CAR_Public/150818.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, August 18, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 164


                            Headlines


240 DECATUR: "Sturm" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
809 LEX: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
A B C DRYWALL: Sued for Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
ABC INC: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ADVANCED DATA: Faces "Weinberg" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Suit Alleges Federal Securities Law Violation
ADVANCED SPORTS: Recalls Breezer Bicycles Due to Crash Hazard
AIRMEDIA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ALL PRO HOME: "Bejarano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AMBIENT WEATHER: Recalls Weather Radios Due to Fire Hazard

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Ates" Suit Asserts Plane Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Connelly" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN NUCLEAR: Ruling Narrows Ability to Foreclose Coverage
AMERICAN SPORTWORKS: Recalls Off Road Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
ATLANTIC POWER: Ontario Court Denies Certification Bid

ATLANTIC POWER: Securities Suits Rulings Trend Protects Issuers
BANK OF AMERICA: Utah AG Revives Suit Over Foreclosure Practices
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Pension Fund Sues Over Antitrust Violation
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rutgers Sues Over Treasury Sec. Manipulation
BARCLAYS BANK: "Hale" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations

BEST CARE: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BIG BANG: Faces "Alvarado" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
BIG LOTS: Faces Class Suit Over Background Check Breach
BILT PETROLEUM: "Mudun Kotuwage" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BLUE CROSS: Surgical Centers File Overcharging Suit

C.C. FORBES: "Keppard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CANADA: $600MM Class Suit for Abused Mentally Ill Prisoners Filed
CAREERBUILDER: Judge Sacks Class Suit Over OT Pay
CARTER HOLT: Plaster Cladding Class Suit Not Time Bound
CELLADON CORP: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit

CHEVRON: Judge Dismissed $5 Billion Suit Over Oil Rig Fire
CHILDREN'S NAT'L MEDICAL: Faces Potential Data Breach Class Suit
CHIPOTLE: Sued by Colorado Workers Over Unfair Pay
CHRYSLER CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Car Financing Interest Rate
CLIFTON ADULT: Faces FLSA Suit Seeking Wage, OT Payment

COMENITY BANK: Faces "Pritchard" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Sued Over Illegal Credit Report Inquiries
CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Doesn't Pay Workers for Overtime
CREDICO LLC: "Vasto" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Sued by Unitholders Over Merger

CRUZMAN RUM: Faces Class Suit Over Rum Operations Violations
CVS PHARMACY: Overcharged Customers for Generic Drugs, Suit Claims
DANIEL BOULUD: Workers Settle Class Suit for $1.4-Mil.
DEL MONTE: Judge Declines to Certify "Kosta" Mislabeling Case
DLUGOSCH IV: Faces "Losoya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DOXAS INC: "Bowen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ESURANCE INSURANCE: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Transfers
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Rodriquez" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
FIRST TOWER: Mississippi Woman Files TCPA Class Suit
FLAGSHIP SHELL: Removes "Armenteros" Class Suit to S.D. Florida

FLOWERS BY ZOE: Recalls Girls Hoodies and Jackets
FOODWORKS SOLUTIONS: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FREEDOM FRESH: "Quesada" Suit Seeks Payment for OT Under FLSA
GARDA SECURITY: "Tanza" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violations
JENA FOODS: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

GREEN MOUNTAIN: Must Face Securities Fraud Suit, 2nd Circ. Says
GROUP HEALTH: Denied Mental Health Coverage, Psychotherapist Says
HIGHGATE HOTELS: "Henkel" Suit Claims FLSA, Penn. Wage Law Breach
IDI INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
IDI INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit

ILLINOIS TOOL: Sued in Ill. For Damages Caused by Washer Fluid
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Wins Bid To Halt $867.5-Mil. Settlement
INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
INTERNATIONAL DELIGHT: Faces "Arias-Hernandez" FLSA Suit
INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Set in Securities Litigation

INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 25 Plaintiffs Added to Product Liability Suit
JC PENNEY: Sued Over 2013 Building Collapse
J.M. MATTRESS: Recalls Mattress Products Due to Fire Hazard
JYMD FOOD: "Calderon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KABIRHU ASSOCIATES: "Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Accrued $7.2MM of Settlement Related Costs
KOHL'S CORP: Calif. Suits Challenge Discount Pricing Practices
LANDAMERICA: Pays $5MM in Class Suit Against Former Execs
LEE COUNTY, FL: Deputies' Suit Over OT Pay Certified
LEXINGTON LAW: "Hale" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

LIFELOCK INC: Briscoe, Powers Taylor File Securities Class Suit
LIFELOCK INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
LIFELOCK INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Cop Sues Over Termination, Race Discrimination
LOS ARRIEROS: Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Payment Under FLSA, OMFWSA

LUMBER ONE: 11th Circ. Reinstates Class Suit
MAID FOR CHICAGO: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
MENZIES AVIATION: Removes "Wright" Class Suit to C.D. California
MERIDIAN: Trustees Accused of Failing Basic Loan Checks

MIDLAND CREDIT: Removes "Martin" Class Suit to E.D. New York
MOMOYAMA INC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MYLAN NV: Faces Class Suit Over Misuse of Dutch Foundation
NATURE'S VALUE: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Circ. Validates Data Breach Class Suit

NEW YORK: Settles $27,500 Class Suit
NIKE: Agreed to Pay $25 to Settle FuelBand Class Suit
NUCOR CORP: 4th Circ. Gives Boost to Class Discrimination Claims
OLD NATIONAL BANK: Court Rejects Appeal in Class Suit
OM SUBWAY: Faces "Morman" Suit for Alleged Violation of FLSA

