origin. The company name is also located on
a patch on the left sleeve at the cuff and on a patch in the
collar.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/HhBZ6v

The recalled products were manufactured in Nepal and Bangladesh
and sold at Independent children's stores nationwide and online
from January 2010 through December 2013 for between $10 and $50.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled sweater away from
kids and remove the drawstring, or return the sweater to Kyber
Outerwear for a full credit for Kyber products.


LENDERLIVE NETWORK: Settlement in "Murphy" Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge R. Brooke Jackson of the District of Colorado
granted final approval of the settlement in the case DOROTHY
MURPHY and HEATHER CREAZZO, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LENDERLIVE NETWORK, INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-03135-RBJ-MJW (D. Colo.)

Judge Jackson also granted approved fees to Outten & Golden, which
represents the plaintiff class.

Specifically, the Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees and awards Class Counsel $700,000 from the FLSA portion of
the settlement fund, which is one-third of the amount allocated to
the FLSA claims, plus $37,845.87 in total costs and expenses
reasonably expended litigating and resolving the lawsuit. The fee
award is justified by the work that Class Counsel did negotiating
the settlement and conducting the litigation, by the ultimate
recovery, and by the risk that Class Counsel undertook in bringing
the claims. These amounts shall be paid from the settlement fund.

The Court also granted "service awards" for Dorothy Murphy and
Heather Creazzo in the total amount of $10,000 each in recognition
of the services they rendered on behalf of the FLSA collective.
These amounts shall be paid from the FLSA portion of the
settlement fund.

If no party appeals the Order, the "FLSA Effective Date" of the
settlement will be 30 days after the Order granting approval of
the FLSA settlement is entered. If an individual or party appeals
the Order, the "Effective Date" of the Settlement will be the date
of the Court's entry of a final order and judgment with respect to
the FLSA claims after resolving any appeals.

A copy of the Court's Final Order dated July 22 is available at
http://bit.ly/1W0rWkdfrom Leagle.com.

Judge Jackson granted preliminary approval of the settlement in
June.  The initial approval order appointed Outten & Golden as
class counsel, and approved the proposed WARN Settlement Notice.

The final fairness hearing was held July 6.

A copy of the Preliminary Order dated June 2 is available at
http://is.gd/DTbpO0from Leagle.com.

Dorothy Murphy, Heather Creazzo, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack
A. Raisner -- jar@outtengolden.com -- Michael J. Scimone --
mscimone@outtengolden.com -- Nantiya Ruan -- nr@outtengolden.com
-- Rene S. Roupinian -- RSR@outtengolden.com -- at Outten &
Golden, LLP

Catalina Vasquez, Erica Hill, Maritza Smith, Lynne Morytko,
Sherry-Ann Sanders, Lisa Nelson,Jamye Allen, Pat Motley, Gerald
Glover, Gary Ludi, Nicole Donaldson, Ceceile Bunns, Rosanne
Jancevich, Plaintiffs, represented by Jack A. Raisner --
jar@outtengolden.com -- Michael J. Scimone --
mscimone@outtengolden.com -- Nantiya Ruan -- nr@outtengolden.com
-- at Outten & Golden, LLP

Africa Torrell Hess, Keisha Carter, Brittney Buckley, Vicki
Stillwell, Shonda Cosey, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael J.
Scimone -- mscimone@outtengolden.com -- Nantiya Ruan --
nr@outtengolden.com -- at Outten & Golden, LLP

LenderLive Network, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bronwyn H.
Pepple -- bpepple@lewisbess.com -- Charles William Weese, III --
cweese@lewisbess.com -- Megan Deborah Rhodes --
mrhodes@lewisbess.com -- at Lewis, Bess, Williams & Weese P.C.


LIVE NATION: Fails to Pay Overtime to Stagehands, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Live Nation Worldwide stiffs
stagehands for overtime, a class claims.

The case is Todd Hall; Dan Rivera v. Live Nation Worldwide, Inc.,
in the Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District.


LOOMIS ARMORED: Faces "Vega" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Vega and all others similarly situated v. Loomis Armored
US, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-22717-KMW (S.D. Fla., July 21, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

Loomis Armored US, LLC operates a cash handling services company,
which covers over 400 operating locations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: 865-7167
      E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


MAKERBOT: Faces Class Suit Over Shoddy 3D Printers
--------------------------------------------------
Paul Lily, writing for HotHardWare, reported that a class action
lawsuit filed against Makerbot and its parent firm Stratasys
alleges a "fraudulent scheme" to knowingly ship shoddy 3D
printers. According to the lawsuit, Makerbot and its employees
were aware that the company's 5th generation Replicator 3D printer
was full of problems, but went ahead and shipped them anyway in
order to maintain an artificially inflated stock price.

As the allegation goes, the scheme backfired, resulting in a
deluge of customer complaints, product returns, and warranty
service. Sales then plummeted, and the company's stock price
followed suit, leaving both investors and owners of the 5th
generation Replicator in a bad place.

"In pursuit of an aggressive growth strategy to keep up with
encroaching competition, Defendants rushed MakerBot's 5th
generation printers to the market despite their knowledge of
serious quality and reliability issues plaguing the printers," the
lawsuit states. "Most significantly, the Smart Extruder promoted
by Defendants was severely defective, frequently clogging with
filament and rendering the 5th generation printers inoperable,
among other problems."

In a related Change.org petition demanding a product recall, a
mechanical engineer named Marc details his experience with a 5th
generation Replicator, noting that it typically takes him four
trials to get a print to start. He also claims that he had a
specific part replaced three times during the 3D printer's six-
month warranty period.

"I have been in touch with Makerbot Support and they advise me
that typically an extruder (or a print head from a 3D printer's
perspective) lasts between 200-500 hours on average (I have a
reference for this from Makerbot Support)," Marc explains. "This
may seem like a long time, but many of the prints I do (and I'm
sure a lot of people do) take over 20 hours -- i.e., Makerbot
believes that it is acceptable to print 10 models and have the
printer fail, and purchase a new print head worth $175. I'm sure
if most customers knew this at the time of purchase they wouldn't
spend the $2,899 on the product."

Makerbot doesn't disclaim that the print head for its 5th
generation Replicator only lasts 200-500 hours. Instead, a video
promoting the product claims the technology behind it is "setting
the standard in reliability, quality, and connectivity."

Interestingly, for a limited time the company is offering $50 off
the price of an extruder replacement when users return their worn
extruder to Makerbot.

Regardless of what's going on, it's at least true that Stratasys'
stock price has taken a hit, going from a high of $130.83 in early
2014 to $33.06 currently.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Sent Unsolicited Ads, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Edmund Pietzak and Erin Hudson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corporation and HelloWorld,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05527-R-JEM (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2015),
seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of transmitting
unsolicited advertisements for Microsoft products to mobile phones
of potential customers.

Microsoft Corporation is a global software and consumer
electronics company that sells both software and hardware.

