CAR_Public/150806.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 6, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 156


                            Headlines


12185 CANADA: Court Raises Bar for Filing Securities Suits
347 LEX: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
713 BOURBON: Faces "Fantahun" Suit Overt Failure to Pay Overtime
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces "Stevens-Bratton" FLSA Suit
ACT II JEWELRY: Lia Sophia Shut Out 30K Sales Advisers, Suit Says

AGP 111: "Santo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
AIR CARGO: Kaplan Fox Named Lead Plaintiff in Antitrust Suit
ALLIED MEDICAL: Faces Suit for Alleged Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Mellen" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Reiber" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Watkins" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Friedman" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Horwitz" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
AMERICAN WATER HEATER: Texas Couple Sues Over Water Heaters
AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Faces "Galerman" Securities Suit

AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Pomerantz LLP Files Securites Class Suit
BALTIMORE WINDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BLACK FOREST: Sued for Unpaid OT Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy

BLUE MOUNTAINS, NSW: Bushfire Attys to Launch Second Class Suit
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Class Suit Over Anticoagulant Drug
BRANDREP INC: "Alan" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
BRASKEM SA: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
BREADS OF THE WORLD: Faces Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation

C TECH: Settlement in "Babcock" Case Has Preliminary Approval
CAMPUS MOTEL: Faces "Molina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CELLADON CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP: Judge Finalizes $119MM Royalty Settlement
CHINA FINANCE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit

CHRYSLER LLC: Says Warranty Shields from Paying Suit Damages
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Sued in Tenn. Over Property Damages
DELTA AIR: Accused of Conspiring to Fix Airline Ticket Prices
EAST PARK MAINTENANCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ELETROBRAS: Faces "Franklin" Securities Suit in New York Court

ESKATON VILLAGE: Former Execs Released from Homeowners Suit
EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Lord" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
EXPRESSWAY MOTORCARS: Removed "Lopez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
FAMOUS ITALIAN: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FEDEX GROUND: "Blazonis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

FLEXSEDANS.COM: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FLORAL LOGISTICS: Faces Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: 2d. Circ. Weighs in on Unpaid Interns
FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Seeks Partial Dismissal of Workers' Suit
GENT'S ENTERPRISES: Faces "Terrefe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

GOOGLE INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit for Sale of Play Gift Cards
IDI INC: Faces "Heim" Suit for Alleged Securities Law Violation
JOSHUA MOTORS: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Business Practices
K&G MENS: Judge Grants Conditional Certification on FLSA Suit
KEURIG GREEN: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports

KIA MOTORS: Panoramic Sunroofs Shatter Dangerously, Suit Claims
LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Misleading Statements
LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Judge Orders Plaintiff to Explain New Deal
LYALL MANUFACTURING: Wis. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Faces Demand to Extend Protective Netting

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Hagens Berman Leads Grave Safety Suit
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Hillard Munos Files Safety Negligence Suit
MARTHA STEWART: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Ubom" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
MILLER CASTINGS: Faces "Parra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

MITOROTONDA SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MOVIE TAVERN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Kotchmar" Suit Claims
MULLIGAN'S MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit for Allegedly Violating FLSA
MYLAN NV: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
NEANY INC: "Lewis" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ariz. Wage Act Breach

NEANY INC: Faces 2nd "Lewis Suit Over FLSA, Wage Act Violations
PACE CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
OCEAN EMPIRE: Accused of Violating FLSA, New York Labor Law
OFFICE DEPOT: Accused of Violating Handicap Parking Regulations
OTTAWA, CANADA: Farmers Group Shifts Strategy in Class Suit

PDI INC: "Severine" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
PENNY NEWMAN: Judge Allows Parties to Amend Settlement Agreement
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Sued by NAACP for Violating Human Rights Law
PJJK RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensations
POLARK LTD: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Min. Wage Law

PRESTIGE CRUISE: Faces "Freixa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued in N.Y. Over Defective Laundry Detergent
PUBLIX: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Box Label
RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Cacioppo" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger
RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger

RECON RESOURCES: "Summers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SANOFI-AVENTIS SA: Plan Fiduciaries Sued Over Breach of Duties
SAYBOLT LP: Faces "Fontenot" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SBM MAINTENANCE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
SDV LOGISTIQUE: November 2 Settlement Approval Hearing Set

SIRIUS XM: Sued for Alleged Unlawful Telephone Solicitations
SONY PICTURES: Hacking Lawsuit Claims ID Theft to Ex-Employees
SOUTHERN PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Credit Card Info on Receipts
SPORTS ENDURANCE: August 31 Claims Filing Deadline Set

ST JUDE: Faces "Solak" Suit in Cal. Over Proposed Thoratec Merger
STAR NAIL: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TEMPLETON RYE: Settles 3 Class Suits Over False Advertising
TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Berkoff" Suit Over False Comparative Prices
TOTAL WEALTH: Removed "Calderon" Class Suit to  S.D. California

TRI-DIM FILTER: "Davies" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
TRUGREEN INC: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged TCPA Violation
TUMI INC: "Pinedo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
UBER: Georgia Class Suit Targets "Rogue" Ride Shares
UNIFIRST CORP: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Oregon Wage, Hour Laws

UNION PACIFIC: "Dorron" Suit Alleges Federal Rules Violation
UNITED STATES: "Kelley" Claims Severed from "Finch" Suit
US BANCORP: Fails to Pay Branch Managers OT, "Barker" Suit Says
USPLABS LLC: C.D. Cal. Judge Remands Suit to State Court
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Suit Over Gay Discrimination

WYNDHAM RESORT: Removed "McGrath" Class Suit to S.D. California

* 11th Circuit Restores Class Suit Over Rotting Wood


                            *********


12185 CANADA: Court Raises Bar for Filing Securities Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Michael D Schafler, Matthew Fleming and Thomas Wilson of Dentons
Canada LLP, in an article for International Law Office, reported
that introduction in Theratechnologies Inc v 12185 Canada Inc,(1)
the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Section 225(4) of the
Quebec Securities Act(2) -- which, as a condition precedent,
requires plaintiffs to show that their claims have been brought in
good faith and have a reasonable chance of success -- is no mere
speed bump on the way to obtaining court authorisation to bring an
action against reporting issuers, directors, officers or experts
for damages resulting from the acquisition or disposition of
securities in the secondary market.

The decision directs courts in all Canadian provinces to more
rigorously apply securities law requirements that oblige
plaintiffs to obtain judicial authorisation before proceeding with
secondary market securities class actions. In the wake of
Theratechnologies, plaintiffs in such actions must present
sufficient evidence to demonstrate a reasonable chance of success,
lest their claim be denied at the outset.

Facts

In 2010, Theratechnologies Inc -- a pharmaceutical research and
development company based in Montreal and listed on the Toronto
Stock Exchange -- was awaiting approval from the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) for a HIV drug then under development.
Theratechnologies regularly updated its shareholders and Quebec's
securities regulator with developments regarding the FDA approval
process and had earlier disclosed clinical trial results
indicating that the drug's negative side effects were clinically
insignificant.

As part of its approval process, the FDA referred a number of
questions about the drug -- including questions about potential
side effects -- to an expert advisory committee. These questions
were posted to a public FDA website and Theratechnologies elected
to make no related disclosure to investors. Upon learning about
the questions, certain third-party stock quotation companies
issued press releases stating that Theratechnologies' drug could
cause unwanted side effects. The market reacted negatively to
these reports and shares in the company lost 58% of their value in
just two days. The plaintiff, 121851 Canada Inc, sold shares in
Theratechnologies during this period, suffering a loss of C$271,
752. (3) The value of Theratechnologies' shares ultimately
recovered and the drug received FDA approval.

121851 Canada took the position that the FDA's questions
represented a material change in Theratechnologies' business,
operations or capital which, pursuant to Section 73 of the Quebec
Securities Act, should have been disclosed by the company. 121851
Canada sought judicial authorisation -- required under Section
225(4) of the act -- to bring a class action against
Theratechnologies for damages. Section 225(4) of the act states,
in part, that an action for damages with respect to secondary
market securities may proceed only if the court "deems that the
action is in good faith and there is a reasonable possibility that
it will be resolved in favour of the plaintiff".

At first instance, the motions judge noted that Section 225(4) is
more stringent than Article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
which requires a court to find that "the facts alleged seem to
justify the conclusions sought" before certifying a class action
proceeding. (4) Despite this higher authorisation threshold for
secondary market securities claims, the motions judge held that
there was sufficient evidence to conclude that the plaintiff's
action had a reasonable chance of success. The Quebec Court of
Appeal agreed.

Decision

The issue before the Supreme Court of Canada was whether 121851
Canada's claim had a 'reasonable possibility' of succeeding within
the meaning of Section 225(4) of the Securities Act. In a
unanimous decision, the court allowed Theratechnologies' appeal
and held that the action should not be authorised.

The court agreed with both lower courts that Section 225(4)
contains a more stringent authorisation requirement than Article
1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure. According to the court, this
higher threshold reflects the legislature's desire to meaningfully
screen claims in the securities context and avoid the strike suits
common in the United States.(5)

Justice Abella highlighted that Section 225(4) is part of a
relatively new securities regime designed to address breaches of
continuous disclosure obligations in the secondary market. (6) In
the early 2000s, the Canadian Securities Administrators
recommended a statutory cause of action to assist injured
investors that face considerable challenges in proving that they
relied on misinformation or the omission of information. The new
regime, first implemented by Ontario in 2002, features a
presumption in favour of investors that fluctuations in the value
of a security are attributable to false declarations or failures
to disclose. (7) Balancing against this presumption, all Canadian
provinces have adopted a screening mechanism to ensure that only
those claims with a reasonable chance of success are permitted to
proceed -- Section 225(4) of the Securities Act is an example of
one such screening mechanism.(8)

The Supreme Court clarified that in order to establish that it has
a realistic chance of success, a claimant must offer "some
credible evidence in support of its claim".(9) A full analysis of
the evidence is not required. Instead, a plaintiff must adduce
"sufficient evidence to persuade the court that there is a
reasonable possibility that the action will be resolved in the
claimant's favour". (10)

Applying these principles, the Supreme Court focused on whether
Theratechnologies had failed to disclose a material change within
the meaning of Section 5(3) of the Securities Act. (11) The court
held that there was no evidence to suggest that by electing not to
disclose the FDA's questions, Theratechnologies had failed to
disclose a material change that had affected its business,
operations or capital. The information that the company had
elected not to disclose contained no new information about the
drug or its side effects. There was no evidence to suggest that
the FDA's questions departed in any way from its routine drug
approval procedure. (12) Because the evidence did not credibly
suggest that there had been a material change that required
disclosure under Quebec's securities laws, the Supreme Court held
that there was no reasonable possibility of success and,
accordingly, 121851 Canada's action was not authorised.

Comment

Securities legislation in all Canadian provinces contains
threshold requirements similar to Section 225(4) of the Securities
Act -- a claimant must establish that its action is brought in
good faith and has a reasonable chance of success. (13)
Accordingly, Theratechnologies will have a far-reaching impact
and, given the Supreme Court's decision, will likely result in
courts approaching 'reasonable chance for success' requirements
with increased analytical rigour. The message to plaintiffs is
clear: evidence that illustrates the fundamental merits of a claim
must be adduced before a court will authorise an action for
damages in secondary market securities disputes.

The Supreme Court provides general guidance regarding the evidence
that will establish that a given claim has a reasonable chance of
success. Although the authorisation stage for secondary market
liability actions "should not be treated as a 'mini-trial'", (14)
plaintiff's counsel should view Theratechnologies as a call for
increased evidentiary diligence. According to the court, "a case
with a reasonable possibility of success requires the claimant to
offer both a plausible analysis of the applicable legislative
provisions, and some credible evidence in support of the
claim."(15) Only time and subsequent consideration and application
by lower courts will bear out exactly how provincial authorisation
threshold requirements have been affected by Theratechnologies.

Finally, the Supreme Court emphasised that the timely disclosure
obligations in Canadian securities legislation are designed to:

"Increase fairness in the secondary market";
Support capital market efficiency "by helping investors target the
most deserving securities"; and
Enhance the accountability of corporate management. (16)

Theratechnologies further demonstrates that the Supreme Court is
engaged in balancing the rights of investors to bring secondary
market claims against the rights of issuers to ensure that such
claims are not baseless.

For further information on this topic please contact:

         Michael Schafler, Esq.
         Matthew Fleming, Esq.
         Thomas Wilson, Esq.
         DENTONS CANADA LLP
         900 Manulife Place 10180 - 101 Street
         Edmonton, Alberta T5J 3V5 Canada
         Tel: (416) 863 4511
         Email: michael.schafler@dentons.com
                matthew.fleming@dentons.com
                thomas.wilson@dentons.com


347 LEX: "Cortes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Moises Cortes, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated employees v. 347 Lex Bagel Corp. d/b/a Bagel Express, and
Ho Nam Han, Case No. 1:15-cv-05783 (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2015),
seeks to recover  unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Bagel Express restaurant located
at 347 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


713 BOURBON: Faces "Fantahun" Suit Overt Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teferi Fantahun, Ariana Hollins, Mykael Badon, Sonya Anderson,
Waynda Young, Artavius Edmond and Gail Veals, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. 713 Bourbon, LLC
d/b/a/ Bourbon Novelties and Bourbon Clothing Company and Subia
Weber, Case No. 2:15-cv-02873 (E.D. La., 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 a retail store in Orleans Parish,
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON & JACKSON
      201 St. Charles Ave., Suite 2500
      New Orleans, LA 70170
      Telephone: (504) 599-5953
      E-mail: mjackson@jackson-law.net


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces "Stevens-Bratton" FLSA Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Kasie Stevens-Bratton, individually and on behalf of all others
Gary Boltinghouse, Jr., Robert Taylor, and Mark Canales, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, v.
Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case: 1:15-cv-06223 (N.D. Ill., July
16, 2015), was filed seeking damages and other relief relating to
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a global healthcare company that maintains a
portfolio of science-based offerings in diagnostics, medical
devices, nutritionals, and branded pharmaceuticals. Its medical
testing and diagnostic instrument systems are used worldwide by
hospitals, laboratories, blood banks, and physician offices to
diagnose and monitor diseases. Abbott employs over 10,000
employees and serves customers in more than 150 countries
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ryan Stephan, Esq.
     STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
     205 North Michigan Ave.
     Suite 2560
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 233-1550
     E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com

     Timothy C. Selander, Esq.
     Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
     Reena I. Desai, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 256-3200
     E-mail: selander@nka.com
             srey@nka.com
             rdesai@nka.com


ACT II JEWELRY: Lia Sophia Shut Out 30K Sales Advisers, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Lia Sophia jewelry shut out 30,000 "sales advisers" by going
online and refuses to honor its lifetime guarantee, a class action
claims in Illinois Federal Court.

Cynthia West and Kristine Hollander sued ACT II Jewelry LLC dba
Lia Sophia and its sole member, Kiam Equities Corp.; CEO Victor
Kiam III; and creative director Elena Kiam, on June 23.

Lia Sophia, based in Roselle, Ill., is "one of the country's
largest fashion jewelry sellers," according to the complaint.

Lia Sophia used "sales advisers" who held "jewelry parties" in
customers' homes.  "At its peak, Lia Sophia had over 30,000 sales
advisors who sold more than $300 million of costume jewelry a
year," according to the complaint.

"An essential part of that direct-sales model was Lia Sophia's
'unrivaled lifetime replacement guarantee,'" say the plaintiffs: a
former saleswoman and a customer.

Lia Sophia guaranteed it would replace any jewelry it sold, "for
as long as the customer owned the jewelry," the complaint states.
"The lifetime guarantee enabled Lia Sophia to charge more for its
jewelry than the prices typically commanded in the market for
fashion or costume jewelry."

But after 40 years of business, Lia Sophia announced on Dec. 1,
2014, that it would wind down its U.S. and Canadian operations by
Dec. 31, and would shut up shop completely by the end of February
2015, the plaintiffs say.

It did not, according to the lawsuit.  It simply became an online
business, bypassing all of its "sales advisers."

"Lia Sophia continues to sell off its old inventory directly to
customers," the plaintiffs say.  "However, as plaintiffs and
numerous other customers will attest, Lia Sophia refuses to honor
its lifetime guarantee on prior purchases, and ignores customer
requests for replacements or repairs.  Indeed, Lia Sophia posted
the following statement on its own Facebook page in response to
the scores of complaints: 'Unfortunately, the lifetime replacement
guarantee that was offered on purchases prior to 12/28/2014 is no
longer valid.'"

They claim that Lia Sophia knew "for much of 2014" that it was
going to go all-online, "eliminate its sales advisors, and
repudiate the lifetime guarantees on all the jewelry previously
sold."

"Yet, Lia Sophia induced its sales advisors to continue to sell
and recruit, and to purchase additional products and supplies from
Lia Sophia, despite knowing that Lia Sophia would not be around
for its sales advisors to ever recover on those purchases and
recruitments.  Similarly, Lia Sophia continued to sell jewelry to
customers with its lifetime guarantee, all the while knowing it
was going to close its business and attempt to extinguish the
guarantee," the complaint states.

West was a sales adviser for three years.  She says she created "a
network of customers" for Lia Sophia, which the company has
"usurped" by selling to them directly.

She and Hollander seek class certification and damages for two
classes: sales advisers and customers.

They also seek an injunction, restitution, disgorgement of unjust
profits, and damages for breach of contract, consumer fraud and
common law fraud, under state and federal laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL  60602
          Telephone: (312) 236-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 546-9963
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com


AGP 111: "Santo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Santo, and all others similarly situated v. AGP 111 St. Rest
Corp. dba Cantina 1838, Mark Bernstein, and James Spence, Case No.
1:15-cv-05656 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York
Labor Law.

Cantina 1838 is a restaurant owned by Marc Bernstein and James
Spence located at 1838 Adam Clayton Powell Jr Blvd, New York, New
York 10026.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


AIR CARGO: Kaplan Fox Named Lead Plaintiff in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 10, 2015, the Honorable John Gleeson of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification in In re Air Cargo
Shipping Services Antirust Litigation, No. 06-MD-1775 (E.D.N.Y.).
The court also appointed Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as one of
four co-lead law firms.

The ruling capped over three years of court battles to determine
whether the class should be certified. Plaintiffs filed their
motion for class certification in October 2011. In October 2013
there was a three-day class certification evidentiary hearing,
including 20 hours of expert testimony before Magistrate Judge
Viktor V. Pohorelsky. Kaplan Fox's Gregory K. Arenson handled the
examination of three of the four testifying experts at the
hearing. On October 15, 2014, Judge Pohorelsky issued a 114-page
Report and Recommendation ("R&R") in which he recommended that
plaintiffs' motion for class certification be granted and certain
portions of defendants' experts' testimony be excluded. Defendants
filed their objections to the R&R before Judge Gleeson.