ON DECK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Registration Statement
PAE GROUP: Labor Action Belongs in Superior Court, 9th Cir. Says
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Set New Trial Date in Class Action
PALL CORPORATION: Defendants Entered Into MOU
PANERA BREAD: Faces Class Action by Jason Lofstedt

PATH MEDICAL: "Marin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
PHARMAKON SOLUTIONS: Faces "Mauthe" Suit Over TCPA Violation
PIZZA HUT: Franchisees Launch Class Suit Over Price War
PRECISION ELECTRIC: Faces Suit Seeking Benefits Under ERISA
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Can Arbitrate Class Claim, Judge Says

PW STEPHENS: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RELIABLE MANAGEMENT: "Sorto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Professor Urges Rejection of Class Deal
RIVERCITY MOTOR: Has $1.68BB Class Suit Settlement
ROBERT HALF: Settles with Recruiter to Avoid Class Suit

ROCK FARMS: "Liles" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ROGER WUGHALTER: Faces "Aracena" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
SEI INVESTMENTS: Filed Motion for Reconsideration
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
SONY: Lawyers in Disk Drive Class Suit Gets $13-Mil.

SPECTRANETICS CORP: Guidance Cut Prompts Class Suit
STANCORP FINANCIAL: $5-Bil. Merger Attracts Class Suit
STANDEX INT'L: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
STYLES FOR LESS: Faces "Mehrazar-Arzani" Suit Over TCPA Breach
SUNDAY BEST: "Arias" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

TOP HANDS: "Frisco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
TRACTOR SUPPLY: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TREMCO INC: Sued in W.D. Pa. Over Defective Roofing Products
TRIO EQUIP: Faces "Bourne" Suit Alleging Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Limits Discovery in "Cohen" RICO Suit

TWC ADMINISTRATION: "Pulse" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
UBER: Toronto Cab Drivers' Class Suit Stops Operation
UCLA HEALTH: Data Breach Suit Caution For Connecticut Hospitals
UNITED STATES: Calif. Judge Orders Release of Illegal Immigrants
UNITED STATES: Illegally Uses Private Properties, Action Claims

UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Hobbs" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
USHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Fitzhenry" Suit Over TCPA Violation
V&J SUSHI: Faces Mislabeling Suit Over "White Tuna"
VENUS LABORATORIES: Falsely Marketed Cleaning Products, Suit Says
VISA INC: Settlement at Risk Over Emails from Lawyers

VOLVO CARS: 3rd Circuit Clarifies Article III Standing
VOLVO CARS: Class Status of Sunroof Case Overtuned
WALGREENS BOOTS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on November 6
WALGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Complaint Due Oct. 16
WD-40 COMPANY: Superior Court Dismissed Action by David Wolf

WHITE JACOBS: Faces "Fustos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
YUM! BRANDS: Oral Argument Held in C.D. Cal. Class Action
YUM! BRANDS: Expert Discovery Continuing in Taco Bell Wage Suit
YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Continues on "Rodriguez" Remaining Claims

* House Bill Seeks Further Limits on Class Action Suits



                            *********


240 DECATUR: "Sturm" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Sturm and Jacob Hays, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. 240 Decatur Street, LLC and Jude
Marullo, Case No. 2:15-cv-03242 (E.D. La., August 4, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New Orleans,
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION, LLC
      639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 308-1438
      Facsimile: (504) 308-1430
      E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


809 LEX: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anselmo Alvarez, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. 809 Lex Grocery, Inc., Sunshine Flower
Factory, Inc., Chin Suk Pak, and Chin Suk Yim, Case No. 1:15-cv-
06122 (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages on violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate two supermarkets located at 809 and
803 Lexington Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 884-0935
      Facsimile: (212) 224-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


A B C DRYWALL: Sued for Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Euliser Manuel-Noriega, and other similarly situated individuals,
v. A B C Drywall, Corporation, Gilles Vendette, individually,
Micheline Sullican, individually, and Michael J. Sullivan,
individually, Case 1:15-cv-22752-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 23, 2015),
seeks damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs
for unpaid wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005


ABC INC: "Walker" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shanettie Walker, and all persons similarly situated v. Carl
Anthony, Ingrid Beckles, and ABC Inc. 1-10, d/b/a Club Lexx, Case
No. 1:15-cv-22914-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate an adult entertainment club called
Club Lexx located at 12001 NW 27th Ave, Miami, FL 33167.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael N. Hanna, Esq.
      MORGAN AND MORGAN
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: Mhanna@forthepeople.com


ADVANCED DATA: Faces "Weinberg" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yehonatan Weinberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Advanced Data Processing, Inc. and
Intermedix Corp., Case No. 0:15-cv-61598-BB (S.D. Fla., August 4,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to safeguard
the sensitive personal information of potentially millions of
emergency medical service patients, including their names, dates
of birth, Social Security numbers, dates of medical services,
health insurance information, and other protected health
information.

The Defendants are one of the largest healthcare payment and
billing processers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmund A. Normand, Esq.
      EDMUND A. NORMAND PLLC
      4381 New Broad Street
      Orlando, FL 32814
      Telephone: (407) 625.9043
      E-mail: ed@ednormand.com
         - and -

      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com
              bthomassen@edelson.com


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Suit Alleges Federal Securities Law Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Wyche, and all others similarly-situated v. Advanced
Drainage Systems, Inc., Joseph A. Chlapaty, and Mark B. Sturgeon,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05955 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015), seeks to recover
compensable damages caused by the Defendants' violations of
federal securities law and to pursue remedies under asserting
claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Advanced Drainage
Systems securities between September 5, 2014 and July 14, 2015,
inclusive.

Advanced Drainage Systems is a manufacturer of high performance
thermoplastic corrugated pipe, providing a comprehensive suite of
water management products and superior drainage solutions for use
in the construction and infrastructure marketplace. It is
headquartered in Hilliard, Ohio.