HelloWorld, Inc. is an advertising company based in Michigan with
offices throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel P. Hipskind, Esq.
      Dorian S. Berger, Esq.
      OLAVI DUNNE LLP
      1880 Century Park East, Ste. 815
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (213) 516-7900
      Facsimile: (213) 516-7910
      E-mail: dhipskind@olavidunne.com
              dberger@olavidunne.com

         - and -

      Matt Olavi, Esq.
      Brian J. Dunne, Esq.
      OLAVI DUNNE LLP
      816 Congress Ave., Ste. 1620
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 717-4485
      Facsimile: (512) 717-4495
      E-mail: molavi@olavidunne.com
              bdunne@olavidunne.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Notice
----------------------------------------------------------
Lore Emily Karamcheti, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Midland Funding, LLC and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV-283437 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 22,
2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendant's practice of sending
initial collection communications in an attempt to collect a
charged-off consumer debt, which fail to contain the notice
required by the California Fair Debt Buying Practices Act.

Midland Funding, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company
engaged in the business of purchasing and collecting charged-off
consumer debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred W. Schwinn (SBN 225575)
      Raeon R. Roulston (SBN 255622)
      CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
      12 South First Street, Suite 1014
      San Jose, CA 95113-2418
      Telephone: (408) 294-61 00
      Facsimile: (408)294-6190
      E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
              raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com


MIDLAND FUNDING: Circuit Court Judgment in "Mostofi" Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Douglas R.M. Nazarian of the Court of Special Appeals of
Maryland affirmed the judgment of the circuit court in the
appealed case entitled REZA MOSTOFI, v. MIDLAND FUNDING, LLC, ET
AL., NO. 1084 SEPTEMBER TERM 2014 (Md. Spec. App.)

Lyons, Doughty & Veldhuis, P.C. brought a collection case in the
District Court of Maryland for Montgomery County against Reza
Mostofi and on behalf of its clients, Midland Funding and Midland
Credit. The complaint alleged that Mr. Mostofi owed $4,506.82 on a
credit card account with Chase Bank, N.A., and that Midland
Funding had purchased the debt from Chase. Mostofi asserts that he
is not indebted to Midland Funding as alleged and that Midland
Funding does not have standing to sue.

The district court entered judgment for Midland Funding and
Midland Credit in the amount of $4,506.82, plus costs, on July 26,
2013.

Mostofi appealed the judgment to the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County, where the case was heard de novo on October 31, 2013.
Again, Mostofi challenged Midland Funding's standing to sue him,
and he offered evidence that, he argued, demonstrated that the
debt belonged to Washington Mutual. The court entered judgment in
favor of Midland Funding in the amount of $4,506.82 plus costs.

Mostofi filed a complaint on November 27, 2013, before he filed
his motion to set aside or vacate the judgment in the collection
case. He amended the complaint twice, and the second amended
complaint named Midland Funding, Midland Credit, and Lyons as
defendants.

All defendants moved to dismiss. Midland Funding and Midland
Credit argued that Mostofi's claims were barred by res judicata
and collateral estoppel, and that, in the alternative, he had
failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted. Lyons
asserted that it had never been served in the case, and as such,
filed its motion before the second amended complaint.

Mostofi filed a notice of appeal.

Judge Nazarian affirmed the Circuit Court for Montogmery County's
judgment.  A copy of Judge Nazarian's opinion dated July 2, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/TN0S2Hfrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland panel consists of Judges
Douglas R.M. Nazarian, Robert A. Zarnoch and Stuart R. Berger.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces "Aliano" Suit Over Restraint of Trade
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Aliano, individually and, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises, LLC,
DirecTV Holdings, LLC, and DirecTV, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-05508-
BRO-JEM (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2015), seeks to enjoin the ongoing
unreasonable restraint of trade that Defendants have implemented
through DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast all Sunday
afternoon out-of-market games.

National Football League, Inc. is an unincorporated association of
32 American professional football teams in the United States.

NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of
the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other
broadcasters.

DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.

DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has
its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El
Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      Eliot F. Krieger, Esq.
      Charles t. Spagnola, P.C.
      JARVIS, KRIEGER & SULLIVAN
      444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1700
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 597-7070
      Facsimile: (562) 597-7772
      E-mail: adam@jarvislawyers.com
              eliot@jarvislawyers.com
              charles@jarvislawyers.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              matt@attorneyzim.com


NIPPONFLEX: Recalls Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nipponflex, of Pompano Beach, Fla., announced a voluntary recall
of about 400 Nipponflex Smart Flex and Smart Care mattresses.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal flammability
standard for mattresses, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves all models and sizes of Nipponflex Smart
Care, Smart Care split, Smart Flex and Smart Flex split
mattresses.  The mattresses are white in color and have an
electric massage function controlled by a remote. The split
mattresses consist of two single mattresses side by side to form a
queen or king size mattress. "Nipponflex" and "SMART FLEX" or
"SMART CARE" are printed on the label on a side of the mattress.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/I0kiEC

The recalled products were manufactured in Brazil and sold at
Independent distributors via in-home sales in Florida, Georgia,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Utah and Virginia from
April 2014 through February 2015 for between $2,000 and $7,000.

Consumers should contact Nipponflex for free mattress covers to
bring the mattress into compliance with the federal standard and
protect consumers from a fire. Assistance with installation is
available upon request.


OIL PRODUCERS: Kansas Supreme Court Remands "Fawcett" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Dan Biles of the Supreme Court of Kansas remanded the
appealed case entitled L. RUTH FAWCETT, Appellee, v. OIL
PRODUCERS, INC. OF KANSAS, Appellant, to the district court, NO.
108,666 (Kan.)

The plaintiff-appellee class consists of mineral rights owners,
who lease their rights in exchange for a royalty interest in the
oil and gas produced. The L. Ruth Fawcett Trust represents the
class based on its royalty interests located in Seward County.
Appellant Oil Producers, Inc. of Kansas (OPIK) is the lease
operator that owns the wells from which the oil and gas are
produced.

OPIK does not charge royalty owners for any services it performs
on the leased premises. But OPIK does not own gathering or
processing facilities. Instead, it sells the gas at the wellhead
to midstream gatherers and processers (the third-party
purchasers), who prepare the raw natural gas for eventual delivery
into the interstate pipeline system.

Plaintiff-appellee brought a class action for underpayment of
royalties claimed under 25 oil and gas leases entered into between
1944 and 1991.

In the district court, the parties each moved for summary
judgment. OPIK argued its royalty payments were proper because
they were computed on 100% of its actual proceeds from its sale of
the gas at the wellhead. Fawcett countered that OPIK was required
to pay royalties on the gross price of the gas as it entered the
interstate market, rather than the net contract prices set out in
the third-party purchase agreements.

The district court granted Fawcett partial summary judgment for
those expenses claimed by OPIK such as the gathering charges,
compression charges, dehydration, treatment, processing, fuel
charges, fuel lost or unaccounted for, and/or third party expenses
incurred to make the gas marketable.

The district court made no monetary damage calculation, hence OPIK
made a timely application for interlocutory review, which the
court of appeals granted. The Court of Appeals affirmed the order
granting the class partial summary judgment. OPIK petitioned the
present court for review.

Justice Biles reversed the judgment of the court of appeals and of
the district court and the matter is remanded to the district
court.

A copy of Justice Biles's opinion dated July 2, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/Banwzffrom Leagle.com.