In his ruling on, Judge Gleeson found "no merit to the objections
[to] Judge Pohorelsky's thorough and well-reasoned Report and
Recommendations" and adopted the R&R in its entirety.

To date, plaintiffs have entered into settlements totaling over $1
billion with many of the original defendants. This litigation is
still pending against four defendant groups, including Air China
Ltd. and Air China Cargo Co. Ltd., Air India Ltd., Air New Zealand
Ltd., and Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc., Polar Air Cargo, LLC,
and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc.

You may contact the following Kaplan Fox attorneys about the case
and the settlement at (212) 687-1980:

         Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
         Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Tel: (212) 687-1980
         Fax: (212) 687-7714
         Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                garenson@kaplanfox.com


ALLIED MEDICAL: Faces Suit for Alleged Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilker Bernadin, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. Allied Medical Transport Inc., Wayne Rowe,
individually, and Rashelle Rowe, individually, Case 0:15-cv-61461-
WPD (S.D. Fla., July 15, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Allied Medical Transport provides transportation services
throughout Miami-Dade County, Broward County, Palm Beach County,
and the South Florida region.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Keith M. Stern, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
     2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Tel: (561) 299-3703
     Fax: (561) 288-9031
     E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Mellen" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Delia Mellen, on behalf of herself, and 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.
1:15-cv-04286-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 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:

      Damon J. Chargois, Esq.
      MASHAYEKH & CHARGOIS, PC
      One Riverway
      Suite 1700
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 840-6313
      Facsimile: (713) 622-1937
      E-mail: damon@cmhllp.com

         - and -

     Noah Shube, Esq.
     401 Broadway, Suite 2115
     New York, NY 10013
     Telephone: (212) 274-8638
     Facsimile: (212) 966-8652
     E-mail: nshube@nsfirm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Reiber" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Reiber, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. United Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta
Air Lines, Inc., and Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-
03387-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 22, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
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 airline companies in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel R. Shulman, Esq.
      GRAY, PLANT, MOOTY
      80 South 8th Street
      500 IDS Center
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 632-3000
      Facsimile: (612) 632.4444
      E-mail: daniel.shulman@gpmlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Watkins" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Watkins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-04287-WFK-SMG (E.D.N.Y., July 22, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Noah Shube, Esq.
     401 Broadway, Suite 2115
     New York, NY 10013
     Telephone: (212) 274-8638
     Facsimile: (212) 966-8652
     E-mail: nshube@nsfirm.com

        - and -

      Brian J. Schall, Esq.
      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      GOLDBERG LAW PC
      13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Ste. 1404
      Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
      Telephone: (800) 977-7401
      Facsimile: (800) 536-0065


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Friedman" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solomon Friedman, and 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. 1:15-cv-05657 (S.D.N.Y., July
20, 2015), to recover damages and injunctive relief under Section
1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, and the antitrust laws of
the U.S.

The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracy
among the largest U.S. airlines, who collectively account for over
80% of all domestic air travel, to unlawfully restrain competition
on key airline routes throughout the United States.

American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent
company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc.  Both American
Airlines Group, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Fort Worth, Texas.  The new American is the largest airline in the
world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per day to 339 locations in
54 countries.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more
than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates
more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United
States and six additional countries.

United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the
parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc.  Both United
Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than
any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights
per day to 369 locations across six continents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
      FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: isquith@whafh.com

         - and -

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI&KORSINSKYLLP
      733 Summer Street, Ste 304
      Stamford, CT 06901
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Horwitz" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Horwitz, and 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-03100 (D. Minn., July
20, 2015), to obtain injunctive relief and treble damages, as well
as reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, arising from the
Defendants' alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.

American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent
company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc.  Both American
Airlines Group, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Fort Worth, Texas. The new American is the largest airline in the
world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per day to 339 locations in
54 countries.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more
than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates
more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United
States and six additional countries.

United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the
parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United
Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc.
(collectively, "United") are Delaware corporations with their
principal places of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United
offers service to more destinations than any other airline in the
world, operating more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations
across six continents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Ste. 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Fax: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 West University Dr. Ste. 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Tel: (248) 841-2200
      E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com


AMERICAN WATER HEATER: Texas Couple Sues Over Water Heaters
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reported that
two Harris County residents filed a class action lawsuit against
two out-of-state manufacturers alleging that their products led to
hazards, costly repairs and other issues beginning in 2014.

Robert J. Rosa and Karen F. Posey filed a class action complaint
against American Water Heater Company of Johnson City, Tenn., and
A.O. Smith Corporation of Milwaukee in the Houston Division of the
Southern District of Texas on July 2, claiming "catastrophic
failure" in September 2014 when the plaintiffs experienced a flood
from the defendants' product and averring that they were not
offered a satisfactory solution.

According to the suit, "One of most critical components is the
water heater's drain valve, which prevents the contents of the
water heater's water tank from rupturing into the owner's home."

The manufacturers made a poor choice by using plastic valves
instead of metal ones, purportedly predisposing the heaters to
malfunctioning.

The plaintiffs allege breach of warranty and possible defective
materials and workmanship. The suit also raises the question of
whether the defendants had awareness of the risks involved with
their heater's plastic valves and whether they intentionally
neglected to correct the alleged safety flaw.

The lawsuit defines the putative class(es) as consumers who
purchased an American Water Heater Company branded residential gas
water heater within four years of this filing. It estimates the
cumulative amount in controversy to be more than $5 million
exclusive of interest and costs.

Claiming to have been damaged by the defendants' misconduct, the
plaintiffs seek actual, exemplary, consequential or general
compensation, attorney's fees, expenses and costs. They are
represented by Willie Briscoe of The Briscoe Law Firm in Dallas
and Jeffrey Krinsk, Mark Knutson, William Restis and Trenton
Kashima of Finkelstein & Krinsk in San Diego.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case 4:15-CV-
1898


AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Faces "Galerman" Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Galerman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc., Thomas W.
Chalberg, Jr., and Linda C. Bain, Case 5:15-cv-03231-BLF (N.D.
Cal., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover compensable damages caused
by Defendants' alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Act.

Avalanche is a biotechnology company that uses its proprietary
Ocular BioFactory(TM) platform for discovering and developing
novel medicines with the potential to offer therapeutic benefit.
Avalanche's focus is to develop treatment to combat Age-Related
Macular Degeneration.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Pomerantz LLP Files Securites Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP has filed a class action lawsuit against Avalanche
Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Avalanche" or the "Company") and certain
of its officers.   The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
15-cv-03231, is on behalf of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants, who purchased Avalanche securities: (1) pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on or about July 31, 2014 (the "IPO" or
the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between July 31,
2014 and June 15, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Avalanche securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 8, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.   To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Avalanche is a biotechnology company that uses its proprietary
Ocular BioFactory(TM) platform for discovering and developing
novel medicines with the potential to offer therapeutic benefit.
Avalanche's focus is to develop treatment to combat Age-Related
Macular Degeneration ("AMD") which is a progressive disease
affecting the retinal cells in the macula, the region of the eye
responsible for central vision.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose that Phase 2a of the AVA-101 study was not
designed to show any statistical significance between the active
and control groups in the secondary endpoints.

On May 14, 2015, Avalanche issued the press release entitled,
"Avalanche Biotechnologies Presents Three Posters at American
Society of Gene & Cell Therapy (ASGCT) Annual Meeting." The press
release discussed Phase 2a of the AVA-101 study.

After the market closed on June 15, 2015, the Company issued a
press release entitled, "Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. Announces
Positive Top-Line Phase 2a Results for AVA-101 in Wet Age-Related
Macular Degeneration."  Avalanche said that the company's
treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration met its primary
endpoint, however, in a conference call to discuss Phase 2
clinical trial results, the company indicated that the study
wasn't designed to show statistically significant differences
between active and control groups.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $21.83 per share, or over
56%, the next day to close at $17.05 per share on June 16, 2015.


BALTIMORE WINDUSTRIAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Hubley v. Baltimore Windustrial Co., Winwholesale Inc.,
Michael "Vince" Brown, and, Michael Rutkowski, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02145 (D. Md., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a private business that sells and
transports a variety of plumbing materials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Lanier, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
State-Boston Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-05794-ER (S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation of the market for U.S.
Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, and derivative financial
products based on these Treasury securities, including Treasury
futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian
financial services and banking company with its principal place of
business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Scott Asciolla, Esq.
      Jay L. Himes, Esq.
      Michael W. Stocker, Esq.
      Robin A. Van Der Meulen, Esq.
      Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
      LABATON & SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0827
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: gasciolla@labaton.com
              jhimes@labaton.com
              mstocker@labaton.com
              rvandermeulen@labaton.com
              mperez@labaton.com


BLACK FOREST: Sued for Unpaid OT Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hector Vargas, Jorge Andrade, and Amilcar Portillo, v. Black
Forest Brew Haus, LLC, and Todd Waite, Case 2:15-cv-04288-LDW-ARL
(E.D. N.Y., July 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and the
New York State Department of Labor Regulations.

Black Forest Brew Haus, LLC is a restaurant and bar.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Delvis Melendez, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DELVIS MELENDEZ, P.C.
     90 Bradley Street
     Brentwood, NY 11717
     Phone: 631-434-1443
     Fax: 631-434-1443


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02002 (D.P.R., July 23, 2015), arises out
of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy by
entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to
significantly decreased competition in the markets for healthcare
financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in
the health services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


BLUE MOUNTAINS, NSW: Bushfire Attys to Launch Second Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lithgow Mercury reported that the lawyers running a class action
on behalf of hundreds of Blue Mountains October 2013 bushfire
victims are on the cusp of launching a second class action; this
one for victims of a second, smaller fire that burnt another part
of the Blue Mountains on the same day.

Bushfire class action solicitors Maddens Lawyers, who will go to
trial in February on behalf of Springwood-Winmalee bushfire
victims, are now considering launching a similar action for those
affected by a blaze that burnt through the nearby Mt Victoria
area, also on October 17, 2013.

A public meeting to explain the firm's plans, and fire victim's
options, was held in Mt Victoria at the Hotel Imperial, Mt
Victoria.

Maddens Lawyers Class Action Principal Brendan Pendergast said
nine houses were destroyed, and another 60 properties damaged by a
fire that burnt through the Mt Victoria region in the vicinity of
Mt York Road, St Georges Parade and Darling Causeway on 17 October
2013 -- not far from where the Springwood-Winmalee blaze destroyed
over 200 homes and damaged many more houses and businesses.

He said the impact of the Mt Victoria fire had been somewhat
overshadowed by the sheer size of the Springwood-Winmalee
devastation -- but that early investigations suggested victims of
the smaller fire had similar grounds to pursue compensation claims
as their neighbours.

"Our investigations, at this stage, suggest that, similar to the
Springwood-Winmalee fire, the Mt Victoria fire started when a tree
fell on to a powerline in Mt York Road," Mr Pendergast said.

"It is important that even though the Mt Victoria fire's impact
didn't occupy as many headlines as the Springwood-Winmalee fire,
the victims of this blaze are also represented when it comes to
recovering their losses."

Maddens Lawyers appeared at a recent Coronial Inquiry into the
October 2013 fires that affected the Mt Victoria and
Spingwood/Winmalee residents. The hearing will continue in August.

Mr Pendergast said new evidence presented at the Coronial Inquiry
into the October 2013 fires indicated those affected by the Mt
Victoria also had grounds to sue for compensation.

Maddens Lawyers appeared at the June inquiry on behalf of a number
of Springwood-Winmalee and Mt Victoria property owners, and will
continue to appear on their behalf when it resumes.

Mr Pendergast said he was concerned by anecdotal evidence
suggesting some of the Mt Victoria fire victims had left the local
area and may not be aware of the coronial inquiry or the
possibility of recovering compensation for their property loss and
damage.

"Our enquiries to date suggest some of those that were burnt out
in Mt Victoria have left the area, rather than face the challenge
of rebuilding. Even if they haven't continued to live locally, the
victims of this fire are still likely to have a claim for
compensation to recover what they lost -- and need to let us know
what that might be, sooner rather than later."

Mr Pendergast explained that by registering with Maddens Lawyers,
fire victims would be kept abreast of developments in
investigations and legal action.

"Registering your interest ensures that you will be kept informed
of our progress and any new developments in legal action regarding
these fires," he said. "Registration does not cost anything, and
it doesn't mean anyone is locked in to legal action if and when it
goes ahead," Mr Pendergast explained.

"What it provides is options and access to information. The option
to take part, or, as the case develops, withdraw at will."

Maddens held a local public meeting on July 14 at the Imperial
Hotel, Mt Victoria, to brief locals on their investigations to
date.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces Class Suit Over Anticoagulant Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Business Vancouver reported that a North Vancouver couple is suing
German pharmaceutical maker Boehringer Ingelheim, claiming in a
class action that the husband would not have taken the company's
anticoagulant Pradaxa knowing that it carried the risk of
"uncontrollable, life-threatening bleeds."

Michael and Debra Weddle filed a notice of civil claim in BC
Supreme Court on June 30. The couple claims that Michael Weddle
was prescribed Pradaxa in 2010 for a cardiac arrhythmia. He was
hospitalized in November 2012 for a week in intensive care after
"he experienced an episode of pericardial bleeding," the claim
states.

The claim says he had no prior bleeding condition before using
Pradaxa and was allegedly never warned about the drug's risk of
"uncontrollable bleeding and lack of reversal agent." Had he known
about the "magnitude of risk" that Pradaxa carried, he would have
never taken the drug, the couple claims.

The company, meanwhile, allegedly knew of the dangers and misled
consumers about its safety and efficacy and "failed to draw
attention to the lack of effective reversal agent."

Boehringer Ingelheim settled approximately 4,000 lawsuits related
to Pradaxa patients in the United States in May 2014 for $650
million. The company did not admit liability and claims it did so
to avoid protracted litigation.

The Weddles seek class certification, $100,000 in damages for each
family law claimant under the Family Compensation Act and $5
million in punitive, aggravated and exemplary damages. The
defendants include Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH and Boehringer Ingelheim
(Canada) Ltd.

The allegations have not been tested or proven in court and the
defendants had not filed responses by press time.


BRANDREP INC: "Alan" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
-------------------------------------------------
Jason Alan, and all others similarly-situated v. Brandrep, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05473 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2015), seeks to obtain
all treble damages for the Defendants' alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Brandrep, Inc. is a nationwide online marketing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
      324 S Beverly Drive No. 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


BRASKEM SA: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action has been filed against Braskem SA
(NYSE: BAK) ("Braskem" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between
June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

According to the complaint, Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical
company and is the largest petrochemical producer in Latin
America.  Naphtha accounts for half of Braskem's production costs
and is the main ingredient for making petrochemicals in Brazil.
At relevant times during the Class Period, Braskem purchased
naphtha from Petroleo Brasileiro ("Petrobras") under long-term
agreements.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Braskem
was involved in a massive scheme to funnel millions of dollars in
kickbacks to Petrobras executives.  As a result, during the Class
Period Braskem and certain of its executive officers made a series
of materially false and misleading statements to investors about
Braskem's business, operational and compliance policies.

On March 11, 2015, the truth emerged when a report from a local
newspaper implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding
Petrobras.  As reported by the local paper, testimony from former
Petrobras executives and others demonstrated that Braskem had
routinely paid at least $5 million annually to Petrobras
representatives between 2006 and 2012.  Following this disclosure,
Braskem's ADRs declined $1.80, or over 20%, to close on March 11,
2015 at $7.05.

Members of the class may, no later than August 31, 2015, petition
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for
additional information about participating in this action, please
visit www.ktmc.com


BREADS OF THE WORLD: Faces Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Woods on behalf of Himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Breads of the World, LLC, d/b/a Panera Bread and
Panera, LLC, Case: 2:15-cv-02618-GLF-NMK (S.D., Ohio), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Breads Of The World, L.L.C. owns and operates bakery-cafes. The
company primary engages in the franchising of Panera Bread bakery-
cafes in north and west Ohio and Denver and Colorado Springs in
Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
     Fred M. Bean, Esq.
     THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
     4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
     Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
     Phone: (216) 291-4744
     Fax: (216) 291-5744
     E-mail: Brian.Spitz@SpitzLawFirm.com
             Fred.Bean@SpitzLawFirm.com


C TECH: Settlement in "Babcock" Case Has Preliminary Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Marilyn Dolan Go of the Eastern District of New
York granted the parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of
the class settlement agreement in the case JENNIFER BABCOCK, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. C. TECH COLLECTIONS, INC., a New York
Corporation, et al., Defendants. LINDA CAMPBELL-HICKS, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. C. TECH COLLECTIONS, INC., Defendant, NOS. 1:14-CV-
3124 (MDG), 2:14-CV-3576 (MDG) (E.D.N.Y.)

For settlement purposes, the court provisionally certifies the
class of:

     -- all consumers to whom defendants mailed a written
communication in connection with an attempt to collect a debt,
which included a statement that a $3.00 convenience fee will be
added for credit card payments, regardless of whether such fee was
paid or not, during a period beginning May 19, 2013, and ending
June 9, 2014 (Class #1) and

     -- all consumers to whom defendants mailed a written
communication in connection with an attempt to collect a debt,
which included a statement that a $3.00 convenience fee will be
added for credit card payments, and who paid such a fee, during a
period beginning May 19, 2011, and ending June 9, 2014 (Class #2).

Plaintiffs Jennifer Babcock and Linda Campbell-Hicks are appointed
as settlement class representatives.

Under the terms of the settlement, the defendants will establish a
fund totaling $90,726.00. From the total settlement fund, the
named plaintiffs will each receive a payment of $1,000.00 for
their individual claims under the FDCPA, plus an additional
payment of up to $3,500.00 subject to court approval for their
service to the class members.

Plaintiff Babcock will receive an additional $153.00 for her
claims brought under New York General Business Law Section 349 for
actual damages sustained. From the total settlement fund,
$69,573.00 will be made available for class #2. Each member of
class #2 who timely submits a claim form will receive a check for
the $3.00 fee each paid to defendants.

Any unclaimed portion of the $69,573.00 fund for class #2 and any
disallowed service award to the plaintiffs will be added to the
$12,000.00 fund for class #1. Each member of class #1 and each
member of class #2 who timely submits a claim form is also
entitled to a pro rata portion of the $12,000.00, plus any
unclaimed portion of the funds for class #2 and any disallowed
service award. To the extent that there are any funds from un-
cashed, expired settlement checks, those funds will be paid over
to a cy pres award to be distributed to the National Consumer Law
Center.