Joseph A. Chlapaty has served as the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer at all relevant times.

Mark B. Sturgeon has served as the Company's Executive Vice
President, Chief Financial Officer, Secretary and Treasurer at all
relevant times.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.
      350 5th Avenue, Suite 5508
      New York, NY 10118
      Tel: (212) 686-1060
      Fax: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com


ADVANCED SPORTS: Recalls Breezer Bicycles Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Advanced Sports International, announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,700 Breezer Downtown Bicycles. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The bicycle pedal can separate from the spindle (axle) during use
and cause the rider to lose control, posing a crash hazard.

This recall involves Breezer Bicycles models Downtown 3, Downtown
3-ST, Downtown 8, Downtown 8-ST, Downtown EX and Downtown EX-ST.
The main frame is made of steel and has either a single or dual
water bottle mount, and the wheel sets are aluminum. The bicycles
come in eight different sizes and a variety of gloss colors,
including candy apple, chartreuse, chocolate, dark blue, dark
green, shale and slate. The model is printed on the top tube of
the bicycle.

The firm has received 12 reports of pedals separating from the
spindle. No injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
authorized Breezer Bicycles dealers nationwide from July 2014
through May 2015 for about $450 to $650.

Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles and return
then to a Breezer dealer for a free pedal replacement.


AIRMEDIA GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
AirMedia Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:AMCN) American Depositary Receipts
("ADRs") from April 15, 2015 through June 15, 2015, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for AirMedia investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the AirMedia class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-593.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

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

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-593.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

The firm may be reached at:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com


ALL PRO HOME: "Bejarano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Bejarano, and all others similarly-situated v. All Pro
Home and Health Care Service, Inc., aka Mohegan Park Home for
Adults, aka New Rochelle Home for Adults, aka 41 Lockwood Realty
Corp., aka Marquis Home Care, LLC, Israel Orzel and Christencher
Semple, Case No. 1:15-cv-05906 (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
penalties, interests, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a residential home for adults under
the laws of the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Building 2, Suite 220
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Tel: (201) 687-9977
      Fax: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


AMBIENT WEATHER: Recalls Weather Radios Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ambient Weather, of Chandler, Ariz., announced a voluntary recall
of about 12,500 Ambient Weather radios. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The weather radio's AC power adapter can overheat, posing a fire
hazard.

This recall involves Ambient Weather radios. The weather radios
are red and black and measure about 8 inches wide by 4 inches tall
by 2 inches deep.  "Ambient Weather," "AM/FM/Weather Band Radio"
and "NOAA Weather Radio" are printed in white lettering on the
front of the radio. The radios have a black crank handle on the
back, an antenna on the top, a single LED flashlight on the left
side, a clip on the right side and a cable to charge a smart
phone. Model number WR-334-U or WR-334A-U is printed in the
owner's manual.  The AC power adapter is black and has a rounded
back. Model number YHD0500500U is printed on a white sticker on
the adapter.

The firm has received three reports of fire and smoke in the back
battery area of the weather radios.  No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/KXKm9D

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
online at AmbientWeather.com and Amazon.com from November 2012
through December 2013 for about $60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled weather
radios and contact Ambient Weather for a free replacement AC power
adapter.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Ates" Suit Asserts Plane Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula A. Ates, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines, Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-03228-NJB-MBN (E.D. La., August 4, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices of passenger airline
tickets through a number of means including colluding to limit
seat capacity and signaling other airlines on how quickly they
would add new flights, routes and extra seats in order to limit
the capacity of passenger airline travel in the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Becnel Jr., Esq.
      Jennifer L. Crose, Esq.
      Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
      BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
      106 W. Seventh St., P.O. Drawer H
      Reserve, LA 70084
      Telephone: (985) 536-1186
      E-mail: dbecnel@becnellaw.com
              jcrose@becnellaw.com
              mattmoreland@cox.net


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Connelly" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Connelly, Christopher Falconetti and Juduh Michael, on
behalf of themselves 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-04559 (E.D.N.Y., August 4,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize
prices of passenger airline tickets through a number of means
including colluding to limit seat capacity and signaling other
airlines on how quickly they would add new flights, routes and
extra seats in order to limit the capacity of passenger airline
travel in the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
      Michael A. Rose, Esq.
      John A. Blyth, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 213-8311
      Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
      E-mail: FSchirripa@hrsclaw.com
              MRose@hrsclaw.com
              JBlyth@hrsclaw.com


AMERICAN NUCLEAR: Ruling Narrows Ability to Foreclose Coverage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine J. Henry, Esq. -- khenry@babc.com -- at Bradley Arant
Boult Cummings, LLP, wrote that insurance policies typically
include a cooperation clause, which requires the insured to
cooperate with the insurer in the defense of a covered claim.
Insurers routinely use this clause as a sword against their
insureds by arguing that some alleged failure by the insured
violates the clause and voids valuable coverage.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court put a tight lid on that strategy in
a ruling decided July 21. In Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. American
Nuclear Insurers et al., No. 2 WAP 2014 (July 21, 2015), the court
held that the company's insurers could not avoid coverage for an
$80 million class action settlement of radiation exposure claims
to which the insurers had not consented.

The insurers had agreed to defend the insureds against the class-
action claims, but challenged coverage to certain aspects of the
underlying claims, and defended subject to a reservation of
rights. When Babcock & Wilcox had an opportunity to settle the
class action, the insurers refused, and sent the insured a letter
reserving their right to disclaim coverage because the insured
pressed the insurers to settle the underlying claims. The insurers
contended that these settlement demands breached the duty to
cooperate in the policy. In contrast, Babcock & Wilcox, arguably
in the best position to evaluate settlement, contended that the
settlement offers were reasonable, and without the insurers'
consent, settled the class action claims for a total of $80
million, well below the $320 million in available coverage.