For appellant,

Robert W. Coykendall, Esq.
MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD.
300 N. Mead, Suite 200
Wichita, KS 67202-2745
Telephone: 316-262-2671
Facsimile: 316-262-6226

     - and -

Will B. Wohlford, Esq.
Julia Gilmore Gaughan, Esq.
MORRIS, LAING, EVANS, BROCK & KENNEDY, CHTD.
800 Southwest Jackson, Suite 1310
Topeka, KS 66612-1216
Telephone: 785-232-2662
Facsimile: 785-232-9983

For appellee, Rex A. Sharp -- rsharp@midwest-law.com -- Barbara C.
Frankland -- bfrankland@midwest-law.com -- David E. Sharp --
dsharp@midwest-law.com -- at Gunderson Sharp LLP

David W. Nickel, of DePew Gillen Rathbun & McInteer, LC, of
Wichita, was on the brief for amicus curiae Kansas Independent Oil
and Gas Association

David E. Pierce, of Topeka, was on the brief for amicus curiae
Eastern Kansas Oil & Gas Association

Curtis M. Irby, of Glaves, Irby and Rhoads, of Wichita, was on the
brief for amicus curiae DCP Midstream, LP


PEARCE AND DURICK: Sued Over Alleged Unregistered Securities
------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Wright, et al., v. Pearce and Durick, Case No. 1:15-cv-
0009-DLH-CSM (D.N.D., July 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
assisted in offering unregistered securities to the public and
assisting the principals of North Dakota Developments, LLC and
related companies in selling interests in certain modular housing
units, coupled with management agreements, to investors both in
the United States and abroad.

Pearce and Durick is a general partnership and a law firm with its
principal place of business located at 314 East Thayer Ave.,
Bismarck, ND.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark V. Larson, Esq.
      LARSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
      PO Box 2004
      Minot, ND 58702-2004
      Telephone: (701) 839-1777
      E-mail: larslaw@srt.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Gray, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF Christopher J. Gray, PC
      360 Lexington Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 838-3221
      E-mail: chris@investorlawyers.net


PHARMALOGICAL INC: E.D.N.Y. Judge Permits Discovery in Gov't Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Arthur D. Spatt of the Eastern District of New York
ruled on the defendant's motion in the case UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA v. WILLIAM SCULLY, also known as "Liam Scully", NO. 14-CR-
208 (ADS)(SIL) (E.D.N.Y.)

On April 9, 2014, the Government filed a 73-count criminal
indictment against the defendant William Scully, and co-defendant
Shahrad Rodi Lameh.  The Government charged the defendants, as
owners and operators of Pharmalogical, Inc. d/b/a Medical Device
King and MDK with, among other counts, violating the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 301 et seq. (FDCA), by
trafficking in prescription drugs unapproved by the federal Food
and Drug Administration (FDA), misbranded drugs, and counterfeit
oncology drugs.

On October 16, 2014, on referral to United States Magistrate Judge
Steven I. Locke, Lameh entered a guilty plea to Counts 1 through
37 of the Indictment, including one count of conspiracy to
distribute misbranded drugs. He did not plead guilty to
introduction of misbranded drugs into interstate commerce, receipt
of misbranded drugs in interstate commerce and delivery thereof
for pay, fraudulent importation and transportation of goods, or
trafficking in counterfeit oncology drugs. On October 20, 2014,
the court accepted the guilty plea recommendation.

On February 5, 2015, Scully moved for an order (1) striking all
counts based on the erroneous notion that a violation of FDA
regulations can create criminal liability; (2) suppressing all
emails and other evidence obtained through search warrants due to
the Government's material misstatements and omissions in the
search warrant affidavits and the constitutionally impermissible
way that the Government executed the warrants; (3) dismissing
count 73 of the Indictment; (4) dismissing count 72 of the
Indictment; and (5) directing further discovery and a bill of
particulars, which are necessary for defense counsel to prepare
its case; and for other such other and further relief as the court
deems just and proper.

Judge Spatt denied defendant's motion except to the extent the
court grants the requests for the discovery enclosed by the
Government in its motion papers, the discovery it represents it
will provide, any recorded conversations with Courtney Fitt, and a
Bill of Particulars. The Government is directed to provide all the
foregoing material to the defendant. That part of the Defendant's
motion to dismiss Count Seventy Two of the Indictment on merger
grounds is denied as premature.

A copy of Judge Spatt's memorandum of decision and order dated
June 8, 2015 is available at http://is.gd/rTbNTUfrom Leagle.com.

Charles P. Kelly, Assistant United States Attorney, Brendan G.
King, Assistant United States Attorney, The United States
Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Attorney for the United
States of America

Scott A. Resnik, Esq. -- scott.resnik@kattenlaw.com -- Michael M.
Rosensaft, Esq. -- michael.rosensaft@kattenlaw.com -- at Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP, Of Counsel Attorneys for the Defendant


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 4,300 Polaris Youth RZR recreational off-highway
vehicle. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The vehicle's fuel pump retaining ring can leak, posing a fire
hazard.

This recall involves Model Year 2015 Polaris Youth RZR(R) 170 EFI
recreational off-highway vehicles with model number R15YAV17AA/AF
and VINs between RF3YAV170FT000076 and RF3YAV17XFT005141. To see
the complete list, visit the firm's website. The VIN is on the
left-hand front frame tube. They were sold in both blue and red.
The blue models have a "170 EFI" decal on the right and left side
of the hood and an "RZR" decal on the right and left front
fenders. The red models have a "170 EFI" decal on the right and
left front fenders and a "RZR" decal on the right and left rear
fenders.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/jrN663

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Polaris dealers nationwide from October 2014 through June 2015 for
about $4,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Polaris RZR
vehicles and contact their local Polaris dealer to schedule a free
repair. Polaris is contacting its customers directly and sending a
recall letter to each registered owner of an affected product.


SAINT FRANCIS: Sued for Underfunding Employee's Pension Plan
------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Kemp-DeLisser, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center,
Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center Finance Committee, Saint
Francis Hospital and Medical Center Retirement Committee, and John
Does 1-20, Case No. 3:15-cv-01113-VAB (D. Conn., July 21, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' failure to set a funding policy that
will adequately fund the anticipated obligations of the St.
Francis Hospital and Medical Center Pension Plan.

The Defendants operate a major Connecticut hospital with 617
licensed inpatient beds and 65 bassinets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard Jr., Esq.
      Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
      Nicole A. Veno, Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL, LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Telephone: (860) 493-6295
      Facsimile: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com
              mkindall@izardnobel.com
              nveno@izardnobel.com

         - and -

      Kevin W. Coombes, Esq.
      MCCARTHY, COOMBES & COSTELLO LLP
      61 Russ Street
      Hartford, CT 06106
      Telephone: (860) 669-3040
      Facsimile: (860) 560-0763


SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: Newman Du Wors Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Newman Du Wors LLP on July 28 disclosed that a complaint has been
filed in the United States District for Northern District of
California against Scout Analytics, Inc., ServiceSource
International, Inc. and ServiceSource's former Chief Executive
Officer, Mike Smerklo.  The Complaint -- brought on behalf of all
public holders of ServiceSource common stock between January 22,
2014 and May 1, 2014, inclusive -- alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff for the Class, you must
move the Court no later than 60 days from July 28, 2015.  If you
wish to discuss the Compliant or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, John Du Wors of Newman Du Wors LLP at (206)
274-2800, or via e-mail at john@newmanlaw.com
Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member.