The court appoints Andrew T. Thomasson, Abraham Kleinman, Brian L.
Bromberg and Joseph Maruo as class counsel. Defendants must
provide the claims administrator selected by the parties, in
electronic form, with the names, social security numbers and last
known addresses of all class members within 10 days of the order.
class counsel must mail, via first class mail, postage prepaid,
the class notice to class members using the last known address as
recorded in defendant's records by August 20, 2015.

Class members will have until October 20, 2015 to submit claim
forms, request exclusion or object to the settlement. All eligible
individuals who sign and return a claim form by October 20, 2015
shall be included in the settlement class and shall be bound by
the terms of the settlement agreement and the judgment and all
orders entered by the court in connection with the settlement,
whether favorable or unfavorable to the class.

Plaintiffs must file a motion for final approval of the settlement
and any application by class counsel for attorneys' fees or
reimbursement of expenses by November 10, 2015. The motion must
also include a list of the names and addresses of the class
members who have filed claim forms and objectors, together with
any response plaintiffs have received from the objectors.

The court will hold a fairness hearing on November 17, 2014 at
11:00 a.m. at the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, 225 Cadman Plaza East, Brooklyn, NY,
Courtroom 11C.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Go's preliminary approval order dated
July 24, 2015, is available at http://goo.gl/eoJIXOfrom
Leagle.com.

Jennifer Babcock, Plaintiff, represented by:

Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
Stern Thomasson LLP
2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30
Union, NJ 07083-4870
Telephone: 973-379-7500

     - and -

Abraham Kleinman, Esq.
Kleinman, LLC
626 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0626
Telephone: 516-522-2621
Facsimile: 888-522-1692

Defendants, represented by:

Arthur Sanders, Esq. Barron & Newburger, P.C.
30 S. Main St.
New York City, NY 10956
Telephone: 845-548-2213


CAMPUS MOTEL: Faces "Molina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josefina Molina and Sugey Arenal Molina v. Campus Motel LLC, Tony
Amin and Manharlal Amin, Case No. RG15779061 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a motel located at 1619 University Avenue
in Berkeley California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martin Zurada, Esq.
      VENARDI URADA LLP
      700 Ygnacio Valley Road, Suite 300
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Telephone: (925) 937-3900
      Facsimile: (925) 937-3905
      E-mail: mzurada@vefirm.com


CELLADON CORP: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of a class of
investors who purchased publicly traded securities of Celladon
Corporation ("Celladon" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CLDN) between
July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015, inclusive. Wolf Haldenstein
encourages all shareholders who suffered losses on securities
purchased within the Class Period to contact us immediately at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735.

Celladon is a clinical-stage biotechnology company which is
focused on the development of cardiovascular gene therapy and
calcium dysregulation. The Company's lead candidate is MYDICAR to
treat inadequate pumping in heart failure patients. The
investigation concerns whether the Company potentially misled
investors regarding the design of its MYDICAR clinical trials; and
otherwise misled investors regarding the successful FDA approval
of MYDICAR.

On April 26, 2015, Celladon issued a press release announcing that
the Company's Phase 2b CUPID2 trial of MYDICAR did not meet its
primary and secondary goals. As a result of this news, the price
of Celladon stock plummeted $11.04 per share to close at $2.64 per
share on April 27, 2015, a decline of 80% on volume of 32 million
shares.

On June 26, 2015, before the market opened, Celladon issued a
press release announcing the suspension of its plans for further
research or development of its MYDICAR program and other pre-
clinical programs, and indicating the possibility that the Company
could be liquidated with net cash available to shareholders of
$25-$30 million. As a result of this news, the price of Celladon
stock dropped $0.85 per share to close at $1.35 per share on June
26, 2015, a decline of 38% on volume of 9 million shares.

If you purchased Celladon Corporation securities during the Class
Period, you may, no later than August 31, 2015, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  Any member of the
purported class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit our
website at www.whafh.com.  All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to the "Celladon Investigation."


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP: Judge Finalizes $119MM Royalty Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Monies, writing for The Oklahoman, reported that a judge in
Beaver County has finalized a $119 million class-action royalty
settlement against Chesapeake Energy Corp. over marketing expenses
and other deductions from Oklahoma natural gas royalties in the
past decade.

Royalty owners claimed Chesapeake Operating LLC improperly
deducted expenses for marketing, processing, compression and other
midstream services. The owners said they were owed about $313
million in underpaid royalties from Jan. 1, 2004, to Jan. 31,
2014, for more than 11,800 natural gas wells in Oklahoma.

Beaver County District Judge Jon K. Parsley said just three of
more than 168,000 royalty owners covered under the settlement
opposed it. Another 640 royalty owners opted out of the settlement
class.

"The settlement amount of $119 million is among the highest
recoveries in the history of Oklahoma royalty underpayment class
actions," Parsley wrote in his order. "Months of mediation and
negotiation led to the settlement, ensuring the arms-length nature
of and the fairness of the process."

Parsley awarded lead attorneys Rex Sharp, Joseph Gunderson and
Arthur Schmidt about 40 percent --  $47.6 million -- of the
settlement award for attorneys' fees. The judge also awarded
another $310,000 in litigation expenses and about $357,000 as an
incentive award.

A handful of royalty owners opposed the award for attorney fees,
but Parsley said they failed to provide adequate reasons why the
legal fees should deviate from other class-action royalty
underpayment cases in Oklahoma where the rate was about 40
percent.

"To prosecute these claims against a well-financed defendant with
vast resources, represented by well-known defense counsel,
necessitated assembling a team of qualified, skilled and
experienced oil and gas litigation attorneys," Parsley wrote in
his order approving attorneys' fees and costs. "Settlement class
counsel collectively have decades of experience in oil and gas
litigation and have prosecuted numerous class actions and complex
cases."

Sharp could not be reached for comment.

Chesapeake did not admit fault and denied it did anything wrong
under the law.

"We are pleased that the court approved the agreement and look
forward to further strengthening our relationships with our
Oklahoma royalty owners," Chesapeake spokesman Gordon Pennoyer
said.

The Chesapeake royalty case is just the latest in a line of class-
action settlements alleging the underpayment of royalties by
energy companies in Oklahoma.

Almost 50 previous class-action settlements have netted royalty
owners more than $1.2 billion during the past two decades.

The lawsuits came about because of different interpretations by
the courts of what "marketable" means in natural gas sales. A 1998
court decision found oil and gas lessees are to bear the costs for
making gas "marketable," not royalty owners. The uncertainty has
led to many cases over the dispute being settled rather than taken
to trial.

As well as the parties who opted out, the Chesapeake royalty
settlement doesn't include federal agencies, tribes or royalty
owners covered in previous settlements.


CHINA FINANCE: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray announces that a class action has been
filed on behalf of investors of China Finance Online, Co. ("China
Finance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRJC) who purchased shares of
China Finance between May 6, 2014 through June 3, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and have been damaged by the recent declines
in the Company's stock price. China Finance investors must file a
motion by August 4, 2015 for consideration as a class
representative in this purported class action.

The lawsuit concerns the Company's and its executives' alleged
violations of the securities laws, based on recent reports
alleging that: (1) the most current Chinese government records
show that China Finance Chairman and CEO Zhiwei Zhao suddenly
resigned from his positions at three key Chinese VIE subsidiaries
of China Finance over the past few months; (2) Chinese media
reports exposing the detention of the Company's independent
director Rongquan Leng prompted China Finance to announce his
resignation, without addressing his alleged detention; and (3)
Ling Wang, a former long-time China Finance director and associate
of Zhao, fled China in 2014, leaving his company indebted to China
Finance for $25 million.

The complaint alleges that when the truth was finally revealed
regarding the above Company matters, shares of China Finance fell
$1.28 per share, to close on June 3, 2015 at $5.67, a one-day
decline of 22% on volume of over 3 million shares thereby damaging
investors.

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


CHRYSLER LLC: Says Warranty Shields from Paying Suit Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for GlassBytes,com, reported that Chrysler has
asked the judge to strike plaintiffs' claims for damages and
injunctive relief due to a Basic Limited Warranty former owners
received when they purchased their vehicles. The class action
lawsuit revolves around allegations that certain Chrysler models
have a sunroof defect that causes them to leak.

"In the event this court does not dismiss the complaint in its
entirety, defendant Fiat Chrysler has moved to strike plaintiffs'
prayer for consequential damages and plaintiffs' prayer for
injunctive and equitable relief," according to court documents.

"[P]laintiffs' opposition [to the motion to dismiss] does nothing
to establish that plaintiffs have viable claims for consequential
damages or equitable and injunctive relief. Fiat Chrysler's U.S.
motion should be granted.  . . . Fiat Chrysler seeks to strike the
prayer for consequential damages as to all plaintiffs and class
members because the Basic Limited Warranty covering the vehicles
at issue unequivocally disclaims all liability for consequential
damages. Plaintiffs acknowledge that the express disclaimer is a
part of the warranty, but they argue that it should not be
enforced because it is unconscionable and ambiguous," attorneys
for Chrysler write in the court documents.

Six Chrysler owners had filed a nationwide class action lawsuit
against the automaker in U.S. District Court of New Jersey
alleging that a defect in the sunroofs causes them to leak.

Vehicles covered in the lawsuit include the Jeep Patriot, Jeep
Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep Cherokee, Jeep Grand
Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country and Chrysler 300. The model
years are 2009 to present.

The plaintiffs include David Cox of Ohio, Melissa Doherty of
Massachusetts, Teresa Hughes of Texas, Anthony Lombardo of New
York, Andrew Manesis of New Jersey and Michael Newcomb of
Massachusetts. They seek to represent themselves and all others
similarly situated.

The judge has not issued a decision in the case at press time.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Sued in Tenn. Over Property Damages
-------------------------------------------------------
Charles Tipton, Billy Tipton, and Travis and Elizabeth Pruett, on
behalf of themselves, and on behalf of a class of other people
similarly situated v. CSX Transportation, Inc. and Union Tank Car
Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-0031-TAV-CCS (E.D. Tenn., July 22,
2015), is an action for property damages as a result of the
catastrophic derailment of a train hauling toxic chemicals in
Maryville, Blount County, Tennessee, that resulted fire and
release of toxic chemicals, including acrylonitrile and hydrogen
cyanide, into the air and soil.

CSX Transportation, Inc. operates a train consisting of two
locomotives, 45 loaded rail cars carrying mixed freight, and 12
empty rail cars, traveling from Cincinnati, Ohio, to Waycross,
Georgia.

Union Tank Car Company is a railway equipment leasing company with
its principal place of business located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary A. Davis, Esq.
      James S. Whitlock, Esq.
      DAVIS & WHITLOCK, P.C.
      21 Battery Park Ave., Suite 206
      Asheville, NC 28801
      Telephone: (828) 622-0044
      Facsimile: (828) 398-0435
      E-mail: gadavis@enviroattorney.com
              jwhitlock@enviroattorney.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq.
      Matt D. Conn, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, PC
      3800 Corporate Woods Drive
      Birmingham, AL 35242
      Telephone: (205) 278-7000
      Facsimile: (205) 278-7001
      E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
              mconn@friedman-lawyers.com

         - and -

      L. Jeffrey Hagood, Esq.
      Todd J. Moody, Esq.
      HAGOOD MOODY HODGE PLC
      900 S. Gay St., Suite 2100
      Knoxville, TN 37902
      Telephone: (865) 525-7313
      E-mail: JeffHagood@hagoodmoodyhodge.com
              ToddMoody@hagoodmoodyhodge.com

          - and -

      Beecher A. Bartlett Jr., Esq.
      KRAMER RAYSON LLP
      800 S. Gay Street, Ste. 2500
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 525-5134
      Facsimile: (865) 522-5723
      E-mail: bbartlett@kramer-rayson.com

         - and -

      Craig L. Garrett, Esq.
      607 Smithview Dr.
      Maryville, TN 37803
      Telephone: (865) 984-8200
      Facsimile: (865) 981-2833
      E-mail: CGarrett@cgarrettlaw.com


DELTA AIR: Accused of Conspiring to Fix Airline Ticket Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Pomeroy, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co. and United Airlines, Inc., Case 1:15-cv-
02525-AT (N.D. Ga., July 15, 2015), arises from Defendants'
alleged conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of
airline tickets through a number of means, including by
constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting access to competitive fare information to
keep the price of airfares artificially high in violation of the
Sherman Act, and the Clayton Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Bain, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. BAIN, LLC
     1050 Promenade II
     1230 Peachtree Street
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Tel: (404) 724-9990
     Fax: (404) 724-9986
     E-mail: dbain@bain-law.com

        - and -

     Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
     GILMAN LAW LLP
     8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525
     Bonita Springs, FL 34135
     Tel: (781) 307-2526
     E-mail: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com


EAST PARK MAINTENANCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan Salazar, and all others similarly-situated v. East Park
Maintenance Corp., and 2102 Caton Properties LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-04250 (E.D.N.Y., July 21, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages and other damages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

East Park Maintenance is a New York-based corporation that
provides full service real estate management services to its
customers.  It oversees the management of a number of properties
throughout New York.

2102 Caton Properties is a New York based limited liability
company created for the purpose of overseeing and managing a
number of apartment complexes located on Caton avenue in
conjunction with East Park Maintenance, including overseeing and
managing the apartment complexes located at 2 104 & 2114 Caton
Avenue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Dickerson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Ste 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Tel: (516) 248-5550
      Fax: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com


ELETROBRAS: Faces "Franklin" Securities Suit in New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Franklin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. - Eletrobras,
Jose da Costa Carvalho Neto, and Armando Casado de Araujo, Case
1:15-cv-05754 (S.D. N.Y., July 22, 2015), is a purported federal
securities class action brought on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons and entities, other than Defendants and their
affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired Eletrobras ADSs
between February 10, 2014 and April 29, 2015, inclusive.

Defendant Eletrobras is a Brazilian electric company with its
principal executive offices in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Eletrobras
ADSs trade on the NYSE under the ticker "EBR."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827


ESKATON VILLAGE: Former Execs Released from Homeowners Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Keri Brenner, writing for The Union, reported that two former
executives on the Eskaton Village Grass Valley homeowners
association board of directors have been dismissed as defendants
from the class action lawsuit pending in Sacramento County
Superior Court.

Mark Cullen, chief financial officer on the board from 2003
through November 2011, and Trevor Hammond, a former chief
operating officer at Eskaton who also served on the HOA board,
were both dismissed "with prejudice" by lead homeowner plaintiffs
Ron Coley and Karen Lorini on May 11.

Cullen said in a letter to The Union that "I was no longer on the
EVGV HOA board of directors during the alleged claim of
negligence. In short, neither plaintiffs nor their attorneys could
prove the allegations in the complaint, as they related to me
personally, and can never refile the alleged claims against me."

Coley, whose class action suit represents approximately 130 owners
of the "patio homes" at the Grass Valley complex, said that, after
consultation with his attorneys, he is making the following
statement in answer to Cullen's remarks:

"Our formal position is we stand by the complaint. We believe
everything in the complaint is accurate.

"We released (the defendants) as a good faith measure, in the
hopes that it would facilitate a more global settlement," he
added.

Other defendants still named in the suit include Eskaton CEO Todd
Murch, COO Elizabeth Donovan, the homeowners association and other
Eskaton corporate entities.

The complaint, originally filed late, alleges nine counts of
breach of fiduciary duties, financial elder abuse, unfair business
practices and negligence.

Most of the counts relate to alleged misrepresentation of services
and amenities promised the homeowners but not delivered, or
alleged discrepancies in fees charged to homeowners in relation to
the same shared services charged for the community's rental unit
lodge facilities for assisted living tenants.

Cullen, in a follow-up email to The Union, said he was in charge
of budgets and expenses for the HOA for eight years. As such, he
said, he specifically objects to allegations of "breach of
fiduciary duties."

"I might add that in the eight years I served on the board, (in)
not a single year was the budget ever exceeded and in many years,
the HOA came in under budget and the surplus would be paid into
the project reserves," he said. "In addition, during the entire
time I served as CFO for the board, there was not a single special
assessment."

Hammond could not be reached for comment.

The two sides in the suit have had two mediation sessions so far.
Both plaintiffs and defendants in the suit are barred from
discussing the mediation details or what items were on the table.

At a town hall on June 24, Coley reached out to the other
homeowners to get a sense of how they felt.

Coley declined comment on the status of the case.


EVERBANK FINANCIAL: "Lord" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mandy Lord, and others similarly-situated v. Everbank Financial
Corp., Case No. 1:15-cv-00596 (W.D. Tex., July 17, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages equal in amount to
the unpaid compensation, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a diversified financial services company
providing banking, mortgages, and investing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
      1801 N. Lamar St., Ste. 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com

         - and -

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy, Ste 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 706-0834
      Fax: (469) 339-0204


EXPRESSWAY MOTORCARS: Removed "Lopez" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Alfonso Lopez and other similarly
situated individuals v. Expressway Motorcars, Inc. d/b/a Toyota of
South Florida, Case No. 15-013273 CA 01, was removed 11th Judicial
Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22731-MGC to the proceeding.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christine Lynne Wilson, Esq.
      Jason Daniel Berkowitz, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      2 S Biscayne Boulevard
      Suite 3500 One Biscayne Tower
      Miami, FL 33131-1802
      Telephone: (305) 577-7600
      Facsimile: 373-4466
      E-mail: wilsonc@jacksonlewis.com
              berkowitzj@jacksonlewis.com


FAMOUS ITALIAN: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Morales, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees v. Famous Italian Village Inc. d/b/a Italian Village
Pizzeria & Restaurant, and Joseph Notaro, Case No. 1:15-cv-05786
(S.D.N.Y., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages and
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant at 1526 First
Avenue, New York, New York 10075.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDEX GROUND: "Blazonis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Blazonis v. Fedex Ground Package System, Inc., and Publishers
Circulation Fulfillment, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02144 (D. Md.,
July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a private organization that
packages and delivers mail to residential and business clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Lanier, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com


FLEXSEDANS.COM: Faces "Griffin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Griffin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated v. Kenneth Lucci, Erin Santiago, and Flexsedans.com, LLC,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01717-RAL-MAP (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a real estate company based in Clearwater,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      Christina Jean Thomas, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
              cthomas@forthepeople.com


FLORAL LOGISTICS: Faces Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Angel B. Mendoza, Julio C. Morera, and other similarly-situated
individuals, v. Floral Logistics of Miami, Inc., Koubi Ronen, and
Ralph Milman, individually, Case 1:15-cv-22668-DPG (S.D., Fla.,
July 16, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Floral Logistics is a third party logistics provider specializing
in perishable commodities such as flowers, fresh produce, and
meats. It provides full warehousing, transportation and related
services to companies engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: 2d. Circ. Weighs in on Unpaid Interns
------------------------------------------------------
In an article written by Dentons, in 2011, a pair of unpaid
interns who worked for Fox Searchlight Pictures on the 2010 film
Black Swan filed suit against Fox claiming they should have been
compensated as "employees" under the US Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and New York labor law. Shortly thereafter, another Fox
intern joined the case and filed a class and collective action
against the company alleging the entire Fox unpaid internship
program violated federal and state law. In June 2013, the district
court granted the interns' motion for summary judgment, certified
the class, and conditionally certified the collective action.
These rulings led to a cascade of other lawsuits filed against
media and entertainment companies, including a similar class
action filed against The Hearst Corporation. There, the lower
court granted the interns' motion for summary judgment, but denied
their motion for class certification on the grounds that there was
no common internship program at issue amongst the plaintiffs.