After the settlement, the insurers refused to reimburse Babcock &
Wilcox for the settlement, again citing the cooperation clause.
The insurers claimed that they had the absolute right to control
settlement, and that they did not have a duty to fund the
settlement unless Babcock & Wilcox could show that the insurers
acted in bad faith by refusing to settle the claims. The insured
argued that it need only prove that the settlement was fair and
reasonable because the insured was seeking coverage within the
policy limits.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the insurers' bad faith
standard and instead applied a fair and reasonable standard. If
the settlement was fair and reasonable - and settled a covered
claim -- the insurer must pay the amount of the settlement when
the insurer is defending the claim subject to a reservation of
rights and has refused to consent to a settlement. Determination
of "fair and reasonable" requires consideration of the settlement
terms, the strength of the insured's defense against the
underlying claims, and where there is any evidence of fraud or
collusion by the insured. Because a jury had already determined
the settlement was fair and reasonable, the court required the
insurers to reimburse Babcock & Wilcox for the $80 million
settlement.

Notably, courts (including Pennsylvania courts) often apply a bad-
faith standard to insureds' claims for settlements and verdicts
above policy limits. Thus, when an insurer refuses to settle a
claim within policy limits, and that claim is ultimately a covered
claim, and the insured is exposed to a verdict or settlement above
policy limits, courts require the insurer to pay the full amount
of the settlement even though more than the policy limits, if the
insured can show that the insurer acted in bad faith. In this
case, the insurers attempted to use that higher bad-faith standard
for settlements above policy limits to a settlement below policy
limits. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court was not persuaded, and
recognized the difference between the two situations.

Insureds should take note when presented with settlement
opportunities. If an insurer is defending under a reservation of
rights but refuses to settle a covered claim, the insured may be
able to settle the claim over the insurer's objection without
forfeiting coverage under the cooperation clause. Insureds should
check the governing state law if faced with such a situation, and
should be prepared to document the fairness and reasonableness of
any settlement within policy limits.


AMERICAN SPORTWORKS: Recalls Off Road Vehicles Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
American SportWorks, of Roseland, La., announced a voluntary
recall of about 3,500 Off Road Utility Vehicles. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The throttle can fail to return to idle causing the rider to lose
control, posing a risk of injury.

This recall includes six models of American SportWorks Four Wheel
Off-Road Utility Vehicles. The name of each model is located above
each front fender and along the sides of the dump bed. Affected
vehicles include:

BullDog 300, ChuckWagon 300 and LandMaster 300 all powered by
Kohler 277cc engines with the last 6 Characters of the product
identification number between A11746 and A13294, and LandMaster
400, TrailWagon 400 and ChuckWagon 400 all powered by Honda 390cc
engines with the last 6 Characters of the product identification
number between A24835 and A26806. The product identification
numbers can be found on a sticker on the firewall above the
accelerator and brake pedal.

  Model                Color
  -----                -----
  LandMaster 300       Red, Green, Black, White, Camo
  LandMaster 400       Red, Green, Black, White, Camo
  BullDog 300          Red
  Trail Wagon 400      Red, Camo
  Chuck Wagon 300      Red, Green, Camo
  Chuck Wagon 300      Red, Green, Camo

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/YnbsE5

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Atwood Distributing, Rural King, The Home Depot, Tractor Supply
Company and other dealers from September 2014 through June 2015
for between $4,300 and $5,300.


ATLANTIC POWER: Ontario Court Denies Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation ("Atlantic Power" or the "Company")
announced further progress in strengthening its balance sheet and
lowering its risk profile.

The Company completed the redemption of its outstanding $310.9
million principal amount of 9.0 percent Senior Unsecured Notes due
November 2018.  The Notes were redeemed at a price equal to 104.50
percent of the principal amount, plus accrued interest to the
redemption date, for a total amount of $330.4 million.  The
Company used the cash proceeds from the recently completed sale of
its wind generation portfolio to fund the redemption.  Expenses
associated with the redemption totaling approximately $19.5
million will be recorded in the Company's financial results in the
third quarter of 2015.

Pro forma for the redemption of the Senior Unsecured Notes, the
Company's consolidated debt is now approximately $1.1 billion.
This has been reduced approximately $726 million on a net basis
since year end 2013, including $249 million of project debt that
was assumed by the buyer of the Company's wind generation
portfolio.  In addition, since year end 2013, the Company has
reduced its share of equity-owned project debt by approximately
$76 million, most of which was associated with the sale of the
wind generation portfolio.

"The redemption of our most expensive debt is the latest step in
our commitment to strengthen our financial position by reducing
costs and reducing leverage.  This action also improves our
medium-term maturity profile.  Over the past six quarters, we have
reduced our total debt on a net basis by approximately $800
million.  We also continue to amortize our term loan and project-
level debt over time, and expect that to further strengthen our
balance sheet," said James J. Moore, Jr., President and Chief
Executive Officer of Atlantic Power.

Following the redemption, the Company's remaining corporate debt
consists of $305 million (U.S. dollar equivalent) of convertible
debentures, which mature in 2017 and 2019.  The Company continues
to explore opportunities to reshape these maturities with a goal
of further improving its credit profile.

Separately, Atlantic Power announced that the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice issued a decision on July 24, 2015 denying the
plaintiffs' motion for leave and certification in the proposed
securities class action originally filed in March 2013 against
Atlantic Power, a current officer, and a former officer and
director.  The Superior Court concluded that there were no
misrepresentations or failures to disclose a material change by
the defendants, and that there is no reasonable possibility that
the plaintiffs would succeed at trial.