The Complaint charges Defendants with violations of the 1934 Act.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that on January 22, 2014,
Defendants disseminated or approved materially false and
misleading statements, which they knew or deliberately disregarded
were misleading, in violation of Sec. 10(B) of the Exchange Act.
The Complaint also alleges that public holders of ServiceSource
common stock between January 22, 2014 and May 1, 2014 suffered
damages in reliance on Defendants' misleading statements by paying
artificially inflated prices for ServiceSource common stock.

In addition, the Complaint alleges that Smerklo, by reason of his
position as Chief Executive Officer of ServiceSource, and his
ownership of ServiceSource common stock, had the power and
authority to cause ServiceSource to disseminate or approve
materially false and misleading statements.  By reason of such
conduct, the Complaint alleges Smerklo is liable pursuant to
Sec. 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Complaint seeks compensatory damages and reasonable costs and
expenses on behalf of the Class.  The Complaint was filed by
Newman Du Wors LLP, which has expertise in prosecuting investor
class actions and extensive experience in actions involving
financial fraud.  Please visit http://www.newmanlaw.comfor more
information.


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Judge Decertifies Indirect Purchaser Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted defendant's motion to decertify in the case
entitled IN RE: WELLBUTRIN XL ANTITRUST LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT
RELATES TO INDIRECT PURCAHSER ACTION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 08-2433
(E.D. Pa.)

The Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff Class (IPC) claims that
defendants SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline
and GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) along with former co-defendants
Biovail Corporation, Biovail Laboratories, Inc., and Biovail
Laboratories International SRL (Biovail), delayed the entry of
generic versions of the drug Wellbutrin XL (generic XL) by
entering into illegal agreements with generic drug companies to
settle patent infringement lawsuits. The court certified the IPC
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).

GSK filed a motion to decertify the IPC based on a quartet of
Third Circuit cases dealing with the requirement that Rule
23(b)(3) classes be ascertainable. GSK argues that the IPC cannot
satisfy this requirement, and that the IPC should therefore be
decertified.  The IPC filed a motion to strike GSK's motion, which
the court denied. IPC's counsel indicated that it needed discovery
to properly respond to GSK's motion to decertify, which the court
granted.

Both GSK and the IPC have introduced expert witnesses to support
their arguments on the ascertainability issue. GSK relies on the
opinions and conclusions of Dr. Bruce A. Strombom, while the IPC
relies on Dr. Meredith Rosenthal and Paul DeBree. All three
experts provided reports and were deposed.

In connection with GSK's motion to decertify the IPC, GSK has
filed a Daubert motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of
one of the IPC's experts, Dr. Meredith Rosenthal. The IPC also
filed a Daubert motion to exclude the opinions and testimony of
GSK's expert, Dr. Bruce Strombom.

Judge McLaughlin granted GSK's Daubert motion because Dr.
Rosenthal's methodology is not reliable and denies the IPC's
Daubert motion because Dr. Strombom is qualified to be an expert
on the matter and that his methodology is sufficiently reliable.
Judge McLaughlin granted GSK's motion to decertify the IPC because
the IPC has not carried its burden of showing that the class is
ascertainable.

A copy of Judge McLaughlin's memorandum dated June 30, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/7V5Lnafrom Leagle.com.

PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL 572 HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND,
Plaintiff, represented by AMBER M. NESBITT, WEXLER WALLACE LLP,
DANIEL E. GUSTAFSON, GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC, DAVID J. COHEN, DAVID
S. NALVEN, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, J. GERARD STRANCH, IV,
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC,JAMES G. STRANCH, III,
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC, JOE P. LENISKI, JR.,
BRANSTETTER STRANCH & JENNINGS PLLC, KARLA M. GLUEK, GUSTAFSON
CLUEK PLLC, KENNETH A. WEXLER, WEXLER WALLACE LLP, THOMAS A.
DOYLE, WEXLER WALLACE LLP, THOMAS M. SOBOL, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP, JUSTIN N. BOLEY, WEXLER WALLACE LLP, PATRICK HOWARD,
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY, PETER ST. PHILLIP, LOWEY
DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C. & URIEL RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG
COHEN & HART PC

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM, Defendant, represented by EDWARD D. ROGERS,
BALLARD, SPAHR, ANDREWS AND INGERSOLL, LESLIE E. JOHN, BALLARD
SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP, STEPHEN J. KASTENBERG, BALLARD
SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, ARTHUR MAKADON, BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS &
INGERSOLL, DANIEL J. BOLAND, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, JASON A.
LECKERMAN, BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL,JESSICA MOLTISANTI
ANTHONY, BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL LLP,LINDSAY D.
BREEDLOVE, BALLARD SPAHR LLP, MARCEL S. PRATT, BALLARD SPAHR LLP,
MARGARET OSBORNE PADILLA, KAISERMAN COMPANY, INC. & TAIMARIE
NICOLE ADAMS

AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Movant, represented by URIEL
RABINOVITZ, LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART PC, AMBER M. NESBITT,
WEXLER WALLACE LLP, GERALD LAWRENCE, JR., LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN
PC, KAREN IANNACE, LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN HART PC, KENNETH A.
WEXLER, WEXLER WALLACE LLP, PETER ST. PHILLIP, LOWEY DANNENBERG
COHEN & HART, P.C. & RICHARD W. COHEN, LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN &
HART, P.C.

THE AMERICAN ANTITRUST INSTITUTE, Movant, represented by STEVE D.
SHADOWEN, HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLC

CONSUMERS UNION, Movant, represented by STEVE D. SHADOWEN,
HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLC

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Movant, represented by MARKUS MEIER,
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION


SPOKEO INC: ACA Files Amicus Brief on Merits of Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The ACA International Board of Directors approved initiatives to
protect the long term viability of the credit and collection
industry. These efforts are funded by a three-year Industry
Advancement Fund assessment.

On July 9, 2015, ACA International filed a "friend of the court"
brief with the U.S. Supreme Court addressing the merits of the
case Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, No. 13-1334 (U.S., Filed May 2,
2014). At issue in Spokeo is whether a plaintiff has the right
(standing) to sue for violations of federal statute when the
plaintiff does not suffer any economic loss or other tangible
harm.

The important issue in Spokeo arises under a wide array of far-
reaching federal laws. Some of these federal laws, like the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), greatly impact ACA members.  Without the
requirement that plaintiffs must suffer actual damages, companies
will continue to be exposed to statutory damage awards any time a
plaintiff (and more particularly a class-action plaintiff) can
establish any technical violation of law even if no one has been
harmed.

As previously reported by ACA, the plaintiff in Spokeo filed a
class-action Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) suit against an
operator of a "people search engine" because he believed that
erroneous information listed about him harmed his employment
opportunities.  The district court dismissed the case because the
plaintiff did not allege any actual or imminent harm, but the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Ninth Circuit
determined that the plaintiff didn't need to allege actual damages
in order to sue for statutory penalties. In doing so, the Ninth
Circuit joined the Fifth, Sixth, Tenth and D.C. Circuits as
opposed to the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits, which have found
directly to the contrary.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Spokeo and ultimately
decides that actual damages are required for a plaintiff to bring
suit against a company for federal law violations, it would
dramatically affect the credit and collection industry. As such,
ACA submitted its amicus brief supporting the Petitioner (Spokeo,
Inc.) in order to help the Court understand that the inconsistent
and unpredictable application of federal laws by the lower courts
impose "constitutionally unwarranted liability" on the credit and
collections industry.