On July 2, 2015, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
lower court decisions against Fox and The Hearst Corporation,
rejecting their reliance on the United States Department of
Labor's (DOL) six-factor test1 often used for determining when an
intern is an "employee" under the FLSA. Instead, the Second
Circuit adopted the "primary beneficiary" test; a test followed in
large part by the Fourth, Sixth and Eighth Circuits.2 Contrary to
the DOL's rigid six-part test, under the "primary beneficiary"
test, the critical inquiry becomes whether "the intern or the
employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship." To reach
that conclusion, the Second Circuit suggests courts weigh a
variety of non-exhaustive factors, including:

The extent to which the internship is tied to a formal education
program,

The extent to which the intern's work complements, rather than
displaces, the work of paid employees, and

The extent to which the intern and employer understand that the
internship is conducted without being entitled to pay or the
expectation of employment at the conclusion of the internship.

The Second Circuit has remanded both cases back to the district
court for further proceedings. Several commentators have suggested
that the plaintiffs will most likely be able to satisfy the
primary beneficiary test and move forward with their class
certification efforts. The Second Circuit's opinion, however,
calls that analysis into question. For example, the Second Circuit
recognized that the question of an intern's employment status
under the primary beneficiary test is a "highly individualized
inquiry [.]" And individualized inquiry requirements are usually
fatal to class and collective action certification efforts.
Regardless of how these cases are ultimately resolved, there are
two important takeaways for employers:

There remains an open question as to whether the primary
beneficiary test applies nationwide. Although other circuits may
choose to follow the Second Circuit's guidance, they are not
required to do so. Moreover, the DOL's six-factor test remains its
official guidance, and therefore may apply in any DOL enforcement
proceedings.

To avoid confusion, and because the DOL's test and the Second
Circuit's primary beneficiary test apply similar factors,
employers should audit their current unpaid internship programs so
as to comply with both. This could include not having unpaid
interns displace regular employees, ensuring that the unpaid
internship is tied to a formal educational program, and entering
into a written agreement with the intern to memorialize the
understanding that there is no expectation of remuneration during
the course of the internship, nor is there a promise of permanent
employment following the end of the internship.

The US employment and labor team at Dentons is ready to help you
navigate this complicated area of the law, and audit your current
unpaid internship programs. We will also continue to monitor these
unpaid intern cases for future developments.


FRIENDLY'S ICE CREAM: Seeks Partial Dismissal of Workers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Wentz, writing for The Evening Sun, reported that
attorneys for Friendly's Ice Cream hope to have part of a suit
filed against the chain dismissed.

Two former employees of Friendly's in Gettysburg filed a complaint
against the restaurant in June, alleging that they and other
employees were forced to work unpaid or underpaid hours. Their
legal counsel sought to have the case certified as a class action
suit, which could apply to anyone who works or has worked at any
of Friendly's roughly 350 locations in the past three years and
has not signed an anti-arbitration agreement.

The chain, however, wants part of that complaint dismissed on the
grounds that the Friendly's for which the plaintiffs worked is
corporate-owned, unlike roughly half of the restaurant's
locations, which are independently owned.

The chain, represented by Fisher and Phillips LLP of Radnor, filed
the motion for partial dismissal July 1. The plaintiffs --
represented by Kolman Ely, P.C. and Finkelstein, Blankinship,
Frei-Pearson and Garber, LLP -- plan to oppose the request,
according to court documents.

Friendly's former employees Tisha Reed and Natasha Walker made the
initial complaint against the restaurant after working as servers
at a Friendly's Restaurant at 445 Steinwehr Ave., Gettysburg.

They allege the chain required them and other servers to work
during unpaid meal breaks, according to the complaint filed in
United States District Court. They also state in the complaint
that their employer forced them to spend part of their work time
on non-tipped class while working at the tipped minimum wage of
$2.83 per hour.

The complaint alleges these practices stem from corporate policies
and therefore warrant a class action suit.

A phone conference between court officials and people involved in
the case was scheduled for July 28.


GENT'S ENTERPRISES: Faces "Terrefe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Samara Terrefe, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Gent's Enterprises, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05774
(S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Gent's Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates Kabooz's Bar Grill in
Penn Station, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Finn Walter Dusenbery, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF FINN W. DUSENBERY
      12 Desbrosses St
      New York, NY 10013
      Telephone: (646) 723-4376
      Facsimile: (212) 226-7186
      E-mail: finn@dusenberylaw.com

         - and -

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640x2548
      Facsimile: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit for Sale of Play Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Hernandez and Malynda Hernandez on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. Google, Inc. (a Delaware
Corporation) and Google Payment Corporation, Case 5:15-cv-03303-
HRL (N.D. Cal., July 16, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
marketed, sold and issued Google Play Gift Cards in a deceptive
and illegal manner in violation of California Civil Code, the
Unfair Competition Law, California Business and Professions Code,
the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and False Advertising Law.

Google is a U.S. multinational corporation that specializes in
internet-related services and products. Google developed, manages,
and oversees the Android operating system, which operates most
non-Apple mobile devices.  Google markets and sells digital media
such as music, magazines, books, movies and television programs in
its store, Google Play.  GPC is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Google and is the issuer of the Google Play Gift Cards.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
     Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
     600 West Broadway
     Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 230-0800
     Fax: (619) 230-1874
     E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
             sward@barrack.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq.
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
     Two Commerce Square
     2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 963-0600
     Fax: (215) 963-0838

          - and -

     BRIAN FELGOISE FELGOISE LAW FIRM
     The Pavilion, 261 Old York Rd # 518
     Jenkintown, PA 19046
     Tel: (215) 886-1900
     Fax: (215) 886-1909


IDI INC: Faces "Heim" Suit for Alleged Securities Law Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Heim, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. IDI, Inc., Peter W.H. Tan, Derek Dubner, and Jacky
Wang, Case 9:15-cv-81019-BB (S.D. Fla., July 22, 2015), is a
purported federal securities class action brought on behalf of a
class consisting of all persons other than defendants who
purchased IDI securities between April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015,
inclusive.

IDI, Inc., formerly Tiger Media, Inc., is an information solutions
provider focused on the data-fusion market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
     275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
     New York, NY 10116
     Phone: (212) 686-1060
     Fax: (212) 202-3827


JOSHUA MOTORS: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Business Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Dezenia Negro, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Joshua Motors, Marisol Stahlberger and
Joshua Doe, Case No. L-002837-15 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div., July
23, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' unconscionable business
practices in violation of the New Jersey Truth in Consumer
Contract and Notice Act and New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile dealership company in
Vineland, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles N. Riley, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES N. RILEY, LLC
      900 N. Kings Hwy., Ste. 308
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 667-4666


K&G MENS: Judge Grants Conditional Certification on FLSA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gray H. Miller of the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, granted plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification in the case KENNETH HOPPENS, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. K&G MEN'S
COMPANY, INC., and K&G MEN'S COMPANY, INC., D/B/A K&G FASHION
SUPERSTORE, Defendants, CIVIL ACTION NO. H-14-2393 (S.D. Tex.)

Kenneth Hoppens was an Assistant Store Manager for Defendants K&G
Men's Company, Inc. and K&G Men's Company, Inc., d/b/a K&G Fashion
Superstore (K&G). Hoppens claims that his manager at K&G
instructed him to only work on-the-clock 40 hours a week, while he
actually worked between 60-70 hours per week. Hoppens also
contends that he did not receive any overtime pay for the 20-30
hours of off-the-clock work that he completed each week.

Hoppens filed suit under the FLSA for overtime violations and
retaliation. He asserts his overtime claim on behalf of himself
and similarly situated employees. Hoppens moves for conditional
certification so that he may issue notice to current and former
Assistant Store Managers at K&G's stores across the nation about
their right to opt-in to the class.

K&G responded to the motion claiming that only Hoppens' manager
violated company policy by making the personal decision to
encourage him to only record 40 hours a week and to work off the
clock for the rest. K&G further contends that there are not other
similarly situated Assistant Store Managers who have faced the
same issue. Additionally, K&G claims that class treatment is
inappropriate because Hoppens' job duties were different from
other Assistant Store Managers, and he worked significantly more
hours than the others.

Judge Miller granted plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification and within 14 days of the date of the order K&G
shall provide Hoppen's counsel a list of all individuals who have
worked for K&G as an Assistant Store Manager from three years
prior to the date of the order. The list shall only include the
individuals' names and addresses. Also within 14 days of the date
of the order, the parties are ordered to meet and confer about the
language and timing of the notice. The parties are to file an
agreed notice form with the court within 21 days of the date of
the order. If the parties cannot agree to a notice form, Hoppens'
counsel shall file its proposed notice form with the court within
21 days of the date of the order, and K&G shall respond with its
objections within seven days after the notice is filed.

A copy of Judge Miller's order dated July 24, 2015, is available
at http://goo.gl/RGybYrfrom Leagle.com.

Kenneth Hoppens, Plaintiff, represented by:

Andrew Lawrence Mintz, Esq.
ANDREW LAWRENCE MINTZ, PLLC
2603 Augusta, Suite 880
Houston, TX 77057
Telephone: 713-961-8026

Defendants, represented by Linda Cooper Schoonmaker --
lschoonmaker@seyfarth.com -- Esteban Shardonofsky --
sshardonofsky@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP


KEURIG GREEN: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Jazlowiecki, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Brian P.
Kelley, and Frances G. Rathke, Case No. 5:15-cv-03396-BLF (N.D.
Cal., July 23, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
headquartered in Waterbury, Vermont with an office in Castroville,
California. Keurig is a specialty coffee and coffee maker
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


KIA MOTORS: Panoramic Sunroofs Shatter Dangerously, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kia Motors' thrice-recalled
"panoramic sunroofs" shatter dangerously, a class action claims in
California Federal Court.


LIFELOCK INC: Faces "Avila" Suit Over Misleading Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Avila, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LifeLock, Inc., Todd Davis, and Chris Power, Case No.
2:15-cv-01398-DKD (D. Ariz., July 22, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's services and compliance with the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) settlement, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

LifeLock, Inc. provides identity theft protection services for
consumers and fraud and risk solutions for enterprises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard G. Himelrick, Esq.
      TIFFANY & BOSCO, P.A.
      Seventh Floor Camelback Esplanade II
      2525 East Camelback Road
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 255-6000
      Facsimile: (602) 255-0103
      E-mail: rgh@tblaw.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com


LINEBARGER GOGGAN: Judge Orders Plaintiff to Explain New Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of
California, San Francisco, made an order on plaintiff's renewed
motion for preliminary approval of class settlement in the case
4EC HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Plaintiff, v. LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON LLP, a Texas
limited liability partnership, Defendant, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01944
VC (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff 4EC Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
and defendant Linebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson LLP, a Texas
limited liability partnership, made a stipulation through their
respective attorneys of record that pertains to plaintiff's
pending renewed motion for preliminary approval of class
settlement. The parties have agreed upon an amended stipulation of
class action settlement and the amended stipulation, including its
exhibits filed with the court concurrently with the stipulation.

Certain terms of the amended stipulation differ from those to
which the parties had agreed as of the time that plaintiff filed
its renewed motion. The parties have eliminated the claims-made
feature of the proposed settlement and have streamlined the
settlement administration process to substantially reduce
administrative costs and eliminate the need for time-consuming and
expensive claims processing. The settlement fund will now be $3.4
million, reflecting the non-contingent nature of the proposed
settlement.

Under terms of the proposed settlement, at least $2 million of
that settlement fund will be available for distribution to the
settlement class, and monies that go unclaimed by the settlement
class and are not needed to pay costs of administration or any
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to class counsel are to be
donated to charity.

The parties ask that the amended stipulation now be considered as
jointly proposed to the court in the place and stead of the
settlement terms that had been agreed-upon as of the time
plaintiff filed the renewed motion, and that the court consider
plaintiff's renewed motion as requesting preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement as set forth in the amended stipulation.

Judge Chhabria ordered plaintiff to file a reply brief that
contains an explanation that clearly explains how the terms of the
stipulation have changed from when the plaintiff filed its opening
brief in support of preliminary approval.

A copy of Judge Chhabria's stipulated order dated July 24, 2015,
is available at http://goo.gl/gwLes7from Leagle.com.

Michael L. Charlson -- mcharlson@velaw.com -- Russell Yager --
ryager@velaw.com -- at VINSON & ELKINS LLP, Attorneys for
Defendant, LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON LLP, a Texas limited
liability partnership

William McGrane -- william.mcgrane@mcgranellp.com -- at McGRANE
LLP; Jonathan R. Bass -- jrb@coblentzlaw.com -- at COBLENTZ PATCH
DUFFY & BASS LLP; Matthew J. Shier -- mshier@shierkatz.com -- at
Shierkatz RLLP, Attorneys for plaintiff, 4EC HOLDINGS, LLC


LYALL MANUFACTURING: Wis. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
James Johannsen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lyall Manufacturing Wi, Inc. d/b/a R.W. Lyall &
Company, Case No. 2:15-cv-00897 (E.D. Wis., July 23, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees, and any such other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operates a manufacturing facility at 16875 W
Ryerson Road, New Berlin, Wisconsin, 53151.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 E Erie St-Ste 210, PO Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Faces Demand to Extend Protective Netting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Payne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball (d/b/a Major
League Baseball); and Robert D. Manfred, Jr., Case 4:15-cv-03229
(N.D. Cal., July 13, 2015), seeks injunctive relief requiring
Defendants, among other things, to adopt corrective measures
regarding: the implementation of

     (1) a rule requiring all existing major league and minor
league indoor and outdoor ballparks to be retrofitted to extend
protective netting from foul pole to foul pole, by the beginning
of the 2016-2017 MLB season;

     (2) a rule requiring any newly constructed ballpark intended
to house major or minor league baseball games, to include at a
minimum this amount of netting;

     (3) a program to study injuries and the rates of injuries
amongst spectators, including the type and manner of injury and at
what locations in ballparks they occur, in an effort to
continually reevaluate whether additional measures should be
taken, so that precautionary measures can continue to evolve as
the sport continues to evolve.

The Office of the Commissioner of Baseball is an office created
pursuant to the Major League Agreement entered into by the member
Clubs of Major League Baseball.

Defendant Robert D. Manfred, Jr. is the Commissioner of the Major
League Baseball Association.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
     Jon T. King, Esq.
     715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Tel: (510) 725-3000
     Fax: (510) 725-3001
     E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
             jonk@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

     Steve W. Berman, Esq.
     Anthea Grivas, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 623-7292
     Fax: (206) 623-0594
     E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
             antheag@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     Robert C. Hilliard, Esq.
     Marion Reilly, Esq.
     HILLIARD MUNOZ GONZALES L.L.P.
     719 S Shoreline Blvd., Suite #500
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Tel: (361) 882-1612
     Fax: (361) 882-3015
     E-mail: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
             marion@hmglawfirm.com

                           *     *     *

Craig Calcaterra, writing for NBC sports, reported that two
consumer rights law firms filed a putative class-action lawsuit
against Major League Baseball and Commissioner Rob Manfred for
their alleged failure to act to protect ballpark spectators
against foul balls and bat injuries. The suit seeks no monetary
relief -- only to force Major League Baseball to install safety
netting from foul pole to foul pole at all major and minor league
parks by the beginning of the 2016-2017 MLB season.

The complaint alleges that despite Manfred and MLB's statements
about caring about fan safety above all else, "Manfred and the
Office of the Commissioner have failed to act." It claims that
Manfred and MLB "have failed to follow the path of other
professional sports in the United States and in other countries
that have taken readily-available and relatively inexpensive steps
to protect its spectators." The suit goes on to cite players'
concerns about fan safety, saying "tellingly, those who know the
game and its dangers best -- the players -- have demanded since at
least 2007 that protective measures be put in place -- something
Manfred and the Office of the Commissioner have never disclosed to
the public." This is something we at HBT have noted recently.

The suit alleges that every year "fans of all ages, but often
children, suffer horrific and preventable injuries, such as
blindness, skull fractures, severe concussions and brain
hemorrhages, when they are struck by a fast-moving ball or flying
shrapnel from a shattered bat," and that Manfred has "continued to
make statements that promote Major League ballparks as safe and
family-friendly and has sought to increase attendance of young
fans -- a demographic that is highly at risk for foul ball and bat
injuries."

The suit, filed on behalf of season ticket holders, with an
Oakland A's fan named Gail Payne as the lead plaintiff, was filed
in federal court in the Northern District of California. The
plaintiffs' law firms are from Seattle and Corpus Christi, Texas.
The 48 page complaint recounts the evolution of spectator
protection, the risks posed by foul balls and shattered bats,
injury rates among fans -- under the colorful heading "The Modern
Day Slaughter Pen." Interestingly, Payne, the lead plaintiff has
not suffered any injuries from foul balls or broken bats. Rather,
she alleges the following:

   "Gail Payne, is an individual residing in Alameda County, in
Oakland, California. She has been a devout fan of Major League
Baseball's Oakland A's for nearly 50 years, since her aunt took
her to her first A's game in 1968. She loves attending games, has
attended many, and purchased tickets for the first time. She
bought tickets in section 211, which she believes is less
expensive than the sections covered by protective netting. At her
seats, which are in an exposed section along the first base line,
she fears for her and her husband's safety and particularly for
her daughter. Due to the fact that at Oakland Coliseum, the
protective netting behind the backstop is minimal, and does not
extend to her seat, foul balls have shot into the stands around
her more times than she can count. Gail estimates that at every
game, at least three or four balls enter her section alone, and
she is constantly ducking and weaving to avoid getting hit by foul
balls or shattered bats. On one occasion Gail ducked to avoid a
foul ball flying her way, but as alleged herein there is no
guarantee she can duck the next time. In addition, due to the fact
that at Oakland Coliseum, there are many, many distractions, such
as a giant screen across from her section, and fan-participation
contests that involve texting or using applications on mobile
devices, she believes she and other fans are at increase risk of
injury."

The theory is that Payne and everyone else who might join this
suit are all in a "Zone of Danger," and thus have standing to
assert the claims.