The Superior Court also determined that although the two
plaintiffs had sought to include convertible debenture holders in
the proposed class action, neither plaintiff was a debenture
holder and  could not act as a representative plaintiff for them.
The Superior Court granted leave to reconstitute a claim for
debenture holders provided that the claim be amended and that
there be a debenture holder as plaintiff.  In addition, the
Superior Court ruled that if debenture holders were to proceed
with an action, they would be required to reimburse the defendants
on a partial indemnity basis for their costs of responding to the
motion if the defendants were successful.  The plaintiffs have not
advised whether they intend to appeal the decision.

In March, the Company's motion to dismiss the U.S. securities
class action suit was granted by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.  In April, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit.  Briefs in the appeal are scheduled to be filed in August
and September.

Mr. Moore added, "We are very pleased with the decision of the
Ontario court denying the plaintiffs' motion for leave and
certification.  This result follows the dismissal of the U.S.
action by the District Court earlier.  That ruling has been
appealed.  We will continue to vigorously defend the Company's
actions in the appeals process."

                     About Atlantic Power

Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power
generation assets in the United States and Canada.  The Company's
power generation projects sell electricity to utilities and other
large commercial customers largely under long-term power purchase
agreements, which seek to minimize exposure to changes in
commodity prices.  Atlantic Power's power generation projects in
operation have an aggregate gross electric generation capacity of
approximately 2,137 megawatts ("MW") in which its aggregate
ownership interest is approximately 1,502 MW.  The Company's
current portfolio consists of interests in twenty-three
operational power generation projects across nine states in the
United States and two provinces in Canada.

Atlantic Power trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
symbol AT and on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol ATP.
For more information, please visit the Company's website at
www.atlanticpower.com or contact:

         Amanda Wagemaker
         Investor Relations
         Tel: (617) 977-2700
         Email: info@atlanticpower.com


ATLANTIC POWER: Securities Suits Rulings Trend Protects Issuers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Gelowitz, Esq. -- mgelowitz@osler.com -- Allan Coleman, Esq.
-- acoleman@osler.com -- and Robert Carson, Esq. --
rcarson@osler.com -- at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article
for Lexology, reported that a series of recent decisions has given
issuers, directors, officers and other capital market participants
reason for optimism that the leave requirement in secondary market
securities class actions can fulfil its initial promise of
screening clearly unmeritorious claims.

The leave requirement requires a plaintiff seeking to proceed
under the right of action in Part XXIII.1 of the Ontario
Securities Act to establish that the action is brought in good
faith and that there is a reasonable possibility that the action
will be resolved at trial in favour of the plaintiff.  The Ontario
Court of Appeal's decision in Bayens v. Kinross and the Supreme
Court of Canada's decision in Theratechnologies show that courts
are undertaking a reasoned consideration of the evidence at the
leave stage -- and are prepared to find in appropriate cases that
there is no reasonable possibility of success.

In Coffin v. Atlantic Power Corp., Justice Belobaba similarly
concluded that the plaintiffs' action had no reasonable
possibility of success, as he found that Atlantic Power had made
no misrepresentations, whether by positive assertion or omission.
Atlantic Power is a good example of the type of case in which
opposing a leave application with a substantial evidentiary record
can be effective. Justice Belobaba stated that the defendants had
filed "a massive amount of non-public (indeed court-sealed)
internal and corporate narrative evidence to fully rebut the
plaintiffs' allegations and show they have no reasonable
possibility of succeeding at trial."

Justice Belobaba also declined to certify the parallel common law
claims, which rested on the same evidentiary foundation as the
statutory claims and therefore also had no reasonable possibility
of success. He concluded: "Encumbering the parties and the courts
with a complex class action that is destined to fail promotes
neither judicial economy nor access to justice. Therefore, a class
action is not a preferable procedure."

These recent decisions are encouraging and give reason to believe
that the protections in Part XXIII.1, including the leave
threshold, can be used at an early stage of proceedings to protect
issuers and other defendants from the costs, time and distraction
of actions without merit.


BANK OF AMERICA: Utah AG Revives Suit Over Foreclosure Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Bloomberg Business, reported that
Utah's attorney general revived a potential billion-dollar battle
with Bank of America Corp. over foreclosure practices after two of
his predecessors were charged with corruption for abandoning the
fight.

The lawsuit is deja vu for U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins, who
allowed Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes to join a homeowner's
case accusing Bank of America unit ReconTrust Co. of illegally
foreclosing on Utahans' homes.

Jenkins expressed puzzlement when outgoing Attorney General Mark
Shurtleff bowed out of a similar case two years ago -- just months
after the judge ruled the suit could head to trial.

Prosecutors provided an explanation: They charged Shurtleff and a
deputy elected to succeed him, John Swallow, in a wide-ranging
bribery case.

The allegations included charges that they did illicit favors for
several businessmen. The two officials allegedly dropped the
state's case against ReconTrust after a homeowner who sued got a
mortgage modification. The man had previously contributed to
Swallow's election campaign, prosecutors said.

Shurtleff and Swallow have pleaded not guilty.
Same Facts

The homeowner lawsuit Reyes is joining is based on the "same set
of facts" as the one Shurtleff dropped, said Tyler Ayres, an
attorney for the plaintiff. Ayres said he estimates ReconTrust
illegally foreclosed on at least 8,000 homes worth on average of
$250,000, meaning damages may total as much as $2 billion.

He didn't provide details on how he came by the total. Charlotte,
North Carolina-based Bank of America says Ayres' damages estimate
is overblown, arguing that the case will affect only 3,000 to
4,000 homeowners.