"The filing of this brief reflects ACA's continuing commitment to
being the credit and collection industry's strongest advocate,"
added Robert L. F”ehl, Vice President and General Counsel for ACA
International.  "ACA is uniquely qualified to assist the Court in
addressing this important issue."

The case will be heard and decided by the Court in its upcoming
term which commences in early October.

ACA's efforts to proactively support the credit and collection
industry are part of the association's Industry Advancement
Program and made possible with funding from ACA's Industry
Advancement Fund.


STORK CRAFT: Recalls Crib Mattresses Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Stork Craft Manufacturing USA Inc., of Las Vegas, Nev., announced
a voluntary recall of about 18,500 Foam crib mattresses. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The crib mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal mattress
flammability standard for open flames, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Stork Craft foam crib and crib/toddler
mattresses with model numbers 06710-100 and 06710-200 and a date
of manufacture between August 2014 and January 2015. The
mattresses have a zippered white fabric cover and measure about 28
inches wide, 52 inches long and have a 5 inch thick foam core. The
model number, date of manufacture and "Stork Craft Manufacturing
(USA) Inc." are printed on white federal label attached to the
white mattress cover. The mattresses' box has a Graco logo.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Walmart stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com, EChannel.com,
ToysRUs.com, Walmart.com and Wayfair.com from August 2014 through
April 2015 for between $38 and $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled crib
mattresses and contact Stork Craft for a free, zippered mattress
barrier cover to be placed over the mattress foam core and under
the white mattress cover provided with the mattress.


TAPMASTERS LLC: "Gerard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Gerard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Tapmasters, LLC d/b/a World of Beer, Tapmasters II,
LLC d/b/a World of Beer, Nirav Patel, Willie J. Mingo, and Desiree
Mingo, Case No. 2:15-cv-05667-ES-JAD (D.N.J., July 21, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages and all
available relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operates a franchise sports bar with some 70
locations that offers food and over 500 varieties of bottled beer
and 50 beers on tap to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq
      BERKE-WEISS & PECHMAN LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1120
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 583-9500
      E-mail: pechman@bwp-law.com

         - and -

      Mitchell A. Schley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MITCHELL SCHLEY, LLC
      Two Tower Center Blvd., 8th Floor
      East Brunswick, NJ 08816
      Telephone: (732) 325-0318
      Facsimile: (732) 325-0317
      E-mail: mschley@schleylaw.com


TIMBERCORP: Victims Seek Justice for Poor Financial Advice
----------------------------------------------------------
Sarina Locke, writing for ABC, reported eight years after the
collapse of managed investment schemes (MIS) in timber, fruit and
other projects, attention is again focused on the financial
advisors who recruited investors.

A Royal Commission, a judicial inquiry, a reopening of the
Australian Securities and Investments Commission's investigation
are options being discussed by former investors and their
advocates.

But the Government has ruled out a Royal Commission into financial
services, despite a host of banks, individuals and companies under
investigation.

Naomi Halpern has become a voice for victims, presenting evidence
of their shame and despair to the Senate Inquiry last November
into the failed agribusiness schemes.

"The first I realised that things were going wrong was in November
2008 when the global financial crisis (GFC) hit and I started to
get emails for margin calls," she said.

"The share portfolio had collapsed, loans for agribusiness I
didn't know I was in.

"I started to get phone calls from creditors saying you're behind
in your repayments. It was a total nightmare.

"I was absolutely terrified."

The people who had a stake in the failed agribusiness schemes are
not all wealthy city lawyers, or doctors but office managers,
mechanics, animal carers, teachers, and small business owners,
like Greg White who owns the newsagent near Shepparton.

"I thought I'd save all my money and have a comfortable retirement
early, rather than spend all my money early on."

Those hopes were dashed by 2008.

Mr White claims he was a victim of bad financial advice.
His trusted Melbourne accountant convinced him to borrow against
his shares, to buy more shares, in a margin loan portfolio.
He also signed him up to managed investment schemes.

The lure was a tax deductable slice of agricultural projects, with
high returns growing olives, mangoes, avocados, timber, grapes and
wine.

"So from 1999 to 2001-2003 I took on three schemes," he said.

"I had a lovely set of blue gums in Tasmania, several hectares of
olives at Boort in Victoria, and a share in a nice winery in
Margaret River Western Australia, which all sounded very nice. He
[the advisor] said I'd be helping local producers, and it was
great to be investing in Australian agriculture."

Part of the problem was Mr White did not understand what he had
invested in; he did own the blue gum trees but not the land they
grew on. He didn't own the olive trees at all, just a share of the
harvest profits if ever the trees fruited, and the wine grape
profits never materialised.

In fact Mr White alleges his adviser hadn't told him all sorts of
things about MIS agribusiness schemes by the time they crashed in
2008.

"But what he never said to you was that if the trees don't grow
that fast or the olives don't have flowers, you could be locked
into this scheme virtually forever and in all the cases, none of
them ever lived up to what he promised them to be."

Mr White also signed up for margin loans, which are borrowings
against his equity in shares used to invest in a portfolio of more
shares.

But by the end of 2008 he lost everything. His agribusiness
schemes were broke, his blue chip shares all sold with, he said,
no warning from his financial adviser.

"There was actually nothing left. The shares by the end of 2008
would barely cover the loans," Mr White said.

But why didn't Greg White seek a second opinion about the risks
his adviser might be getting him into?

"For many years it was sheer growth; everything he had done for me
while the share market was going well, but he never gave us any
real information, you just trusted what he gave you," Mr White
said.

"It was not until the global financial crisis that you began to
question the possible risks involved.

"Because again we were never informed of any risks. There was
never any talk of downside."

Like Mr White and hundreds of others who invested in the doomed
Timbercorp agribusiness, Ms Halpern from Melbourne didn't
understand the package she bought through her adviser.

"What he recommended we do was first of all, get an investment
loan against equity in our houses, and then a margin loan that
would match the investment loan to buy shares," Ms Halpern said.

"We've just heard this story time and time again, 'what I'm doing
is safe and conservative, we'd never put your home at risk'."

"In terms of agribusiness, he put me in an agribusiness in 2001,
he'd tell me they were government endorsed, government backed
schemes, they were helping the economy grow and rural areas and
farmers."

What is galling for Ms Halpern is that she did seek an expert
second opinion but she too trusted her adviser.

"He had been working in accountancy in the tax department for many
years, he was very qualified and had credentials on the wall," she
said.

"It's a bit like going to a doctor. If a doctor recommends a
treatment, you think this is the expert and this is what has to be
done."


TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN: Judge Narrows Claims in "Margulies" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak of the District of Oregon granted in
part and denied in part defendant's motions in the case ALLEN
MARGULIES et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON, Defendant, NO. 3:13-CV-00475-PK
(D. Ore.)

Defendant Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of
Oregon (TriMet) operates and provides public transportation
services throughout Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas counties.
TriMet manages various bus and train routes, schedules, and
working conditions for its employees. The employment of TriMet's
various operators is guided by the Working and Wage Agreement
("WWA").