While the claims and the copious data cited by the plaintiffs
regarding the risk of injury to fans is compelling on a certain
level, it's another thing altogether to say that this suit has any
kind of chance to force action by Major League Baseball, legally
speaking. For one thing, the manner in which the case has been
brought -- by people who could be injured, but have not yet been -
- could sink this thing before it every got going. And, at the
very least, could take years to be put through its procedural
paces.

More fundamentally, it runs smack up against the so-called
"Baseball Rule." What is "the Baseball Rule?" Glad you asked!

In most walks of life, whether someone is liable to you for
injuries caused by alleged negligence is determined by a judgment
call: was the harm foreseeable and did they act reasonably to
prevent the harm from occurring? That's a matter for a jury to
decide, and the jury can take all of the specific facts of the
case into account in making that determination.

Ballpark operators, however, have typically had a safe harbor that
shields them from having a jury decide whether they acted
prudently. It's called "The Baseball Rule," and it's a legal
doctrine which underpins those little "we're not liable for you
getting injured by flying balls and bats" disclaimers on the back
of your ticket.

The way it's usually formulated by the courts is that stadium
owners and operators must provide "screened seats for as many
spectators as may be reasonably expected to call for them on any
ordinary occasion," and that if they do that, they're legally
absolved of liability. Typically, providing screens behind home
plate and around to each side to some degree puts owners in the
safe harbor. In that case, it's a matter of law, not fact, and the
judge will usually dismiss the case before it ever gets to a jury.

That rule has been challenged more and more in recent years but it
still, generally speaking has legal currency. You're more or less
assuming the risk of injury at the ballpark.

As I wrote, the ballpark experience has changed a lot. Seats are
closer than they used to be. Balls are hit harder and bats shatter
more easily. There are more distractions in the form of
entertainment on the big screen, music and the like. The price of
seats behind the screen can be prohibitive in many parks, putting
a lot of fans in a situation to where they have to choose between
spending a ton of money or sitting in unprotected seats. It's
possible, in the right case, that a plaintiff could successfully
challenge the Baseball Rule on grounds that what was once
considered reasonable protection -- say, netting from dugout to
dugout -- is no longer reasonable, and more netting is required.
This lawsuit seems to be aiming at that specifically, seeking a
declaration that, as of now, the netting is insufficient and that
more must be put up.

But given that the suit is casting so wide a, um, net, in terms of
plaintiffs I have a hard time seeing them getting what they want
out of this. Which, of course, it's possible the plaintiffs'
lawyers know quite well and are using this as a means of
highlighting the dangers of foul balls and broken bats so that,
when someone is seriously injured, it will be much harder for
Major League Baseball to claim that the risk was unforeseeable or
adequately protected against.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Hagens Berman Leads Grave Safety Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Some of major league baseball's biggest fans -- season ticket
holders -filed a class-action lawsuit against the commissioner of
Major League Baseball (MLB) association Rob Manfred, and the
office of the commissioner, alleging Manfred has failed to uphold
his duties to enact safety measures against the danger of foul
ball and bat injuries through a widespread pattern of negligence,
misrepresentations and omissions toward baseball spectators at MLB
games, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman and Hilliard Munoz
and Gonzales LLP.

The lawsuit alleges that tens of millions attend a Major League
Baseball game annually, and every year fans of all ages, but often
children, suffer horrific and preventable injuries, such as
blindness, skull fractures, severe concussions and brain
hemorrhages, when they are struck by a fast-moving ball or flying
shrapnel from a shattered bat.

The complaint filed on July 13, 2015 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California alleges that at the same
time that the commissioner has failed to act to protect
spectators, he has continued to make statements that promote Major
League ballparks as safe and family-friendly and has sought to
increase attendance of young fans -- a demographic that is highly
at risk for foul ball and bat injuries.

"Every type of fan is constantly at risk of serious injury or
death. From infants to the elderly to anyone in between -- all are
just one pitch away from a line drive foul ball heading at them at
lightning speed," said Robert Hilliard, partner at Hilliard Munoz
and Gonzales LLP. "If that foul ball is hit hard enough, reaction
time is basically zero and life-threatening injury is certain."

"This is a needless risk. Extending the nets will, as a fact, save
lives," Hilliard added.

"The MLB has stated that fan safety is its 'foremost goal,' but
the league and commissioner's inaction and negligence to this
growing risk have spoken much louder," Hilliard said. "It is the
duty of the MLB commissioner to make change, and despite his
responsibility and awareness of the pattern of spectator injuries,
he has failed to uphold that duty to the detriment of millions of
baseball's biggest fans."

"What's more alarming is that MLB players -- who know the risks of
baseball better than anyone -- have demanded since 2007 that
safety netting at MLB fields be expanded to protect near the foul
ball lines, something that the commissioner failed to disclose to
the public," added Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens
Berman.

The nationwide class action seeks to change current MLB rules and
practices, including requiring the MLB to retrofit all existing
major league and minor league indoor and outdoor ballparks to
extend protective netting from foul pole to foul pole by the
beginning of the 2016-2017 MLB season. Relief sought also
stipulates that all future ballparks intended to house major or
minor league baseball games need to include at minimum this amount
of safety netting. Plaintiffs also seek to create a program to
study spectator injuries in an effort to continually reevaluate
whether additional measures should be taken, so that precautionary
measures can continue to evolve as the sport continues to evolve.

Individuals who have purchased season tickets to any major or
minor league park may contact Hagens Berman by emailing
MLB@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292. Find out more about
the class-action lawsuit against the MLB.

"The seats in the exposed areas just past the netting, along first
and third base, between the foul poles, where most foul balls are
hit, are often occupied by families because they are more
affordable and/or protected seats are sold out," the complaint
alleges. "These seats are often occupied by young fans . . .
However the area along the foul lines poses a particular danger to
spectators. It is particularly dangerous because it is not
protected from flying balls and bats by protective netting, and
because traditionally, line drive fouls are normally hit flush,
and send the ball at a higher velocity down the lines."

According to the suit, the combination of right-handed power
pitchers and left-handed hitters that are likely to swing late at
fastballs tends to make the area behind and near the third base
dugouts particularly dangerous. The first and third base lines are
also dangerous because of their proximity to the bases, where
players often throw at high velocity toward the bases in attempts
to tag out runners.

The suit also alleges that the commissioner has actively increased
distractions and entertainment in the parks to appeal to younger
fans, including enhanced larger JumboTron screens and displays.

"It is time for the commissioner to take action, to protect
spectators sitting between the foul lines along first and third
base, where fans are suffering serious and entirely preventable
injury," Berman said. "The MLB currently generates $9 billion in
revenue annually. We think that asking the league and commissioner
to be responsible for increased netting and basic protection for
the fans who fill the seats is the MLB's duty to baseball's most
dedicated."

Hagens Berman has been a pioneer in national sports litigation and
has filed class-action lawsuits against FIFA, the NFL, the NCAA
and other sports governing bodies concerning risks to players'
safety, concussions and brain injuries, rights to player
likenesses in video games and rights to fair scholarships.

Hilliard Munoz and Gonzales LLP has led the push for various
reforms for decades, filing suits to protect residents of state
schools from "fight clubs," suing to protect the innocent killing
of Mexican citizens by U.S. Border Patrol agents, and stopping
predatory lenders from wrongly foreclosing on lower income
homeowners.

Individuals who have purchased season tickets to any major or
minor league park may contact Hagens Berman by emailing
MLB@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292. Find out more about
the class-action lawsuit against the MLB.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Hillard Munos Files Safety Negligence Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Some of major league baseball's biggest fans -- season ticket
holders -filed a class-action lawsuit against the Major League
Baseball (MLB) association, the commissioner of MLB Rob Manfred,
and the office of the commissioner, alleging Manfred has failed to
uphold his duties to enact safety measures against the danger of
foul ball and bat injuries through a widespread pattern of
negligence, misrepresentations and omissions toward baseball
spectators at MLB games, according to Bob Hilliard of Hilliard
Munoz and Gonzales LLP.

The lawsuit states that tens of millions attend a Major League
Baseball game annually, and every year fans of all ages, but often
children, suffer horrific and preventable injuries, such as
blindness, skull fractures, severe concussions and brain
hemorrhages, when they are struck by a fast-moving ball or flying
shrapnel from a shattered bat.

The complaint filed on July 13, 2015 in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California alleges that at the same
time that the commissioner has failed to act to protect
spectators, he has continued to make statements that promote Major
League ballparks as safe and family-friendly and has sought to
increase attendance of young fans -- a demographic that is highly
at risk for foul ball and bat injuries, according to the
complaint.

"Every type of fan is constantly at risk of serious injury or
death. From infants to the elderly to anyone in between -- all are
just one pitch away from a line drive foul ball heading at them at
lightning speed," said Robert Hilliard, partner at Hilliard Munoz
and Gonzales LLP. "If that foul ball is hit hard enough, reaction
time is basically zero and life-threatening injury is certain."

"This is a needless risk. Extending the nets will, as a fact, save
lives," Hilliard added.

"The MLB has stated that fan safety is its 'foremost goal,' but
the league and commissioner's inaction and negligence to this
growing risk have spoken much louder," Hilliard said. "It is the
duty of the MLB commissioner to make change, and despite his
responsibility and awareness of the pattern of spectator injuries,
he has failed to uphold that duty to the detriment of millions of
baseball's biggest fans."

"What's more alarming is that MLB players -- who know the risks of
baseball better than anyone -- have demanded since 2007 that
safety netting at MLB fields be expanded to protect near the foul
ball lines, something that the commissioner failed to disclose to
the public," added Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens
Berman.

The nationwide class action seeks to change current MLB rules and
practices, including requiring the MLB to retrofit all existing
major league and minor league indoor and outdoor ballparks to
extend protective netting from foul pole to foul pole by the
beginning of the 2016-2017 MLB season. Relief sought also
stipulates that all future ballparks intended to house major or
minor league baseball games to include at minimum this amount of
safety netting. Plaintiffs also seek to create a program to study
spectator injuries in an effort to continually reevaluate whether
additional measures should be taken, so that precautionary
measures can continue to evolve as the sport continues to evolve.

Individuals who have purchased season tickets to any major or
minor league park may contact Hagens Berman by emailing
MLB@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292. Find out more about
the class-action lawsuit against the MLB.

"The seats in the exposed areas just past the netting, along first
and third base, between the foul poles, where most foul balls are
hit, are often occupied by families because they are more
affordable and/or protected seats are sold out," the complaint
states. "These seats are often occupied by young fans... However
the area along the foul lines poses a particular danger to
spectators. It is particularly dangerous because it is not
protected from flying balls and bats by protective netting, and
because traditionally, line drive fouls are normally hit flush,
and send the ball at a higher velocity down the lines."

According to the suit, the combination of right-handed power
pitchers and left-handed hitters that are likely to swing late at
fastballs tends to make the area behind and near the third base
dugouts particularly dangerous. The first and third base lines are
also dangerous because of their proximity to the bases, where
players often throw at high velocity toward the bases in attempts
to tag out runners.

The suit also alleges that the commissioner has actively increased
distractions and entertainment in the parks to appeal to younger
fans, including enhanced larger JumboTron screens and displays.

"It is time for the commissioner to take action, to protect
spectators sitting between the foul lines along first and third
base, where fans are suffering serious and entirely preventable
injury," Berman said. "The MLB currently generates $9 billion in
revenue annually. We think that asking the league and commissioner
to be responsible for increased netting and basic protection for
the fans who fill the seats is the MLB's duty to baseball's most
dedicated."

Hagens Berman has been a pioneer in national sports litigation and
has filed class-action lawsuits against FIFA, the NFL, the NCAA
and other sports governing bodies concerning risks to players'
safety, concussions and brain injuries, rights to player
likenesses in video games and rights to fair scholarships.

Hilliard Munoz and Gonzales LLP has led the push for various
reforms for decades, filing suits to protect residents of state
schools from "fight clubs," suing to protect the innocent killing
of Mexican citizens by U.S. Border Patrol agents, and stopping
predatory lenders from wrongly foreclosing on lower income
homeowners.

Individuals who have purchased season tickets to any major or
minor league park may contact Hagens Berman by emailing
MLB@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-623-7292. Find out more about
the class-action lawsuit against the MLB.

                           About HMG

Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP (HMG) specializes in mass torts,
personal injury, product liability, commercial and business
litigation, and wrongful death. HMG has been successfully
representing clients in the United States and Mexico since 1986.
Bob Hilliard obtained the Largest Verdict in the country in 2012
and the #1 verdict in Texas in 2013. More about the firm can be
found at www.hmglawfirm.com. Follow the firm for updates and news
at @hmglawfirmcc


MARTHA STEWART: Being Sold for Too Little, Shareholder Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Martha Stewart is selling her
Living Omnimedia company too cheaply through an unfair process,
for $6.15 a share or $353 million, a shareholder claims in a class
action in Delaware Chancery Court.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Ubom" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ibanga M. Ubom, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC,
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-05705-WHW-CLW (D.N.J., July
22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


MILLER CASTINGS: Faces "Parra" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Parra, an individual and on behalf of other similarly
situated v. Miller Castings, Inc., Case No. BC589105 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Miller Castings, Inc. is a California corporation that produces
and supplies structural and integral components for aerospace and
industrial gas turbine industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MITOROTONDA SERVICES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Romero and Juan Muniz, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Mitorotonda Services, Inc., d/b/a Chief Fire
Prevention, and Frank Mitorotonda., Case No. 1:15-cv-05778
(S.D.N.Y., July 22, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for work in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate several companies that perform
cleaning services, installations and or fire safety services.

The Plaintiff Jose Romero is represented by:

      Jose Romero
      PRO SE
      329 Mt. Pleasant Ave, Apt 2
      Mamaroneck, NY 10543

The Plaintiff Juan Muniz is represented by:

      Juan Muniz
      PRO SE
      2527 Holland Ave, 2nd Fl.
      Bronx, NY 10467


MOVIE TAVERN: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Kotchmar" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tianna Kotchmar, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Movie Tavern Partners, LP, Southern
Theaters, LLC, and Doe Defendants 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-04061-CDJ
(E.D. Pa., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a string of movie theaters throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MULLIGAN'S MANAGEMENT: Faces Suit for Allegedly Violating FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exobe Vilneard, and on behalf of all those similarly situated v.
Mulligan's Management Group, LLC and George Hart, Case 2:15-cv-
14248-RLR (S.D.Fla., July 13, 2015), alleges that the Defendant
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mulligan's Management and George Hart own and operate six
Mulligan's Beach House Bar and Grill locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
     MORGADO, P.A.
     382 NE 191st Street #84164
     Miami, FL 33179
     Tel: (855) 899-9121 x102
     Fax: (855) 499-9191
     E-mail: rer@morgado.us


MYLAN NV: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------
Roofers Local 149 Pension Fund, and all others similarly-situated
v. Mylan, N.V., Heather Bresch, and Robert J. Coury, Case No.
2:15-cv-00941 (W.D. Pa., July 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties to the
shareholders of Mylan, Inc. ("Old Mylan") by:

    (a) misrepresenting that, in seeking approval for the Tax
        Inversion, the Director Defendants knew -- but failed to
        disclose -- that they had already agreed to incorporate a
        foundation and grant it such a call option at the time
        they solicited the vote of Old Mylan shareholders in
        favor of the Tax Inversion; and

    (b) falsely representing that New Mylan would be bound by and
        would comply with NASDAQ's listing rules, which required
        specific shareholder approval prior to the issuance of
        securities that would result in a change of control.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaration that the grant of the call
option to the Stichting was not authorized in conformity with
applicable law, and therefore is invalid. Alternatively, the vote
should be rescinded or, if declaratory relief is unavailable,
shareholders of Old Mylan should be awarded damages.

Mylan N.V. ("New Mylan") is a public limited liability company
organized and existing under the laws of the Netherlands, with its
principal place of business at Albany Gate, Darkes Lane, Potters
Bar, Herts EN6 1AG, United Kingdom. New Mylan was incorporated on
July 7, 2014, as New Moon B.V. ("New Moon"), a private limited
liability company organized under the laws of the Netherlands, for
the purpose of holding Old Mylan and the Abbott Business. Upon
consummation of the Tax Inversion, New Moon was renamed Mylan N.V.
Pursuant to the Tax Inversion, New Mylan is the successor in
interest, and assumed all the rights, assets, liabilities and
obligations of Old Mylan.

Defendant Heather Bresch was the Chief Executive Officer and
member of the Board of Directors of Old Mylan; and currently is
the CEO and a director of New Mylan.

Defendant Robert J. Coury was a member of the Board of Directors
of Old Mylan, and currently is a director of New Mylan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      115 Federal Street, Ste 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: bsweet@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
      & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 554-1400
      Fax: (212) 554-1444


NEANY INC: "Lewis" Suit Alleges FLSA, Ariz. Wage Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Neany, Inc., Case 8:15-cv-02068 (D. Md.,
July 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant denied its logisticians
wages and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act.

Neany is a defense contractor headquartered in Hollywood, Maryland
with operations in Arizona, Florida and Virginia.  It creates
tactical surveillance aeronautical solutions, specifically
military avionics systems, unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned
aerial systems, surveillance and video/imagery solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey R. Bloom, Esq.
     751 Rockville Pike, Suite 11-B
     Rockville, MD 20852
     Tel: (443) 691-7930
          (202) 265-7755
     Fax: (240) 235-4418

        - and -

     Peter R. Rosenzweig, Esq.
     KLEINBARD LLC
     One Liberty Place, 46th Floor
     1650 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (267) 443-4120
     Fax: (215) 568-0140


NEANY INC: Faces 2nd "Lewis Suit Over FLSA, Wage Act Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael A. Lewis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Neany, Inc., Case 8:15-cv-02069 (D. Md.,
July 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant denied its logisticians
wages and overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arizona Minimum Wage Act.

Neany is a defense contractor headquartered in Hollywood, Maryland
with operations in Arizona, Florida and Virginia.  It creates
tactical surveillance aeronautical solutions, specifically
military avionics systems, unmanned aerial vehicles, unmanned
aerial systems, surveillance and video/imagery solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey R. Bloom, Esq.
     751 Rockville Pike, Suite 11-B
     Rockville, MD 20852
     Tel: (443) 691-7930
          (202) 265-7755
     Fax: (240) 235-4418

        - and -

     Peter R. Rosenzweig, Esq.
     KLEINBARD LLC
     One Liberty Place, 46th Floor
     1650 Market Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (267) 443-4120
     Fax: (215) 568-0140


PACE CONSTRUCTION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Salvador Zuniga, and all others similarly-situated v. Pace
Construction Services, LLC and Tommy Pace, 3:15-cv-00479 (M.D.
La., July 21, 2015), seeks restitution of unpaid wages, an award
of damages, attorneys' fees and costs, declaratory relief, and
injunctive relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pace Construction Services, LLC provides construction services
throughout the greater Baton Rouge area and elsewhere in
Louisiana. Defendant Tommy Pace is the member and manager of Pace
Construction Services.