The lawyer's "astronomical damages claim is absurd, without a
basis in the law, and has never been brought up in the litigation
proceedings," the bank said in a statement.
'Wasn't Happy'

Ayres said that when one of Reyes's deputies contacted him to
discuss joining forces, the state lawyer "wasn't happy" about
Shurtleff's decision to pull out of the earlier case.

Ayres said he filed his lawsuit after the Utah Supreme Court ruled
that ReconTrust broke state law when it failed to use either a
title company or a Utah-licensed lawyer to foreclose on homes.

"This happened thousands upon thousands of times," said Ayres,
who's seeking to bring the case as a class action. ReconTrust "had
no right to take those homes."

ReconTrust argued Utah's statutes are trumped by federal law,
which authorizes the company to "exercise the power of sale for
properties," according to a court filing. The mortgage servicer
objected to Reyes joining the case, saying the state's "sit back
and watch tactics" in a lawsuit filed 18 months earlier put the
company at an unfair disadvantage.

"The state has offered no explanation for its delay," ReconTrust
said in a court filing.
State Law

Reyes said he joined the lawsuit because a ruling for Bank of
America may cut "to the center of enforceability and applicability
of state law."

"This particular case could have devastating impact on Utah
consumers and Utah law," he said in a statement. "We are seeking
to intervene to ensure that Utah consumers are protected and that
Utah law is enforced."

He declined through a spokeswoman to comment further.
BofA Lobbyists

Utah prosecutors say Shurtleff and Swallow met with lawyers and
lobbyists for Bank of America in the summer of 2012. They
discussed the first ReconTrust lawsuit, which the state joined
after homeowner Timothy Bell won a favorable ruling before Judge
Jenkins in Salt Lake City.

Bell later organized a campaign fundraiser for Swallow at his
home. In October, Bell was accepted into a mortgage modification
program that cut $1.13 million from his loan and reduced his
interest rate to 2.65 percent from 7.5 percent, prosecutors said.

The following month, prosecutors said Swallow told a lawyer in his
office that he "may have given Bank of America the impression that
if the Bells' case settled, the state's intervention in the
litigation would cease."

Shurtleff signed off on the state's withdrawal from the lawsuit in
December 2012. At a hearing in Salt Lake City in January, the
judge asked deputies for Swallow to reconsider dropping the case.
They declined.

Shurtleff's lawyer, Richard Van Wagoner, didn't respond to a call
seeking comment. An attorney for Swallow, Stephen McCaughey,
declined to immediately comment.

The case is Allred v. ReconTrust Co., 13-cv-01124, U.S. District
Court, District of Utah (Salt Lake City).


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Pension Fund Sues Over Antitrust Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inter-Local Pension Fund Graphic Communications Conference of the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters, and all others similarly-
situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency; BMO Capital
Markets Corp.; Barclays Capital Inc.; Cantor Fitzgerald & Co.;
Citigroup Global Markets Inc.; Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC;
Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc.; Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.;
Goldman, Sachs & Co.; HSBC Securities (USA) Inc.; Jefferies LLC;
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated; Mizuho Securities USA INC.; Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC; Nomura Securities International, Inc.; RBC Capital Markets,
LLC; RBS Securities Inc.; SG Americas Securities, LLC; TD
Securities (USA) LLC; and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
05625 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2015), seeks damages under Sherman Act,
Clayton Act, Commodity Exchange Act, and state common law.

The antitrust and commodities class action concerns 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.
Treasury securities are debt instruments issued by the U.S.
Treasury Department to help finance the operations of the U.S.
Government and serve as benchmarks for interest rates and pricing
various other assets, including bonds, interest rate swaps,
student loan debt, and exchange-traded Treasury futures and
options.

The Defendants are financial services and banking companies that
are registered primary dealer for Treasury securities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Mark Roseman, Esq.
      SPECTOR, ROSEMAN &
      KODROFF WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, 25th Floor
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 496-0300
      Fax: (215) 496-6611
      E-mail: rroseman@srkw-law.com

          - and -

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Ave. South, Ste. 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com

          - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Ste. 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Tel: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com

          - and -

      Brian Murray, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 E. 42nd Street, Ste. 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Tel: (212) 682-5340
      E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com

          - and -

      Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
      GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
      35 East Seventh Street, Ste. 600
      Cincinnati, OH 45202
      Tel: (513) 345-8291
      E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-lega.com

          - and -

      Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Ste 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 623-3000
      E-mail: jdepalma@litedepalma.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Rutgers Sues Over Treasury Sec. Manipulation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rutgers Enhanced Insurance Company v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06129-UA (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2015), arises from
the Defendants and others' 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:

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      Justin S. Nematzadeh, 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
              jnematzadeh@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 315-3454
      Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

         - and -

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


BARCLAYS BANK: "Hale" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, and all others similarly-situated v. Barclays Bank
Delaware, Case No. 2:15-cv-05659 (C.D. Cal., July 27, 2015), seeks
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Barclays Bank Delaware creates customized, co-branded credit card
programs for travel, entertainment, retail, affinity, educational,
and financial institutions in the U.S. The company was founded in
2000 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
      324 S Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


BEST CARE: "Harris" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Elbert Lee Harris, Velisha Scogin, and all others similarly-
situated v. Comfort Care Transportation Services, Inc., Best Care
Transport Services, LLC, South East Personnel Leasing, Inc. and
Linda Kenney, Case No. 4:15-cv-00135 (N.D. Ga., July 30, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid wages and other damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Comfort Care Transportation Services, Inc. and Best Care Transport
Services, LLC offers non-emergency transportation services.
Defendant Linda Kenney is the owner of Comfort Care and Best Care.