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against defendant,
alleging that defendant engages in a pattern or practice of
failing to pay its bus and train operators for all compensable
work in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and Oregon law.

Plaintiffs allege that TriMet fails to pay bus and train operators
for: (1) non-commute travel time between disparate start and end
points of operators' scheduled runs, (2) the differential between
scheduled run times and actual run times, (3) pre-departure time,
(4) mandatory meetings with supervisors, (5) mandatory medical
examinations, and (6) any applicable overtime due for such
compensable time.

TriMet filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to all state
law claims and a motion for partial summary judgment as to Max
Operators' FLSA overtime claims.

Magistrate Judge Papak granted in part and denied in part TriMet'
motion for partial summary judgment as to the state law claims and
granted in part and denied in part as to its motion for partial
summary judgment as to FLSA claims.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Papak's amended opinion and order dated
July 2, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/qNzGVqfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

Joel B. Young, Esq.
Steven G. Tidrick, Esq.
THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM
2039 Shattuck Avenue #308
Berkeley, CA 94704
Telephone: 510-788-5100
Facsimile: 510-291-3226

     - and -

Paul L. Breed, Esq.
PAUL L. BREED, PC
Yamhill Plaza Building
815 S.W., Second Avenue, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: 503-226-1403
Facsimile: 203-223-1513

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation Dist. of Oregon, Defendant,
represented by Douglas E. Smith -- at -- Littler Mendelson P.C.;
Kimberly A. Sewell --  Gregory E. Skillman -- at Tri-County
Metropolitan


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Cheah" Trespassing Suit in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------
Jean Cheah, Randall Putman, Lee Dudley Blevins Separate Property
Revocable Trust, Paul Escobedo, Curly Horn Partners, Liber LLC,
Orange Grove Center LLC, Penvesco, Joseph Raia, Katherine
Tuchscherer, and Whistle Stop Depot LLC, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Union Pacific Railroad
Company, SFPP, L.P. f/k/a Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Kinder
Morgan Operating L.P. "D", and Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-01380-NVW (D. Ariz., July 21, 2015), is a class action
that seeks to recover to the class of Arizona property owners
unpaid rents, damages, and interest, as a result of the
Defendant's trespass upon the class's real property and wrongful
occupation with the railroad to use the subsurface of the railroad
right-of-way.

The Defendants operate a subterranean petroleum pipeline that runs
beneath the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad Company
through El Paso County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com


UPPABABY: Recalls Strollers & RumbleSeats Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
UPPAbaby, of Hingham, Mass., announced a voluntary recall of about
71,000 UPPAbaby 2015 CRUZ , 2015 VISTA strollers and 2015
RumbleSeat (in addition, 8,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The strollers' and RumbleSeats' bumper bar poses a choking hazard
when a child bites the bumper bar and removes a piece of the foam
covering.

This recall involves 2015 CRUZ and 2015 VISTA strollers and 2015
RumbleSeat. The CRUZ strollers have an aluminum alloy grey or
black frame with a black fabric toddler seat with a colored fabric
sunshade canopy and a black basket under the seat. The UPPAbaby
name and logo are printed on the side of the canopy and "CRUZ" is
printed in white lettering on the handlebars of the stroller. The
VISTA strollers have grey or black aluminum frames, colored
sunshade canopy and are made to hold one, two or up to three
children. VISTA is printed in white lettering on the handlebars of
the stroller and UPPAbaby is printed across the bottom diagonal
rail of the stroller frame next to a black, fabric basket. The
RumbleSeat is a separate seat attachment that can be attached to
the stroller frame. RumbleSeats have manufacture dates stamped on
the bottom of the seat from September 2014 through May 2015. The
RumbleSeat comes in various colors and allows the child to ride
rear facing, forward facing or reclined. All of the strollers and
RumbleSeats have a foam bumper bar across the middle of the
product for the child to hold. The CRUZ and VISTA strollers with
the following model and serial numbers are included in the recall:

The 2015 CRUZ strollers have model number 0181 and the following
serial number printed on a sticker with a barcode on the lower
right frame of the stroller.

  --- CRZ0415018100001 through CRZ0415018100738
  --- CRZ0415018100739 through CRZ0415018101284
  --- CRZ0515018101285 through CRZ0515018101824
  --- CRZ0714018100001 through CRZ0714018101441
  --- CRZ0814018102464 through CRZ0814018102983
  --- CRZ0814018100001 through CRZ0814018100521
  --- CRZ0814018103764 through CRZ0814018104024
  --- CRZ0814018103504 through CRZ0814018103763
  --- CRZ0814018103244 through CRZ0814018103503
  --- CRZ0914018104905 through CRZ0914018105353
  --- CRZ0914018104617 through CRZ0914018104760
  --- CRZ0914018104025 through CRZ0914018104184
  --- CRZ0914018104185 through CRZ0914018104328
  --- CRZ0914018104761 through CRZ0914018104904
  --- CRZ0914018104329 through CRZ0914018104472
  --- CRZ1014018106646 through CRZ1014018109347
  --- CRZ1114018109348 through CRZ1114018112151
  --- CRZ1114018114244 through CRZ1114018115495
  --- CRZ1114018112242 through CRZ1114018114243
  --- CRZ1214018115496 through CRZ1214018117465

The 2015 VISTA strollers have model number 0101 printed on a
sticker on the lower crossbar frame. The 2015 VISTA strollers also
have the following serial number printed on a sticker with a
barcode below the rear axle of the stroller frame on the left.

  --- VIS0315010103097 through VIS0315010103696
  --- VIS0315010104435 through VIS0315010105310
  --- VIS0315010106433 through VIS0315010107416
  --- VIS0814010100001 through VIS0814010101261
  --- VIS0814010100001 through VIS0814010100631
  --- VIS0914010101894 through VIS0914010102525
  --- VIS0914010102526 through VIS0914010103155
  --- VIS0914010103156 through VIS0914010103785
  --- VIS1014010103786 through VIS1014010104417
  --- VIS1014010105048 through VIS1014010105677
  --- VIS1014010104418 through VIS1014010105047
  --- VIS1014010112494 through VIS1014010112973
  --- VIS1014010111598 through VIS1014010111864
  --- VIS1014010107220 through VIS1014010111063
  --- VIS1014010111865 through VIS1014010112133
  --- VIS1014010111064 through VIS1014010111330
  --- VIS1014010112134 through VIS1014010112493
  --- VIS1014010111331 through VIS1014010111597
  --- VIS1014010105678 through VIS1014010107219
  --- VIS1114010112974 through VIS1114010114205
  --- VIS1114010114206 through VIS1114010121671
  --- VIS1114010121672 through VIS1114010124381
  --- VIS1114010124382 through VIS1214010127183
  --- VIS1214010127184 through VIS1214010129685

UPPAbaby has received 22 reports of children biting off a piece of
the bumper bar foam. No injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
BuyBuy Baby and other juvenile product retailers nationwide and
online at Amazon.com from December 2014 through July 2015 for
about $500 for the CRUZ stroller, $860 for the VISTA stroller and
$170 for the RumbleSeat.

Consumers should immediately remove and stop using the bumper bar
on these recalled strollers and RumbleSeats and contact the firm
to receive a free bumper bar cover and warning label.