The Plaintiff can be reached at:

      Daniel Brian Davis, Esq.
      ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
      850 North Boulevard
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Tel: (225) 336-3394
      Fax: (225) 384-5419
      E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com

         - and -

      John H Smith, Esq.
      SMITH SHANKLIN SOSA
      16851 Jefferson Highway, Suite 5A
      Baton Rouge, LA 70817
      Tel: (225) 223-6333
      Fax: (888) 413-8345


OCEAN EMPIRE: Accused of Violating FLSA, New York Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yevhen Lizanets, Vitalie Ladighin, Viktor Metenko, Jose Castro
Tellez, and Carlos Juarez-Hernandez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Ocean Empire Management LLC,
Shyraz Management Co. LLC, Samuel Hertz, Joseph Hertz, and John
Doe, Executor in the Matter of the Estate of Ivona Hertz,
Deceased, Case 1:15-cv-04161 (E.D. N.Y., July 15, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, pre-and post-judgment
interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate and manage approximately ten large
residential apartment buildings in New York City, including
residential buildings located on Lincoln Road, Linden Avenue, and
Ocean Avenue, among others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Harrison, Esq.
     110 State Highway 35, Suite #10
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Tel: (718) 799-9111
     Fax: (718) 799-9171
     E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


OFFICE DEPOT: Accused of Violating Handicap Parking Regulations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Sliv Ak, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Office Depot, Inc. d/b/a/ Office Max, Case
2:15-cv-03869-PBT (E.D. Penn., July 13, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act's regulations regarding handicap parking.

Office Depot, Inc. is a supplier of office products and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
     Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
     1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
     Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
     Tel: (215) 364-5030
     Fax: (215) 364-5029
     E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
             dbraynin@kalraylaw.com

        - and -

     Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
     Robert J. Gray, Esq.
     CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
     2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Tel: (610) 822-3700
     Fax: (610) 822-3800
     E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com
             rgray@cwg-law.com


OTTAWA, CANADA: Farmers Group Shifts Strategy in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Johnstone, writing for The Star Phoenix, reported that
despite some legal setbacks, the Friends of the Canadian Wheat
Board is continuing to pursue its class action lawsuit against the
federal government, filing an amended statement of claim in
Federal Court in Ottawa.

The amended statement of claim filed by four western Canadian
farmers alleges Ottawa "shortchanged" farmers by $720 million from
the Canadian Wheat Board in the 2011-12 fiscal year. The Harper
government eliminated the board's legislative monopoly over export
sales of western wheat and barley on Aug. 1, 2012.

In April, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld Federal Court and
Federal Court of Appeal decisions rejecting the Friends' claim
that western farmers suffered a collective loss of $17 billion as
a result of the elimination of the board's singledesk marketing
authority.

"The original class action was looking for compensation for the
(CWB) assets that the farmers had paid for," said Stewart Wells, a
former elected director of the CWB and currently chair of the
Friends of the Canadian Wheat Board. "The courts couldn't provide
that remedy, but what they did agree to was to have this (alleged
$720-million loss) for the operations of 2011-12 looked at."

Wells said the "missing" $720 million represents the difference
between the average returns to producers from the CWB from the 11
years prior to 2011 and the return achieved in 2011-12,the CWB
published audited financial statements.

Well contends when "the elected farmers were running the CWB,"
about 93 per cent of sales revenue was returned to farmers between
1998 and the 2010-11. But under the government-run CWB, farmers
received just 83 per cent of sales revenue to farmers in 2011-12.

"That (10 per cent difference) doesn't sound like a lot of money,
but the difference is $720 million," Wells said. "It wasn't as
though the expenses stayed the same and the revenues dropped.
These revenues were the third-highest (during that 11-year) time
frame," he added.

"We are concerned the CWBs expenses more than doubled for the
2011-12 crop year after the farmer directors were removed on Dec.
15, 2011."

Wells noted the government allocated $349 million from its own
coffers to cover restructuring costs at the CWB. However, it
appears the government-run CWB decided not to use all of the
taxpayer money in 2011-12. "In fact, it appears the governmentrun
CWB even used money from pooling accounts to cover some of the
restructuring costs," Wells said.

Under the CWB Act, only the costs of the CWB's operations to sell
a crop can be deducted from pooling accounts.


PDI INC: "Severine" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Jim Severine, and others similarly-situated v. PDI, Inc. and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05617 (D.N.J., July 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and New Jersey Wage
Laws during the new-hire training period and the New Jersey Law
Against Discrimination.

PDI, Inc. provides outsourced commercial services to established
and emerging pharmaceutical, biotechnology and healthcare
companies in the United States. The Company is a provider of
outsourced sales teams that focus on healthcare providers,
offering a range of complementary sales support services designed
to achieve its customers' strategic and financial product
objectives.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
      1101 Kings Highway North, Ste 402
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Tel: (856) 685-7420
      Fax: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com


PENNY NEWMAN: Judge Allows Parties to Amend Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of
California approved the parties' stipulation in the case JESUS
PALACIOS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN, INC., ET AL.,
Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01804-KJM-SAB (E.D. Cal.)

The court issued an order granting preliminary approval to the
parties' class settlement agreement. The settlement agreement and
the July 6, 2015 order both assumed, based on representations made
throughout the settlement process by Universal Ag, that it had
employment records showing the addresses of all identified class
members. In preparing for the mailing of the notices to class
members, Universal Ag provided addresses for 62 individuals, but
informed the other parties for the first time that it does not
have addresses for 18 class members. Universal Ag also informed
the parties that the missing class members are Spanish-speaking
and most, if not all, are monolingual Spanish-speakers. All of
them worked a fairly short period of time.

The parties now agree and stipulate that their settlement
agreement be amended to provide, in addition to the mailed class
notice previously agreed-upon and ordered, notice to the missing
class members through publication. The cost to publish the full
notice is $5,388. The costs of the publication will be advanced by
the claims administrator.

Judge Mueller approves the foregoing Stipulation amending the
Settlement Agreement and orders that the additional forms of
notice to those class members set forth in that stipulation will
be provided. In addition to the mailing class notice of the
proposed settlement to all class members whose addresses are
known, notice by publication to the remaining class members will
be provided in accordance with the parties' stipulation. The cost
of these additional measures will be advanced by Gilardi & Co.,
the claims administrator, and paid out of the $30,000 maximum
allocated to the costs of claims administration in the proposed
settlement agreement and preliminarily approved by the court in
its July 6, 2015 order.

A copy of Judge Mueller's stipulation and order dated July 24,
2015, is available at http://goo.gl/Z4lFNefrom Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Defendant Penny Newman Grain Co.:

David R. McNamara, Esq.
Christina C. Tillman, Esq.
McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP
7647 N. Fresno Street
Fresno, CA 93720
Telephone: 559-433-1300
Facsimile: 559-433-2300

Attorneys for Ag Universal, Inc. And Juan Zavala

Paul J. Bauer, Esq.
WALTER & WILHELM LAW GROUP,
205 E River Park Cir #410
Fresno, CA 93720
Telephone: 559-892-0465

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:

John E. Hill, Esq.
ENRIQUE MARTINEZ, Esq.
Law Offices of John E. Hill
333 Hegenberger Road, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94621
Telephone: 510-275-4947
Facsimile: 510-729-6333

     - and -


Della Barnett, Esq.
CALIFORNIA RURAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE FOUNDATION
2210 K Street, Suite 201
Sacramento, CA 95816
Telephone: 916-446-7904
Facsimile: 916-446-3057


PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: Sued by NAACP for Violating Human Rights Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the NAACP claims Philips
Electronics, Monster Worldwide et al. violate New York City human
rights law by excluding people with felony convictions from jobs,
in a New York federal class action.


PJJK RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Josue Ramos, Teodulo Vazquez, and all others similarly situated v.
PJJK Restaurant Corp. dba Blondies Sports, Patricia McGreevey and
Jill Homorodean, Case No. 1:15-cv-05672 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015),
seeks to recover all unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants operate a restauranct under the trade name
"Blondies Sports" located in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181


POLARK LTD: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Min. Wage Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Armando Minon and Johanna Rivera, individually and on behalf of
other employees similarly situated, v. Polark, Ltd. d/b/a Sarpinos
Pizzeria and Arkadiusz Szulik, Case: 1:15-cv-06122 (N.D. Ill.,
July 13, 2015), seeks payment for the Defendant's alleged failure
to pay Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees overtime
wages for hours worked in excess in accordance with the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Polark Ltd. is in the food business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David E. Stevens, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Office: 312-219-6838
     E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com


PRESTIGE CRUISE: Faces "Freixa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Freixa, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Prestige Cruise Services LLC, Prestige Cruise Holdings, Inc.,
Prestige Cruises International, Inc., and XYZ Entities 1-10, Case
No. 1:15-cv-22732-MGC (S.D. Fla., 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 a business specializing in the sale
and provision of cruise services with call centers at multiple
locations in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      2300 Glades Road Suite 360W
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (888) 505-9941
      Facsimile: (561) 807-0020
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued in N.Y. Over Defective Laundry Detergent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Guariglia, Micheline Byrne and Michele Emanuele, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
The Procter & Gamble Company, and The Procter & Gamble
Distributing LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04307 (E.D.N.Y., July 23,
2015), is brought on behalf of all the persons in the United
States who purchased Tide Pods laundry detergent, that were
manufactured, marketed, distributed, promoted, and sold by the
Defendants with serious design defects that cause them to produce
permanent blue/purple stains on white and light colored laundry,
even when used as directed by P&G on Tide Pods' packaging.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing,
marketing, and distributing health care and branded consumer
products under various brand names including Charmin, Bounty,
Vicks, Tide Pods, Tide, Always, Oral-B, Crest, Gillette, Braun,
Pantene, Bounty, Dawn, Gain, Olay, Cover Girl, Ivory, Secret, and
Downy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Levine, Esq.
      Melissa Emert, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      6 East 45th Street-5th floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 687-7230
      Facsimile: (212) 490-2022
      E-mail: mlevine@ssbny.com
              memert@bellsouth.net


PUBLIX: Faces Class Suit Over Misleading Box Label
--------------------------------------------------
Wftv.com reported that a class-action lawsuit was filed against
Publix over a box of toaster pastries.

Based on the documents, it appears Amber Jackson of Seminole
County believes the label on the boxes that shows "made with real
fruit" is just a way to trick people into the buying the pastries.
Jackson's suit points out some of the toaster pastry boxes read
"made with real fruit" and invite people to indulge in the
sweetness of "juicy strawberries."

But Jackson claims that's misleading, because she believes the
sweet treats don't contain any "real fruit."

The ingredient list shows they contain fruit from concentrate. If
a federal judge allows the suit to move forward, people impacted
would be anyone who bought the pastries.

WFTV legal analyst Bill Sheaffer said the case would be a tough
one to win, but if successful, the payoff could be big for the
lead plaintiff and even bigger for the attorneys.

"These types of lawsuits may be a chance to make money, but it's
also a chance for the little guy to get some measure of justice,"
he said.

The plaintiff believes the case is worth more than $5 million and
involves countless people.

Publix has asked for more time to respond to the lawsuit. They
told Channel 9 the company doesn't comment on pending litigation.


RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Cacioppo" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Cacioppo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11324 (Del. Ch., July
23, 2015), seeks to enjoin Defendants from further breaching their
fiduciary duties in their pursuit of a sale of the Company to
Celgene Corporation at an unfair price through an unfair process.

Receptos, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing
therapeutic candidates for the treatment of immune and metabolic
diseases.

Celgene Corporation is an integrated global biopharmaceutical
company engaged primarily in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of therapies for cancer and inflammatory
diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
      Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com


RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Rosenberg" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Rosenberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11325-CB (Del. Ch.,
July 23, 2015), on behalf of the public stockholders of Receptos,
Inc., to enjoin the Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to
Celgene Corporation for inadequate consideration.

Receptos, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that develops
therapeutic candidates for immune and metabolic diseases.

Celgene Corporation is an integrated global biopharmaceutical
company engaged primarily in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of therapies for cancer and inflammatory
diseases.

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 -

      J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com
              mfortunato@kmllp.com


RECON RESOURCES: "Summers" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Summers, and all others similarly-situated v. Recon
Resources, LLC, Adapt Exploration, LLC dba Adapt Resources and
Adapt Resources LLC, Anacapa Holdings, LLC, and Adapt Appalachia
LLC, 3:15-cv-02426 (N.D. Tex., July 21, 2015), seeks to recover
back wages and for liquidated damages equal in amount to the
unpaid compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of performing support services
in connection with domestic oil and natural gas exploration,
development, and production. This includes, but is not limited to,
acquiring or leasing oil and gas interests and performing mineral
rights due diligence and other research, lease analysis and
administration, and GIS/mapping. The Defendants have offered and
performed these services in states with active oil and gas
production, including but not limited to, Texas, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and elsewhere in the United States.

The Plaintiff can be reached at:

      Barry S. Hersh, Esq.
      HERSH LAW FIRM, PC
      3626 N. Hall St., Suite 800
      Dallas, TX 75219-5133
      Tel: (214) 303-1022
      Fax: (214) 550-8170
      E-mail: barry@hersh-law.com


SANOFI-AVENTIS SA: Plan Fiduciaries Sued Over Breach of Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi-Aventis employees whose retirement plans took a hit from
the 20 percent drop in company stock say in federal court that the
pharmaceutical company had been quietly investigating kickbacks
for years, reports Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service.

Joseph Forte filed a class action on June 24 in Manhattan against
four fiduciaries of the Sanofi U.S. Group Savings Plan, plus two
individual representatives of those defendants.

On behalf of other former Sanofi-Aventis employees, Forte seeks
"to recover[] millions of dollars of damage suffered in [employee]
retirement accounts due to breaches of fiduciary duties owed to
them."

"Defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by
continuing to permit the Stock Fund to be an investment option for
Plan participants despite knowing that it had become an imprudent
investment," the complaint states, abbreviating the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.

Sanofi allegedly failed to inform investors of an internal
investigation into massive illegal kickbacks related to the sale
of its lucrative diabetes drugs, especially in the Middle East and
Africa.

The company began its internal investigation in March 2013 and
ultimately fired Sanofi CEO Christopher Viehbacher on Oct. 29,
2014, but the truth was not made public until a former paralegal
filed a whistle-blower lawsuit this past December.

Diane Ponte's lawsuit sent Sanofi's stock price on a nearly 20
percent drop, from approximately $54 per share to $45 per share.

The new lawsuit summarizes Ponte's action as alleging that
"Sanofi's executives knowingly paid illegal kickbacks to induce
purchases of its drugs by U.S. retail pharmacies, and concealed
the payments by miscoding them as various expenses."

Ponte "alleged that the false coding of the payments was done
intentionally to escape detection and avoid the required
financing, purchase and legal departmental approvals," the
complaint states.  "She also alleged that at least $34 million in
illegal payments were made, and raised an issue over possibly $1
billion in 'missing funds.'"

Forte claims that representatives with the pension plan's
fiduciaries, the U.S. Pension Committee and the Administrative
Committee, knew about the illegal cash payments before Ponte blew
the whistle.

Such knowledge told the plan administrator and Sanofi treasurer
that company stock was inflated and was an imprudent investment.

"Based on their knowledge, defendants could have, and should have,
taken action to protect the plan and its participants," the
complaint states.  "They could have made the Stock Fund
unavailable as an investment option while the stock remained
artificially inflated.  They also could have disclosed what they
knew regarding the imprudence of the Stock Fund to their co-
fiduciaries as well as to the Sanofi Board of Directors, which was
responsible for overseeing the U.S. Pension Committee."

Such disclosure might led Sanofi to go public sooner, corrected
its misrepresentations sooner thus preventing the stock from
trading at as high a price as it did, according to the complaint.

"The longer the artifice continues uncorrected, and the more
delayed the disclosure of the truth, then the greater the damage
when the truth is finally revealed," Forte says.  "Here, plan
participants who purchased stock fund shares at an artificially
high price were harmed regardless of what happened to the stock in
the future; their losses were greater than they otherwise would
have been, and even any future profits they might earn will be
less than they otherwise would have been, all because they bought
their shares at an artificially inflated price."

Forte claims that disclosure delay cost Sanofi's employees
millions of dollars in retirement savings, for which defendants
should be held responsible.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Samuel Bonderoff, Esq.
          ZAMANSKY LLC
          50 Broadway, 32nd Floor
          New York NY, 10004
          Telephone: (212) 742-1414
          Facsimile: (212) 742-1177


SAYBOLT LP: Faces "Fontenot" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Fontenot, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Saybolt LP and Core Laboratories LP, Case
No. 4:15-cv-02113 (S.D. Tex., July 22, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more
than 40 hours a week.

The Defendants provide inspecting, sampling, and inventory control
services to their clients in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donny J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 W Alabama St
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


SBM MAINTENANCE: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Jimenez-Carranza, Ana Maria Pina-Rosales, Rigoberto
Barreto, Ramon Duran, Reyna Maria Madera-Diera, Maria I.
Mondragon, and Jose Perez, and individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. SBM Maintenance Contractors, Inc.
and Robert Norton, Case No. 1:15-cv-06457 (N.D. Ill., July 23,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees at least
Illinois mandated minimum wages for all hours worked in a
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a janitorial services company in
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin Tito Narvaez I, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1302
      Facsimile: (888) 270-8983
      E-mail: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


SDV LOGISTIQUE: November 2 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
If you or your company used the services of certain freight
forwarders, you may be entitled to a potentially significant cash
payment from class action Settlements.  This is the second notice
in this case.  Settlements have now been reached with 19
additional Defendants.  Settlements were previously reached with
10 Defendants.

The Settlements involve a lawsuit claiming that certain freight
forwarding companies secretly agreed to prices for their freight
forwarding services worldwide, including on routes in the U.S. and
between the U.S. and China, Hong Kong, Japan, Taiwan, India,
Germany, the U.K. and other parts of Europe.  Some of the
companies ("Settling Defendants") that were sued have agreed to
Settlements.  The Settling Defendants deny that they did anything
wrong.  The lawsuit continues against the Non-Settling Defendants.

Freight Forwarders provide transportation, or logistics services
for shipments relating to the organization or transportation of
items via air and ocean, which may include ancillary rail and
truck services, both nationally and internationally, as well as
related activities such as customs clearance, warehousing, and
ground services.