South East Personnel Leasing, Inc. is a payroll service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Penn U. Dodson, Esq.
      Goldberg & Dohan, LLP
      Ste. 705, 275 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (646) 502-7751
      Fax: (646) 692-4165
      E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com


BIG BANG: Faces "Alvarado" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Alejandra Alvarado, on behalf of herself and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Big Bang Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a
The Retail Outsource, Case 4:15-cv-02126 (S.D. Tex., July 23,
2015), seeks under the Fair Labor Standards Act, overtime pay for
all of the hours worked by the Plaintiff as a Wireless Sales
Associate.

Big Bang Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Retail Outsource is a Florida
corporation that does business in Texas and throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert R. Debes, jr.
     Ricardo J.Prieto
     Shellist, Lazarz, Slobin LLP
     11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 621-2277
     Fax: (713) 621-0993
     E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
             rprieto@eeoc.net


BIG LOTS: Faces Class Suit Over Background Check Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Lance Duroni, writing for Law360, reported that a job applicant
hit Big Lots Stores Inc. with a proposed class action in Illinois
court on, accusing the retailer of violating the Fair Credit
Reporting Act by running background checks on current and
prospective employees without their knowledge or consent.

In a complaint filed in Cook County Circuit Court, plaintiff
Shaundrenika Robrinzine alleges that Big Lots doesn't issue the
FCRA-required "standalone" disclosure for third-party consumer
reports on job-seekers and only requests authorization for such
background checks after the fact.

The Columbus, Ohio-based discount retailer "routinely and
systematically violates the FCRA's basic protections by failing to
provide required disclosures or to obtain written authorization
prior to procuring background reports on applicants and
employees," Robrizine said.

According to the suit, Robrizine applied for an overnight stocker
position at a Homewood, Illinois, Big Lots store in March 2014.
While her application made a passing reference to "background
checks," it didn't clear the company to obtain a consumer report
from a third-party reporting agency, Robrizine said.

Nevertheless, Big Lots procured a consumer report on Robrizine
from Sterling Infosystems Inc. later that month and didn't provide
her with a disclosure and authorization form until more than two
weeks later, on April 1, 2014, according to the complaint.

Moreover, even if the company had notified Robrizine beforehand,
the form was filled with "extraneous information" that breaches
FCRA requirements that the disclosure be "clear and conspicuous"
and contained in a document consisting solely of the disclosure,
the plaintiff alleges.

In addition to the alleged harm from being deprived of the
disclosure, Robrizine "experienced a concrete injury in the form
of her privacy being invaded by the defendant's procurement of a
consumer report on her without her written authorization," the
complaint said.

Robrizine wants to represent a class consisting of Big Lots job
applicants and employees who had background checks run on them in
the past two years without the required disclosure, along with a
separate class for those who didn't give written authorization
during that period. The complaint doesn't estimate the size of the
two classes, saying only that they likely include many of the
company's thousands of workers.

The plaintiff seeks statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each
alleged violation of the FCRA on behalf of proposed class members,
along with punitive damages and attorneys' fees.

A spokeswoman for Big Lots said that the company has no comment on
the lawsuit at this time.

Robrizine is represented by John G. Albanese, E. Michelle Drake
and Anna M. Prakash of Nichols Kaster PLLP.

Counsel information for Big Lots was not immediately available on.

The case is Robrizine v. Big Lots Stores Inc., case number
15CH11064, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery
Division.


BILT PETROLEUM: "Mudun Kotuwage" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Chandrasiri G. Mudun Kotuwage, and all others similarly situated
v. Bilt Petroleum, Inc., NSS Petroleum Inc., Amrik S. Dhillon and
Nirmal Singh, Case No. 1:15-cv-04374 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for unpaid or underpaid minimum
wages, overtime compensation, and other relief available in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act, Minimum Wage Act of the
New York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Defendants own and operate a gas station doing business as
Gulf and located at Staten Island, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 229-2249
      Fax: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


BLUE CROSS: Surgical Centers File Overcharging Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Representing 11 surgical centers, including AllianceMed, LLC, a
medical billing service, John Oxendine recently filed a lawsuit
which seeks class-action status and alleges Blue Cross overcharged
customers for coverage.

Former Georgia Insurance Commissioner John Oxendine filed a
lawsuit on behalf of 11 surgical centers, AllianceMed, a claims
billing service, and their patients alleging that Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Georgia deliberately overcharged customers millions
of dollars for coverage.

The class-action lawsuit (Civil Action No: 2015-CV-0320-RG) was
filed in the Superior Court of White County against Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Georgia, Blue Cross Blue Shield Healthcare Plan of
Georgia, and Anthem.

The complaint consists of 14 counts that allege acts of
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, unfair and deceptive
trade practices in the business of insurance in violation of
O.C.G.A. Section 33-6-4(b)(8)(A)(ii), theft by deception, unjust
enrichment, conspiracy, and violation of Georgia's RICO Statute.

Medical billing company, AllianceMed, LLC is a plaintiff in this
lawsuit. Other plaintiffs include Surgery Center of BJI, LLC; ENTI
Surgery Center, LLC; ENTI Anesthesia, LLC; Urological Clinic of
Valdosta Ambulatory Surgical Center, LLC; Savannah F&A ASC, LLC.;
Institute for Corrective Surgery of the Foot and Ankle, Inc.;
Westside Surgery Center, LLC; Surgical Centers of Georgia, P.C.;
Roswell Center for the Foot and Ankle Surgery, LLC.; Ambulatory
Foot and Leg Surgical Center, LLC; and East Cobb Podiatry Surgery
Center, LLC.