WELLS FARGO: Cal. Ct. App. Upholds Trial Court's Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Ignazio J. Ruvolo of the Court of Appeals of
California, First District, Division Four, affirmed the trial
court's judgment in the case MAURA WHITE, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, Defendant and Respondent, NO.
A140195 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Maura White obtained a $397,000 adjustable rate mortgage loan from
World Savings Bank, FSB. The loan was secured by a deed of trust
against White's residential property in Castro Valley. In 2008,
World Savings Bank changed its name to Wachovia Mortgage, FSB,
and, in 2009, Wells Fargo merged with Wachovia and became the
beneficial owner of White's loan.

White stopped making payments on her loan in May 2009. A trustee
sale was noticed for November 8, 2010. However, White avoided
foreclosure by filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition on November
2, 2010.  The bankruptcy court eventually confirmed a bankruptcy-
exit plan. In paragraph 4 of the plan, White stated that she would
make payments on her loan in the amount $2,400 a month directly to
the lender.

Notwithstanding the unqualified representation, White made an
inconsistent proposal in paragraph 7 of her plan, which stated:
"Debtor is seeking loan modification from Wachovia/Wells Fargo on
1st deed of trust. Debtor will make estimated HAMP payment until
modification approved or denied. No arrearage claim to be paid
through plan. If debtor is granted a loan modification, arrears
will be dealt with through modification. If debtor is denied
modification, or 6 months elapses from date of filing with no
modification, property will be surrendered."

In September 2012, White filed a complaint against Wells Fargo
seeking damages and equitable relief, including a judicial
declaration that White's loan had been modified to reduce
permanently her monthly payments to $1,570.  In March 2013, White
filed a first amended complaint (FAC) instead of opposing Wells
Fargo's demurrer. White attempted to allege causes of action for
breach of contract/promissory estoppel and violations of Business
and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.

Wells Fargo filed a demurrer to the FAC and the trial court
published a tentative ruling sustaining the demurrer which White
did not contest.

On August 26, 2013, White filed her second amended complaint.  She
attempted to allege causes of action for (1) breach of contract;
(2) promissory estoppel; and (3) UCL violations.
Wells Fargo filed a demurrer to the SAC and, on October 18, the
trial court issued a written order sustaining Wells Fargo's
demurrer to the SAC without leave to amend. White appealed.
Presiding Justice Ruvolo affirmed the trial court's judgment.
A copy of Presiding Justice Ruvolo's unpublished opinion dated
July 2, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/74Jaidfrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division Four
panel consists of Presiding Justice Ignazio J. Ruvolo and Justices
Maria P. Rivera and Jon B. Streeter.


WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY: Judge Narrows Claims in Boyer et al. Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William M. Conley of the Western District of
Wisconsin granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions
in the case MILTON BOYER and KATHY BOYER, Plaintiffs, v.
WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, OWEN-ILLINOIS, CO., Defendants. RICHARD MASEPHOL,
Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. JANET
PECHER, Individually and as Special Administrator on behalf of the
Estate of Urban Pecher, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M
COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS
INC., Defendants. VIRGINIA PRUST, Individually and as Special
Administrator on behalf of the Estate of Valmore Prust, Plaintiff,
v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. ROGER SEEHAFER and
JANICE SEEHAFER, Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY and OWENS-
ILLINOIS INC., Defendants. WESLEY F. SYDOW and THERESA SYDOW,
Plaintiffs, v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY, 3M COMPANY, METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and OWENS-ILLINOIS INC., Defendants, NOS. 14-
CV-286-WMC, 14-CV-186-WMC, 14-CV-147-WMC, 14-CV-143-WMC, 14-CV-
161-WMC, 14-CV-219-WMC (W.D. Wis.)

Each plaintiff brings claims against Weyerhaeuser Company based on
the release of asbestos fibers into the air in various non-
employment settings. Plaintiffs assert claims under Wisconsin
state law for negligent and intentional nuisance, all of which
appear to be premised on private and public nuisance theories.

Weyerhaeuser seeks to dismiss plaintiffs' negligent nuisance and
intentional nuisance claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6).  Weyerhauser seeks dismissal of the claims by
arguing that:

     -- the claims are preempted by the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42
U.S.C. Section 7401 et seq.,

     -- plaintiffs allege no interference with private land to
support a private nuisance claim, whether negligent or
intentional, and

     -- plaintiffs' public nuisance claims do not meet the special
injury requirement required on policy grounds.

Judge Conley granted in part and denied in part Weyerhaeuser's
motions, finding that plaintiffs may bring their respective
nuisance claims, but may not rely on the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
Section 7401 et seq., and regulations of the Environmental
Protection Agency, including the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants, in establishing the applicable standard
of care. In all other respects, defendant's motion is denied.

A copy of Judge Conley's opinion and order dated June 2, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/KfXGDgfrom Leagle.com.

Virginia Prust, Plaintiff, represented by:
Michael P. Cascino, Esq.
James Nicholas Hoey, Esq.
Robert G. McCoy, Esq.
CASCINO VAUGHAN LAW OFFICES, LTD.
220 S Ashland Ave.
Chicago, IL, 60607
Telephone: 800-783-0081

Weyerhaeuser Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Joshua J. Metcalf -- Joshua.Metcalf@formanwatkins.com -- Ruth F.
Maron -- Ruth.Maron@formanwatkins.com -- Tanya D. Ellis --
Tanya.Ellis@formanwatkins.com -- at Forman Watkins Krutz & Tardy,
LLP

3M Company, a corporation, Defendant, represented by Edward J.
McCambridge -- emccambridge@smsm.com -- Bradley R. Bultman --
bbultman@smsm.com -- Emily Zapotocny -- at Segal McCambridge
Singer & Mahoney, Ltd.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a corporation, Defendant,
represented by Smitha Chintamaneni -- schintam@vonbriesen.com --
William P. Croke -- bcroke@vonbriesen.com -- at von Briesen &
Roper, s.c.

Owens-Illinois Inc., a corporation, Defendant, represented by
Brian O'Connor Watson -- bwatson@schiffhardin.com -- Edward M.
Casmere -- ecasmere@schiffhardin.com -- Matthew John Fischer --
mfischer@schiffhardin.com -- Rachel Allison Remke --
rremke@schiffhardin.com -- at Schiff Hardin LLP


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Recalls Wall Ovens and Microwaves
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Whirlpool Corporation, of Benton Harbor, Mich., announced a
voluntary recall of about 33,000 Jenn-Air Single, Double Wall
Ovens and Combination Microwave/Wall Ovens (in addition, 8,000
were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The extendable roller rack can unexpectedly disengage when fully
extended, posing a risk of burns to consumers.

This recall involves Jenn-Air brand single and double wall ovens,
and combination microwave/wall ovens with an extendable roller
rack with handle. The ovens were sold in stainless steel, oiled
bronze, black and white. The Jenn-Air logo is affixed to the lower
right corner of the oven door. Wall ovens included in the recall
have models numbers that begin with JJW2, JJW3 JMW2 or JMW3 and a
serial number beginning with a D or F.  A complete list of model
and serial numbers included in this recall is on the firm's
website (http://repair.whirlpoolcorp.com).Model and serial
numbers for single and double ovens are located under the control
panel, and for combination ovens, the model and serial number are
located near the center vent of the lower oven.