Who is Included? You may be included in one or more of the
Settlements (as a Class Member) if you: 1) Directly purchased
Freight Forwarding Services; 2) from any of the Settling or Non-
Settling Defendants, their subsidiaries, or affiliates; 3) from
January 1, 2001 through January 4, 2011; 4) in the U.S., or
outside the U.S. for shipments within, to, or from the U.S.  All
you need to know is in the full Notice, located at the settlement
website: www.FreightForwardCase.com including information on who
is or is not a Class Member.

What Do the Settlements Provide? The Settling Defendants will
establish a Settlement Fund with a minimum of $197.6 million.  The
amount of your benefits will be determined by the Plan of
Allocation, which is posted on the settlement website at
www.FreightForwardCase.com
A Claim Form has been provided with this Notice.

How to Get Benefits? You need to submit the enclosed Claim Form by
March 31, 2016 to get a payment from the Settlements.  You can
also file a claim at the website listed below.  If you already
submitted a Claim Form for the first round of Settlements, you do
not need to file a new claim.  You will automatically be paid from
this second round of Settlements.

Your Other Rights.  Even if you do nothing you will be bound by
the Court's decisions.  If you want to keep your right to sue a
Settling Defendant yourself, you must exclude yourself by
September 18, 2015 from that Settlement.  If you stay in a
particular Settlement, you may object to it by September 18, 2015.
The Detailed Notice, available at the website, explains how to
exclude yourself and object.

The Court has appointed lawyers to represent you at no charge to
you.  You may hire your own lawyer at your own cost.  The Court
will hold a hearing on November 2, 2015 to consider whether to:
(1) approve the Settlements and (2) a request for attorneys' fees
up to 33% of the Settlement Fund, plus interest, and reimbursement
for litigation expenses.  You or your own lawyer may appear and
speak at the hearing.  At the end of this litigation Class Counsel
may ask the Court to award each Class Representative an amount not
to exceed $75,000 in recognition of each Class Representative's
service in recovering funds for the Class.  Notice of any such
request will be provided at the website www.FreightForwardCase.com

This notice is only a summary. For detailed information: Call U.S.
& CANADA: 1-877-276-7340 (Toll-Free) INTERNATIONAL: 1-503-520-4400
(Toll) or Visit www.FreightForwardCase.com

The "Settling Defendants" are SDV Logistique Internationale
("SDV"); Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd. and Panalpina,
Inc. ("Panalpina"); Geodis S.A. and Geodis Wilson USA, Inc.
("Geodis"); DSV A/S, DSV Solutions Holding A/S, and DSV Air & Sea
Ltd. ("DSV"); Jet Speed Logistics, Ltd., Jet-Speed Air Cargo
Forwarders Inc. (USA), and Jet Speed Logistics (USA), LLC ("Jet
Speed"); Toll Global Forwarding (USA), Inc., Baltrans Logistics,
Inc., and Toll Holdings, Ltd. ("Toll"); Agility Holdings, Inc.,
Agility Logistics Corp., Geologistics Corp., and Geologistics
International Management (Bermuda) Limited ("Agility"); United
Parcel Service, Inc. and UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. ("UPS");
Dachser GmbH & Co., KG, doing business as Dachser Intelligent
Logistics, and Dachser Transport of America, Inc. ("Dachser");
Deutsche Post AG, Danzas Corporation, DHL Express (USA) Inc., DHL
Global Forwarding Japan K.K., DHL Japan Inc., Exel Global
Logistics, Inc., and Air Express International USA, Inc. ("DHL")
for the severed, Japanese claims only; Hankyu Hanshin Express
Holding Corporation f/n/a Hankyu Express International Co., Ltd.
and its subsidiary, Hankyu Hanshin Express Co., Ltd., and its U.S.
subsidiary, Hanshin Air Cargo USA, Inc. ("Hankyu Hanshin"); Japan
Aircargo Forwarders Association ("JAFA"); Kintetsu World Express,
Inc. and its U.S. subsidiary, Kintetsu World Express (U.S.A), Inc.
("Kintetsu"); "K" Line Logistics, Ltd., and its U.S. subsidiary
"K" Line Logistics (U.S.A.), Inc. (""K" Line"); MOL Logistics
(Japan) Co., Ltd., and its U.S. subsidiary MOL Logistics (USA)
Inc. ("MOL Logistics"); Nippon Express Co., Ltd. and its U.S.
subsidiary, Nippon Express USA, Inc. ("Nippon Express"); Nissin
Corporation and its U.S. subsidiary, Nissin International
Transport U.S.A., Inc. ("Nissin"); Yamato Global Logistics Japan
Co., Ltd., and its U.S. affiliate, Yamato Transport U.S.A. Inc.
("Yamato"); Yusen Air & Sea Service Co., Ltd. and its U.S.
subsidiary, Yusen Air & Sea Service (U.S.A.), Inc. ("Yusen").


SIRIUS XM: Sued for Alleged Unlawful Telephone Solicitations
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Parker, individually and on behalf of classes of similarly
situated individuals, v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case 8:15-cv-
01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2015), seeks to obtain redress
for all persons injured by Defendant's alleged unauthorized
telephone solicitation calls using an automatic telephone dialing
system, and to stop Defendant's alleged unlawful telephone
solicitation practices.

Defendant Sirius XM Radio, Inc. is a nationwide provider of a paid
subscription satellite radio service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David P. Healy, Esq.
     DUDLEY, SELLERS & HEALY PL
     SunTrust Financial Center
     3522 Thomasville Road, Suite 301
     Tallahassee, Florida 32300
     Tel: (850) 222-5400
     Fax: (850) 222-7339
     E-mail: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com


SONY PICTURES: Hacking Lawsuit Claims ID Theft to Ex-Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dominic Patten, writing for Deadline, reported that thousands of
dollars in unauthorized credit card charges, attempts to open
accounts under their names, and personal data showing up all over
the Internet are just a few of the claims that Michael Corona,
Christina Mathis and others are making in court documents.

The former Sony Pictures staff members are saying that some of the
things they were most afraid of happening as a result of the
massive hack that savaged the company have already happened. The
lawsuit comes less than a month after Sony failed in its attempt
to get the consolidated case tossed.

"Class members are at a heightened risk of credit card fraud,
financial identity fraud, medical identity fraud, social identity
fraud, and income tax fraud," noted a memorandum backing up the
eight plaintiffs' desire to get class action certification on
their case. "Not surprisingly, several of the plaintiffs have
already been victims of identity fraud. Ms. Bailey and Ms.
Archibeque were notified that their PII was available for purchase
on black market websites. An identity thief attempted to open a
PayPal credit card using Mr. Forster's PII. Plaintiff Shapiro was
notified by Chase that someone tried to make a large purchase
using his account, and discovered credit card accounts opened in
his name on his credit report. And an identity thief charged a
$3,845.50 purchase to Mr. Corona's credit card."

As they have before, the ex-employees lawyers slapped the blame
for the hack -- supposedly prompted by Sony's film The Interview -
- of November 24, 2015 and the fallout fully on Sony Pictures
Entertainment's shoulders. "SPE knew its data security was
inadequate. SPE and its sister companies experienced multiple
prior data breaches that exposed significant weaknesses in the
Sony companies' security measures, including the 2011 breach of
the Sony PlayStation Network that compromised information from
over 75 million customer accounts, and which experts attributed to
an unsophisticated method of hacking that would not have been
successful if the most basic security measures had been in place."


SOUTHERN PRODUCE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Sintia J. Castillo-Caceres aka Sinthia Castillo-Caceres, Carlos
Roberto Sanchez-Romero, and all others similarly-situated v.
Southern Produce Distributors, Inc., David Stewart Precythe, Kelly
Stewart Precythe, The Coastal Group, Inc. fka Coastal Temporary
Services, Inc., Southeast Farm and Agriculture, LLC, and Howard
Fisackerly, Case No. 7:15-cv-00149 (E.D.N.C., July 17, 2015),
seeks to recover back wages, an equal amount of liquidated
damages, statutory damages, attorney fees, and costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act and North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

Southern Produce Distributors, Inc. is a corporation that is
organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina, for the
purpose of, among others, producing, processing, packing, and/or
marketing peppers, sweet potatoes and other agricultural products
within and without North Carolina.  At all times relevant to this
action, David Stewart Precythe was and is the registered agent for
service of process on Southern.

The Coastal Group, Inc. formerly known as Coastal Temporary
Services Incorporated is and has been a corporation that is
organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina, for the
purpose of, among others, referring and supplying workers to
various agricultural and non-agricultural employers in and around
eastern North Carolina.  At all times relevant to this action, the
President of Coastal was Sandra L. Gore.

Southeast Farm and Agriculture, LLC is a corporation that is
organized under the laws of the state of North Carolina, for the
purpose of, among others, working with Coastal to refer and supply
workers to various agricultural and non-agricultural employers in
and around eastern North Carolina.

The defendant David Stewart Precythe has been and continues to be
a principal, part-owner, and co-operator of Southern's packing
house facilities in Faison, North Carolina. During that same time
period, upon information and belief, defendant David Stewart
Precythe has been and continues to be the President of Southern.

The defendant Kelley Stewart Precythe has been and continues to be
a principal, part-owner, and co-operator of Southern's packing
house facilities in Faison, North Carolina. During that same time
period, upon information and belief, defendant Kelley Stewart
Precythe has been and continues to be the Vice- President of
Southern.

The defendant Howard Fisackerly has been and continues to be a
day-to-day manager and co-operator of Southern's packing house
operations in Faison, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Willis, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
      P.O. Box 1269
      Raleigh, NC 27602
      Tel: (919) 821-9031
      Fax: (919) 821-1763
      E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


SPIRIT AIRLINES: Faces Suit Over Credit Card Info on Receipts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reported that
Miramar-based Spirit Airlines is facing two class action lawsuits
for allegedly printing more credit card information on customer
receipts than federal law allows.

The lawsuits claim the company violated the 2003 Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act, which aims to prevent identity theft by
forbidding companies from printing more than the last five digits
of a card number or its expiration date on a receipt.

Christopher W. Legg filed suit in U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and a similar suit filed by Joseph
Rosen in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
was transferred to U.S. District Judge James Cohn in Fort
Lauderdale on July 2. Both suits were filed last August.

Legg claims that when he paid a $45 baggage fee at a self-service
kiosk at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, his
receipt issued last Aug. 28 contained the first seven digits of
his credit card number as well as the last four.

Rosen's suit alleges a Spirit Airlines receipt he got at Chicago
O'Hare International Airport contained more than the last four
digits of his credit card number.

Spirit did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.
In its answer to Legg's complaint, the airline said it complied
with the credit transactions act and challenged Legg to produce
evidence that he used his personal credit card for the
transaction. Business credit cards are not protected under the
act.

"To date, although this case has been pending for more than 10
months and although Spirit has served three production requests,
plaintiff has produced only three sheets of paper," the company's
lawyers wrote in a July 6 motion to compel production of other
documents.

Spirit also asked Legg to provide documents explaining his
relationship with one of his lawyers, Scott D. Owens of Hollywood,
and details about other lawsuits in which Legg has been a
plaintiff. The company said it sought the documents because of
concerns that Legg might not be an adequate class representative.
Legg is listed as a plaintiff in at least two other federal
lawsuits in South Florida, including a credit transactions act
class action against Laboratory Corp. of America in which Owens is
representing him.

Legg is also an attorney in Hollywood. A message left with the Law
Office of Christopher W. Legg was not returned by deadline.
Spirit Airlines was also sued in 2010 for credit transactions act
violations. Jonas Seider filed a federal class action claiming his
receipt contained the first four and last four digits of his
credit card as well as the expiration date. The case settled
within two months.

On July 8, U.S. Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer in Fort
Lauderdale urged Legg and Spirit to confer again to solve
documentation issues. The parties have held one mediation session,
and they have another session planned with retired U.S. District
Judge Wayne R. Andersen of Chicago. Trial is set for Aug. 31.
In addition to Owens, Legg's attorneys are Michael Hilicki of
Keogh Law in Chicago and Patrick Crotty of the Law Office of Scott
D. Owens.

Spirit is represented by Akerman attorneys Christopher Carver,
Michael Mena and Valerie Greenberg in Miami; Jason Oletsky in Fort
Lauderdale; and Kasey Dunlap in Chicago.


SPORTS ENDURANCE: August 31 Claims Filing Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------
Attention purchasers of Sports Endurance, Inc. ("SENZ") stock
between June 2010 and December 2010 and FrogAds, Inc ("FROG")
stock between December 2011 and October 2012:

Charges have been filed against Regis Possino, Grover Henry Colin
Nix IV, Tarun Mendiratta, Edon Moyal, Mark Harris, Julian Spitari,
William Mackey, and Joseph Scarpello in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California for their alleged
involvement in a pump-and-dump scheme to manipulate artificially
the price and trading volume of certain stocks.  Sport Endurance
(ticker symbol "SENZ") and FrogAds (ticker symbol "FROG") were
traded on the Over the Counter Bulletin Board, an inter-dealer
electronic quotation and trading system.  The indictment charges
these defendants with, among other offenses, conspiracy,
securities fraud, and wire fraud.

If you lost money from the purchase or sale of Sport Endurance
stock from June 2010 and December 2010, or FrogAds stock from
December 2011, to October 2012, you may be entitled to restitution
from the defendants.  Additionally, if you were a victim of these
offenses, you may also submit information to the Court in
connection with sentencing for these defendants.  If you would
like to submit a claim for restitution, submit written information
to the Court in connection with the sentencing for any defendant,
or would otherwise like to receive notice of future developments
in the case, please contact Katherine Ferguson in the
Victim/Witness Unit at the United States Attorney's Office for the
Central District of California at telephone number 1-888-228-0315,
or write to the Victim Witness Unit at the United States
Attorney's Office at 312 North Spring Street, Suite 1700, Los
Angeles, CA 90012.  In order to submit a claim for restitution,
you will need to submit information to the Victim/Witness
Coordinator by no later than August 31, 2015.


ST JUDE: Faces "Solak" Suit in Cal. Over Proposed Thoratec Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. St. Jude Medical, Inc., et al., Case No. RG15779109 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 23, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Thoratec Corporation, to enjoin the Defendants
from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their pursuit of
a sale of Thoratec at an unfair price through an unfair process
that was tilted in favor of St. Jude Medical, Inc.

Thoratec Corporation is the worldwide leader in mechanical
circulatory support technology for the treatment of advanced hem1
failure, which includes ventricular assist devices ("VADs") that
are used for both chronic and acute patient support.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. develops, manufactures, and distributes
cardiovascular medical devices for the global cardiac rhythm
management, cardiovascular and atrial fibrillation therapy areas,
and interventional pain therapy and neuro stimulation devices for
the management of chronic pain and movement disorders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
      Edward B. Gerard, Esq.
      Justin D. Rieger, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              soddo@robbinsarroyo.com
              egerard@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrieger@robbinsarroyo.com


STAR NAIL: Faces "Padilla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Reinaldo Padilla, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Star Nail Prods, Inc., Case No. BC589045 (Cal. Super.
Ct., July 23, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Star Nail Prods, Inc. is a California corporation that
manufactures cosmetic products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Blvd
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


TEMPLETON RYE: Settles 3 Class Suits Over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------------------
Grant Rodgers, writing for The Des Moines Register, reported that
Iowa whiskey maker Templeton Rye has settled three class-action
lawsuits accusing the company of intentionally misleading imbibers
with claims about the homegrown origins of its spirit.

The settlement agreement requires the company to change labeling
on its bottles and the language on its website, according to an
update filed in Polk County District Court. The agreement also
requires Templeton Rye to set aside a cash pool that could be used
to refund customers who bought bottles of the whiskey.

Specific details about the settlement are not yet public, as the
document hasn't been filed in an Illinois chancery court where two
of the three lawsuits were filed. Templeton Rye co-founder Keith
Kerkhoff said he could not comment because the agreement hasn't
been approved by a judge.

Attorneys for Chicago resident Christopher McNair filed the first
lawsuit in September, seeking class-action status to represent
"all individuals in the United States who have purchased a bottle
of Templeton Rye." His lawsuit was followed by a second from
Chicago-area restaurant owner Mario Aliano and another from
attorneys for two Iowa residents seeking to represent a class of
only Iowa drinkers.

The plaintiffs' attorneys from three separate firms cooperated in
seeking a settlement.

All three lawsuits brought similar claims: That Templeton Rye
marketed its whiskey as "made in Iowa," when its recipe was
actually based on a stock spirit made in a Lawrenceburg, Ind.,
distillery. The lawsuits said the Carroll County company
intentionally deceived consumers by labeling their product as a
"small batch rye."

Templeton Rye's producers have argued the controversy amounts to a
misunderstanding about the company's production process. The
whiskey is not distilled following an exact Prohibition-era
recipe, but the company hired a Kentucky flavor engineering
company to develop a list of ingredients that replicates the taste
of a recipe passed down through the Kerkhoff family, the co-
founder has said.

Those ingredients are blended with the stock whiskey at the
Templeton distillery to create a unique product.

"Templeton Rye is very unique," Kerkhoff told the Register in
October. "To say it's a stock whiskey made in Indiana that goes
directly into the bottle is totally false. It couldn't be further
from the truth."

The company had already committed to changing its bottles'
packaging before the lawsuits were filed to include information
about the whiskey's Indiana origins. The Des Moines Register in
August published a story questioning whether the labels complied
with federal law that requires distillers to disclose such
information.

Attorneys for the two Illinois plaintiffs did not return a
Register reporter's phone calls. West Des Moines attorney Randy
Wilharber, one of the attorneys handling the Iowa lawsuit,
referred all questions to Templeton Rye.

The next step in the lawsuits will be getting a judge's approval
of the settlement agreement and getting class certification, a
move that will determine exactly how many people could be eligible
to receive refunds. The attorneys who filed each of the three
lawsuits will also be paid from the same pool, according to the
Polk County update.


TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Berkoff" Suit Over False Comparative Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Berkoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., Marshalls of CA, LLC, and
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-01475 (C.D. Cal.,
July 23, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' practice of using
deceptive comparative prices to trick its customers into
mistakenly believing they are saving specific and substantial
amounts on name brand items.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of so called "off-price"
department stores in California known as Marshalls stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg K. Hafif, Esq.
      Michael G. Dawson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF HERBERT HAFIF
      269 W. Bonita Avenue
      Claremont, CA 91711
      Telephone: (909) 624-1671
      Facsimile: (909) 625-7772
      E-mail: ghafif@hafif.com

         - and -

      Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
      DOUGLAS CAIAFA, A Professional Law Corporation
      11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (310) 444-5240
      Facsimile: (310) 312-8260
      E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
      77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G
      Palm Desert, CA 92211
      Telephone: (760) 469-5986
      Facsimile: (760) 345-1581
      E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com


TOTAL WEALTH: Removed "Calderon" Class Suit to  S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Albert Calderon, et al. v.
Total Wealth Management, Inc., et al., Case No. 37-02014-00015682,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Diego to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of California (San Diego). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01632-BAS-NLS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert personal injury-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Aguirre, Esq.
      AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP
      501 West Broadway, Suite 1050
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 876-5364
      Facsimile: (619) 876-5368
      E-mail: maguirre@amslawyers.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Lauren J. Katunich, Esq.
      LATHROP & GAGE
      1888 Century Park East, Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 789-4615
      Facsimile: (310) 789-4601
      E-mail: lkatunich@lathropgage.com


TRI-DIM FILTER: "Davies" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
--------------------------------------------------------
John Davies, and others similarly-situated v. Tri-Dim Filter
Corporation, Case No. 3:15-cv-00426 (E.D. Va., July 17, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Tri-Dim was founded in 1968, and for over 40 years has been a
leading manufacturer of HVAC filtration products, offering a full
range of HVAC products and services. Its principal office is in
Louisa, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip Justus Dean, Esq.
      CURWOOD LAW FIRM PLC
      530 East Main St., Ste. 710
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Tel: (804) 788-0808
      Fax: (804) 767-6777
      E-mail: pdean@curwoodlaw.com


TRUGREEN INC: Faces Lawsuit for Alleged TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Kasie Stevens-Bratton, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Trugreen, Inc., Case 2:15-cv-02472-SHL-tmp
(W.D. Tenn., July 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant made
telemarketing calls in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

TruGreen is a national lawn care service provider headquartered in
Memphis, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Gerard Stranch, Esq.
     Seamus T. Kelly, Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
     The Freedom Center
     223 Rosa L. Parks Blvd., Suite 200
     Nashville, TN 37203
     E-mail: gerards@bsjfirm.com
             seamusk@bsjfirm.com
     Tel: 615-254-8801
     Fax: 615-255-5419

          - and -

     Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
     FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
     369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 983-9330
     Fax: (212) 983-9331
     E-mail: agonnelli@faruqilaw.com

        - and -

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
     Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103-8869
     Tel: (206) 816-6603
     Fax: (206) 350-3528
     E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com
             jmurray@tmdwlaw.com
             mreiten@tmdwlaw.com


TUMI INC: "Pinedo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Elise Pinedo, and all others similarly-situated v. Tumi, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05520 (C.D. Cal., July 21, 2015), to recover
overtime compensation, unpaid wages, compensatory damages,
litigation expenses, expert witness fees, attorneys' fees, costs
of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, liquidated
damages, applicable penalties, all other available statutory
remedies, equitable remedies and injunctive relief under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California
Labor Code.

Tumi, Inc. is a foreign corporation that conducts business in the
State of California and has its corporate headquarters at South
Plainfield, New Jersey. Tumi was founded in 1975 and is a well-
known manufacturer of high-end suitcases and bags for travel. Tumi
is a publically traded corporation on the New York Stock Exchange
(NYSE: TUMI).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George P. Moschopoulos, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GEORGE MOSCHOPOULOS APC
      34197 Pacific Coast Highway Ste. 100
      Dana Point, CA 92629
      Tel: (714) 904-1669
      Fax: (949) 272-0428
      E-mail: g.moschopoulos.esq@gmail.com


UBER: Georgia Class Suit Targets "Rogue" Ride Shares
----------------------------------------------------
Aimee Sachs, writing for Courthouse News Service, repoted that
Uber and other ride-share companies are illegally operating as
"unlicensed rogue taxicabs" in the state of Georgia, a class
action filed by taxi medallion holders claims.

The named plaintiffs in the case are Dmitriy Abramyan, Abdilahi
Awale, Lenny Benuihis, Mohamed A. Hussein, and Dmity Mogilevich,
all of whom drive taxis in the Atlanta area.

In a complaint filed in Fulton County Superior Court, they
complain the state and the Georgia Department of Public Safety are
doing nothing to reign in a significant threat to their
livelihoods.

The plaintiffs say Uber, Lyft and other ride-share companies have
"flooded the Atlanta market with thousands of vehicles for hire
which charged customers metered fares based on distance and time,
the same criteria used for taxicab fares."

The plaintiffs each own a city-issued tax medallion license called
Certificate of Public Necessity and Convenience. The CPNC
medallions give the plaintiffs "exclusive rights to originate
metered fares within the corporate limits of the City of Atlanta
based on time and distance."

But in May, the state Legislature passed House Bill 225, which
will allow ride-share companies like Uber to operate an unlimited
amount of vehicles in Atlanta, ignoring the exclusivity of the
CPNCs.

"After the enactment of [HB 225] and its effective date," the
complaint says, "CPNC holders no longer have the exclusive right
to originate metered fares based on time and mileage within the
corporate limits of the City of Atlanta."

According to the complaint, lawmakers who sponsored the
legislation "stated that it was their desire to 'phase out' CPNCs
and make them worthless."

Furthermore, the bill's enactment "constitutes an unconstitutional
taking of vested property rights of Plaintiffs under the Georgia
Constitution which provides that "private property shall not be
taken or damaged for public purposes without just and adequate
compensation being first paid."

The plaintiffs are represented by Atlanta-based attorneys William
Pannell and Keith E. Fryer.

Representatives for Uber and Lyft could not immediately be reached
for comment.


UNIFIRST CORP: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Oregon Wage, Hour Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Beemer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. Unifirst Corporation, a Massachusetts Corporation,
Case 6:15-cv-01368-MC (D. Ore., July 22, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and statutory
penalties under Oregon Wage and Hour Laws.

UniFirst Corporation operates a uniform rental and janitorial
supply services company based in Wilmington, Massachusetts with
facilities throughout the United States, including Eugene, Oregon
and Portland, Oregon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alan J. Leiman, Esq.
     Oregon State Bar No.: 980746
     44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
     Eugene, OR 97401
     Tel: (541) 345-2376
     Fax: (541) 345-2377
     E-mail: alan@leimanlaw.com

        - and -

     Drew G. Johnson, Esq.
     44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
     Eugene, OR 97401
     Tel: (541) 345-2376
     Fax: (541) 345-2377
     E-mail: drew@leimanlaw.com

        - and -

     Stacy A. McKerlie, Esq.
     44 W. Broadway, Suite 326
     Eugene, OR 97401
     Tel: (541) 345-2376
     Fax: (541) 345-2377
     E-mail: stacy@leimanlaw.com


UNION PACIFIC: "Dorron" Suit Alleges Federal Rules Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Dorron, Estate of Lulu Bookman, Rodolfo C. Garza and Debbie
P. Harold, and all others similarly situated v. Union Pacific
Railroad Company, SFPP, L.P. fka Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc.,
Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D", and Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.,
Case No. 4:15-cv-02079 (S.D. Tex., July 17, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the defendant Union Pacific
lacks sufficient legal right or title in the subsurface of its
right-of-way to grant easements or to collect rents associated
with the occupancy of the subsurface, and SFPP, Kinder Morgan D,
Kinder Morgan GP lack sufficient legal right or title to occupy
the subsurface of the railroad's right-of-way. Plaintiffs also
seek to quiet title in the subsurface real property in Plaintiffs'
and the Class members' respective names, free and clear of any
claimed interest by Defendants.

Plaintiffs further seek an award of damages, restitution, and
disgorgement of benefits or profits received by Union Pacific and
for a constructive trust in favor of Plaintiffs to be placed upon
the benefits and proceeds received by the Defendants.

The Union Pacific Railroad is a Class I line haul freight railroad
that operates nearly 9,000 locomotives over 32,000 route-miles in
23 states in the western two-thirds of the United States.

Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline Partners, L.P., through SFPP, was
engaged in the transportation of refined petroleum products and
related services. As of March 6, 1998, Santa Fe Pacific Pipeline
is a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP.

Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D" operates as a subsidiary of
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.

Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. operates as a general partner for Kinder
Morgan Energy Partners LP, which owns and manages energy
transportation and storage assets in North America. The company
was formerly known as Enron Liquids Pipeline Company and changed
its name to Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc. in February, 1997. The
company was founded in 1966 and is based in Houston, Texas. Kinder
Morgan G.P., Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thane Tyler Sponsel, III, Esq.
      SPONSEL MILLER GREENBERG PLLC
      50 Briar Hollow Ln., Ste 370 West
      Houston, TX 77027
      Tel: (713) 892-5400
      Fax: (713) 892-5401
      E-mail: sponsel@smglawgroup.com

          - and -

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


UNITED STATES: "Kelley" Claims Severed from "Finch" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marian Blank Horn of the United States Court of Federal
Claims granted the parties' motion in the case CLIFFORD L. FINCH
et al., For Themselves as Representatives of a Class of Similarly
Situated Persons Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, NOS. 12-
92L, 12-9203L, 12-9204L (Fed. Cl.)

On November 21, 2014, the court issued an order instructing the
clerk of the court to enter a judgment of $2,020,120.06 in
principal and $294,000.00 for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. The court indicated
that, the plaintiffs would receive interest on the principal at a
3.75% interest rate, and compounding annually for the period
between November 19, 2010 and the date of payment. The court also
awarded class counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of
$820,140.36, or a 35% fee of the award, excluding statutory
attorneys' fees.

Defendant filed a notice of appeal of the court's decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but the
Federal Circuit issued a mandate dismissing defendant's appeal
after the defendant filed an unopposed motion to withdraw its
appeal. Within a week of the mandate, plaintiffs filed a motion to
enforce the judgment. Plaintiffs alleged that class counsel asked
current counsel for the government when the class members could
expect payment from the judgment fund. Based on counsel for the
government's response, it appears that, at best, the government
does not intend to make payment for another 9-11 weeks

In response, defendant argued that there has been no breach of any
term of the parties' settlement, nor has there been any undue
delay in the submission of the judgment for payment, and claims
that the judgment was not final and eligible for payment until
after the dismissal of the appeal.

In a May 13, 2015 order, the court indicated that there has not
been a breach of the settlement and further, there has not been an
undue delay in the submission of the judgment to the judgment
fund. The court ordered defendant to file a status report on May
20, 2015, and every other week thereafter, updating the plaintiffs
and the court of the progress defendant has made in submitting the
judgment to the judgment fund at the Department of the Treasury
for payment, and an estimated time frame for payment to the
plaintiffs. Defendant, however, has failed to file the five
required status reports, and has not offered an explanation for
why the status reports have not been filed.

The parties filed a joint motion to vacate and amend the November
24, 2014 judgment. The parties indicate in their motion that
because 3 of the 183 remaining plaintiffs have not provided social
security numbers or tax identification numbers, and the government
asserts that payment cannot be made until information is received
from all parties, the parties ask the court to enter separate
judgment. The parties ask that one amended judgment provide for
just compensation and full attorney's fees and costs to be payable
to the 181 responsive plaintiffs. The parties ask that two
additional judgments be entered for the Kelley plaintiffs and
Cindy Uhrich-Northcutt, which provide only for just compensation
awards payable to each of the remaining plaintiffs.

Judge Horn granted the parties' joint motion to vacate and amend
the November 24, 2014 judgment.  The claims associated with Estate
of Charlie & Betty Kelley and Kelley's Upholstery are severed from
the case of Clifford L. Finch, et al. v. United States, Case No.
12-92L, and shall be reorganized, for case management purposes,
into the case, Estate of Charlie & Betty Kelley, et al. v. United
States, and assigned Case No. 12-9203L.

The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment in the
amount of $6,977.04, plus interest at 3.75% compounded annually
for the period between November 19, 2010 and the date of payment,
for Estate of Charlie & Betty Kelley and $12,196.80 plus interest
at 3.75% compounded annually for the period between November 19,
2010 and the date of payment, for Kelley's Upholstery.

Moreover, the claims associated with Cindy Uhrich-Northcutt are,
severed from the case of Clifford L. Finch, et al. v. United
States, Case No. 12-92L, and shall be reorganized, for case
management purposes, into the case, Cindy Uhrich-Northcutt v.
United States, and assigned Case No. 12-9204L. The Clerk of the
Court shall enter judment in the amount of $4,275.00, plus
interest at 3.75% compounded annually for the period between
November 19, 2010 and the date of payment.

For the remaining 181 plaintiffs in the case of Clifford L. Finch,
et al. v. United States, Case No. 12-92L, the Clerk of the Court
shall enter judgment in the following amounts: $1,996,671.22 in
principal and $294,000.00 for reimbursement of attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Additionally, the
remaining 181 plaintiffs shall receive interest on the principal
at a 3.75% interest rate, and compounding annually for the period
between November 19, 2010 and the date of payment. Class counsel
is awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $820,140.36, or a 35%
fee of the award, excluding statutory attorneys' fees.

A copy of Judge Horn's order dated July 24, 2015, is available at
http://goo.gl/SPggvRfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Steven Mathew Wald -- Wald@swm.legal --
at Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC

USA, Defendant, represented by Kristine Sears Tardiff, U. S.
Department of Justice


US BANCORP: Fails to Pay Branch Managers OT, "Barker" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Barker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. U.S. Bancorp, Case No. 3:15-cv-01641-CAB-WVG
(S.D. Cal., July 23, 2015), seeks redress for the Defendant's
misclassification of Branch Managers as employees exempt from
overtime pay, resulting in a systematic and class-wide failure to
pay for training hours, minimum wages and overtime pay.

U.S. Bancorp operates U.S. Bank throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Travis Jang-Busby, Esq.
      SAN DIEGO COUNTY LAW OFFICES
      2173 Salk Ave., Suite 250
      Carlsbad, CA 92008
      Telephone: (760) 206-3566
      Facsimile: (760) 888-3575
      E-mail: tjbusby@sdlawoffices.com

         - and -

      Alisa A. Martin, Esq.
      AMARTIN LAW, PC
      600 West Broadway, Suite 700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 308-6880
      Facsimile: (619) 308-6881
      E-mail: alias@amartinlaw.com


USPLABS LLC: C.D. Cal. Judge Remands Suit to State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Manuel L. Real of the Central District of
California granted plaintiffs' motion to remand in the case ISSAM
TNAIMOU, et al., Plaintiffs, v. USPLABS, LLC, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. CV 15-3276-R (C.D. Cal.)

The action is one of sixteen cases that were joined into a
California state court coordinated proceeding in Los Angeles
County Superior Court, In re JCCP 4808, USPlabs Dietary Supplement
Cases (JCCP). Plaintiffs' Petition for Coordination was made on
the ground that the actions, with roughly 129 separate plaintiffs,
share common questions of law and fact, and are eligible for
coordination under California Code of Civil Procedure section 404.

After plaintiffs requested coordination within the JCCP,
defendants subsequently removed the action on April 30, 2015,
pursuant to the mass action provisions of the Class Action
Fairness Act, Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(11). Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking to remand the case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

Judge Real granted plaintiffs' motion to remand and defendants'
motion to dismiss is deemed moot.

A copy of Judge Real's order dated July 23, 2015, is available at
http://goo.gl/QwhMjQfrom Leagle.com.

Issam Tnaimou, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews &
Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez,
Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton

Benita Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews
& Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez,
Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton

Marcel Macy, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews &
Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez,
Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton.
Joseph Worley, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews &
Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez,
Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton

Joanne Zgrzepski, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews
& Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton, Michael C Valdez,
Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton

Caron Jones, on behalf of Joshua Jones on behalf of The Estate of
James Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Anne Andrews, Andrews &
Thornton, John C Thornton, Andrews & Thornton,Michael C Valdez,
Andrew and Thornton & Sean Thomas Higgins, Andrews and Thornton

USPLabs, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen
O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor

Jonathan Vincent Doyle, an individual, Defendant, represented by
Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen
O'Connor

Jacob Geissler, an individual also known as Jacobo Geissler,
Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett
Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor

USPLabs Oxyelite, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer,
Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor

USPLABS Oxyelite PN, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy B
Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor

GNC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer, Cozen
O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor

Vitamin Shoppe Industries Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy B
Alderfer, Cozen O'Connor &Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor

The Vitamin Shoppe, Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer,
Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor

Vitamin World, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amy B Alderfer,
Cozen O'Connor & Brett Nicole Taylor, Cozen O'Connor

S.K. Laboratories, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew L
Marshall, Morris Polich and Purdy LLP & Peter J Lucca, Jr, Morris
Polich and Purdy LLP

Vita-Tech International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kathleen
Anne Stricklin, Walsworth, Franklin, Bevins & McCall, LLP, Lisa M
Rice, WFBM LLP & Nathan C Yu, WFBM LLP


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Class Suit Over Gay Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Neal Broverman, writing for Advocate.com, reported that GLAD is
teaming with the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
and Urban Affairs on the suit, which includes an unnamed number of
Walmart employees. One of the plaintiffs is Jaqueline Cote, a
Massachusetts Walmart employee who was denied the ability to put
her female spouse, Diana Smithson, on her medical plan --
Walmart's rules meant that the couple was hit with a $150,000
medical bill when Smithson developed cancer.

"It is the first class action filed on behalf of gay and lesbian
workers since the Supreme Court ruled in favor of marriage
equality in Obergefell v. Hodges in June," according to a
statement from GLAD.

The lawsuit is a setback for Walmart, which has a reputation as a
company unfriendly to LGBT employees but been working to appear
more accepting. The Arkansas-based company recently scored a 90
out of 100 on HRC's Corporate Equality Index.

"We are committed to fostering an inclusive work environment for
our more than 2 million associates around the world," Walmart
spokesman Kevin Gardner told Bloomberg. And when employees at a
Las Vegas Walmart refused to decorate a cake with the word "gay"
on it, the corporate offices said the local store's policy was
wrong.


WYNDHAM RESORT: Removed "McGrath" Class Suit to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Michelle Renee McGrath, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wyndham
Resort Development Corporation, Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc.,
Wyndham Worldwide Operations, Inc., and Does 1-10 Inclusive, Case
No. 37-02015-00019959-CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the Superior
Court, San Diego County, Central Division to the U.S. District
Court Southern District of California (San Diego). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01631-JM-KSC to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Geraci, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-3000
      E-mail: jgeraci@ckslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Sabrina Layne Shadi, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025-7120
      Telephone: (310) 820-8800
      Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
      E-mail: sshadi@bakerlaw.com


* 11th Circuit Restores Class Suit Over Rotting Wood
----------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reported that despite a
prohibition on private class actions under Alabama state consumer-
protection law, a federal appeals court said a proposed class
action alleging that a lumber company broke that law by selling
prematurely rotting wood can proceed.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on unanimously reversed a
lower court and reinstated the lawsuit brought by attorneys from
Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's
fractured 4-1-4 ruling in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v.
Allstate Insurance. As in Shady Grove, the 11th Circuit held that
the state law in question was trumped by Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, which authorizes federal class actions.


                            *********

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  * * *