Whirlpool Corporation has received eight reports of incidents,
including one report of second degree burn injuries to the arm and
back.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/QW1pau

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Sears, Pacific Sales and other stores nationwide, and by
wholesalers, including Ferguson Enterprises, and homebuilders from
March 2012 through June 2015 for between $2,500 and $5,000.

Consumers should immediately stop using the extendable roller rack
and contact Whirlpool Corporation for a free in-home inspection
and repair.


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Recalls Wall Ovens and Microwaves
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 29, 2015
Posting date: July 29, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Appliances
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54380

This recall involves Jenn-Air brand built-in single wall ovens,
double wall ovens and combination microwave/wall ovens which
contain an extendable roller rack with handle. These ovens were
sold in stainless steel, oiled bronze, black, and white. The
affected ovens have models numbers that begin with JJW2, JJW3 JMW2
or JMW3 and a serial number beginning with a D or F.  A tool to
help consumers identify if their product is affected by this
recall can be found on the firm's website.

Model and serial numbers for single and double ovens are located
under the control panel. For combination ovens, the model and
serial number are located above the center vent of the lower oven.

The extendable roller rack with handle may disengage when fully
extended, posing a burn hazard.

Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products in Canada.

Whirlpool Corporation has received one report of a minor burn to a
consumer's hand in Canada.  In the United States, the company has
received seven reports of incidents, including one report of
second degree burn injuries to the arm and back.

Approximately 8000 units were sold in Canada and 33,000 units in
the United States.

The recalled products were sold in Canada and the United States
from March 2012 to June 2015 at various retail locations.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Whirlpool Corporation
              Benton Harbour
              Michigan
              UNITED STATES

Location of Model and Serial Numbers: On the Single and Double
Ovens the Model and Serial number plate is located above the
center vent under control panel. On the Combination Microwave
Ovens the Model and Serial number plate is located above the
center vent of the lower oven.

Consumers should immediately stop using the extendable roller rack
with handle and contact Whirlpool Corporation.

For more information, consumers may contact Whirlpool Corporation
toll-free at 1-877-929-2029 from 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM ET Monday
through Friday, and from 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM ET on Saturday, or
visit the firm's website  and click on Product Recall in the lower
right corner of the homepage.

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

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

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

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

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


XOLLE LLC: Faces "Carbajal" Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Genaro Carbajal, Proculo Salgado, Antonio Salgado, Godofredo
Salgado, Sergio Gomez, Ovidio Ramirez, and Adalberto Lara,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Xolle LLC, Yaakov "Jack" Kitay and Menachem Roth, Case No. 1:15-
cv-04270 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a demolition contracting and waste
cleaning services company based in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


ZION MARKET: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlen Cruz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zion Market Inc., et al, Case No. BC588962 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Zion Market Inc. owns and operates a Korean Grocery Store in Los
Angeles County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901
      E-mail: info@maternlawgroup.com


* Hausfeld's NY Office Welcomes 2 Antitrust Litigators
------------------------------------------------------
Scott Martin, an accomplished antitrust litigator and veteran
competition counselor to Fortune 500 companies, and Irving Scher,
former chair of the American Bar Association's Section of
Antitrust Law, adjunct professor at NYU Law School, and editor and
co-author of Antitrust Adviser, have joined Hausfeld as partner
and senior counsel, respectively, opening Hausfeld's office in New
York. They previously served in the same positions at Greenberg
Traurig, LLP and, before that, as longtime partners at Weil,
Gotshal & Manges, LLP. Martin and Scher will continue to represent
clients in New York, throughout the United States, and abroad in
complex litigation, regulatory actions and investigations, and
foreign discovery proceedings -- and continue providing corporate
counseling on a host of competition issues, including joint
ventures and trade associations, pricing matters, distribution
issues, the intellectual property/antitrust intersection, and
effective antitrust compliance.

Chairman Michael Hausfeld stated, "Scott and Irv are two of the
most widely respected antitrust lawyers in the United States, with
extensive experience counseling and litigating on behalf of the
world's largest companies. They are the perfect team to launch our
New York office and we welcome their unique talents and insights,
which will benefit our clients worldwide."

A graduate of Stanford University and Stanford Law School, Scott
Martin has 25 years of litigation experience across numerous
industries and jurisdictions, including through trials and
appeals. He has played a major role in many of the largest
antitrust class action cases of the last two decades on the
defense side and also in representing opt-outs, and he has
negotiated resolutions of regulatory investigations and actions on
behalf of corporate clients. Martin is a frequent lecturer and
panelist and has published widely on a host of antitrust topics
while also serving on the Editorial Board of Antitrust Law
Developments and on Law360's Competition Editorial Board.  He also
serves as Scher's co-editor for the forthcoming edition of
Antitrust Adviser. He is a member of the Executive Committee of
the New York State Bar Association's Antitrust Section, and he has
long been active in the leadership of the American Bar Association
Section of Antitrust Law (including as a former chair of the Trial
Practice Committee and the Business Torts and Civil RICO
Committee, and as a member of the Civil Redress Task Force, among
other positions). Martin has been recognized by The Best Lawyers
in America (Antitrust Law and Litigation -- Antitrust, 2012-2015);
Chambers USA Guide (2006-2015); International Who's Who of
Competition Lawyers and Economists (2013-2015); International
Who's Who of Business Lawyers (2013-2015); Super Lawyers (New York
Metro Super Lawyers, 2006-2014); Euromoney's Guide to the World's
Leading Competition & Antitrust Lawyers (2012); The Legal 500
United States (2009); and Who's Who in American Law.

Irving Scher is likewise an icon of antitrust, having served as
chair of the Antitrust Sections of both the American Bar
Association and the New York State Bar Association. With
competition expertise spanning the airline, retail, apparel,
automotive, electronics, publishing, grocery, pharmaceutical,
publishing, and recorded music industries, Scher has represented
numerous clients in significant antitrust, marketing, advertising,
and trade practice investigations, litigations, and counseling
matters over many decades.  In addition to his teaching
responsibilities at NYU Law School, Scher frequently lectures on
antitrust matters at bar association meetings, and was Co-Chair of
the Practising Law Institute annual antitrust programs for more
than 20 years. He is also a long-time and current member of the
Advisory Board of the weekly Antitrust & Trade Regulation Reporter
and former member of the Editorial Board of Antitrust Law
Developments. The Best Lawyers in America recently named Scher
"Lawyer of the Year," (Antitrust Law, New York City, 2015);
Euromoney Expert Guide has honored Scher with the World's Leading
Competition and Antitrust Lawyer Award (2008); and Chambers USA
Guide recently recognized him as one of five nationwide antitrust
"Senior Statesmen" (2015).  He is a graduate of Columbia Law
School and the City College of New York.

This latest expansion is part of the firm's strategic growth
worldwide, which has included, in the last nine months, the
opening of an office in Brussels, and the hiring of former
Michelin-Europe general counsel Laurent Geelhand (Managing
Partner, Brussels); former federal district court judge Walter D.
Kelley (Partner, Washington, DC); leading West Coast litigator
Bonny Sweeney (Partner, San Francisco, CA); experienced antitrust
litigator Ed Coulson (Partner, London); and acclaimed mass-tort
and environmental litigator Frederick T. Kuykendall (Of Counsel,
Washington, DC).


                            *********

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  * * *