C.C. FORBES: "Keppard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------
Peter Keppard Jr., Trinidad Avila, Alonso Robles, Guillermo
Trevino, Humberto Castillo, Hector A. Vallejo, and Hector Vallejo,
and all others similarly-situated v. C.C. Forbes, LLC and Forbes
Energy Services, Ltd., Case No. 5:15-cv-00625 (W.D. Tex., July 29,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid and underpaid overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the oil and gas services business and
operate in the Eagle Ford Shale formation in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos Adrian Solis, Esq.
      310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2900
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Tel: (210) 446-5000
      Fax: (210) 446-5001
      E-mail: csolis@hilley-solis.com


CANADA: $600MM Class Suit for Abused Mentally Ill Prisoners Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Woollven, writing for 630Ched, reported that a class action
lawsuit has been proposed against the Federal government claiming
abuse of mentally ill prisoners.

Rachel Browne authored the story that appears in vice news, and
she explains the case that's being built to 630CHED's Ryan
Jesperson.

"A range of things, from not having access to proper medication,
or being over-medicated by prison staff there and also being
subjected to indefinite solitary confinement."

A separate lawsuit filed by the BC Civil Liberties Association has
also called for the Canadian penal system to curtail the practice
of solitary confinement.

"It seems like things such as solitary confinement are used as a
way to deal with mentally ill prisoners in general in lieu of
proper mental health treatment and proper care."

The suit is being led by Chris Brazeau who is serving 12 years for
armed robbery. Included in the statement of claim, quote: "Federal
penitentiaries are becoming Canada's largest repositories for the
mentally ill."

It's seeking $600 million dollars for damages to mentally ill
prisoners. Lawyer James Sayce says that if the court certifies the
case, they may be able to compensate hundreds of mentally ill
inmates going back to 1992.


CAREERBUILDER: Judge Sacks Class Suit Over OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reported that
CareerBuilder employees hoping to mount a class-action lawsuit
against their employer are going to have to proceed on their own
following a ruling in Chicago federal court.

U.S. District Judge Jorge L. Alonso issued a five-page opinion
regarding the claims of Lindsay Calverley, Joseph Yeagle and
Anthony Hasemen. The three accused the company, which operates a
popular jobs website, of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act,
as well as the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The plaintiffs sought to
certify their FLSA claim as a class action, but Alonso denied that
request July 20, basing his decision on a purported lack of
evidence the employees' claims clearly applied to enough of their
colleagues to warrant class action status.

The plaintiffs stated they worked as non-exempt, hourly employees
in seven different positions at CareerBuilder: positions invoicing
representative, revenue representative, online invoicing
consultant, account executive, senior account executive, major
account executive and online revenue consultant, which is a
position also known as inside sales representative.

They claim they and all other CareerBuilder employees with the
same job titles routinely worked more than 40 hours per week but
were not paid overtime wages. CareerBuilder, they said, told them
"not to report having worked more than 40 hours in a work week."

The plaintiffs' complaint included remarks allegedly from a man
who worked as a CareerBuilder sales manager in 2009 and 2010. This
employee purportedly supervised 12 account executives and,
allegedly under orders from a superior, instructed his crew "to
manipulate and alter their time cards to reflect only having
worked 40 hours per week."

However, Alonso noted, the report doesn't include the job title of
the manager's boss who allegedly gave the instructions, and gives
no evidence any other managers said anything to their subordinates
in regards to hours and time cards. This, the judge said,
represents a failure to make a minimum showing that other would-be
class members faced similar circumstances.

"At best, (the manager's) declaration shows that one supervisor
may have told one sales manager not to let his subordinates report
over 40 hours of work per week, not that (CareerBuilder) had a
pervasive policy of altering time records," Alonso said.

The plaintiffs also submitted 20 emails to and from various
employees regarding altered time records.

"However, only four of the emails were received by employees
identified as having job titles that fall within the putative
class," Alonso wrote. "Moreover, three of the emails were sent in
the fall of 2011 and the fourth was sent in January 2014, more
than two years later. Given the small number of emails and the
time span between them, they do not support plaintiff's allegation
that (CareerBuilder) had a years-long, company-wide policy of
refusing to pay putative class members for overtime work."

Alsonso also downplayed the significance of plaintiffs' own emails
to clients and colleagues sent on evenings and weekends. Those
messages only suggest working more than 40 hours a week and give
no evidence or implication the plaintiffs were forbidden from
claiming that time on their work schedule, he said.

He further rejected a declaration from Calverley because it was
submitted with the plaintiffs' reply brief, and also "because it
is rife with hearsay and speculation" that "would not change the
outcome of this motion."

Alonso's opinion formally denies the motion to begin notice to
members of what would have been the plaintiffs' class and also
denies CareerBuilder's motion to strike the alleged declaration
from the Careerbuilder sales manager discussed in the complaint. A
status hearing is set for, August 4.


CARTER HOLT: Plaster Cladding Class Suit Not Time Bound
-------------------------------------------------------
The recent Court of Appeal decision that claims by the Ministry of
Education against cladding sheet and system manufacturer Carter
Holt Harvey Ltd are not time-barred is welcome news to those home
and building owners participating in the Plaster Cladding class
action against plaster cladding manufacturers, says Auckland
lawyer Adina Thorn.

"This decision confirms that claims against product manufacturers
are not covered by the 10-year time bar that applies in respect of
building work. This paves the way for claims against product
manufacturers".

She says the Plaster Cladding class action is currently being put
together from the more than 1,400 owners and body corporates who
have registered their interest.

"We have had an overwhelming response to our call for
registrations. The level of participation means we have been able
to secure the high-quality legal and technical resources necessary
to gain the backing of one of the world's leading funders of such
actions, Harbour Litigation Funding.

"We expect that owners determined to have a viable claim in
factual and legal terms will soon be invited to join the "class".
The legal claim will then be progressed. The Court of Appeal's
decision is very positive news for owners, both for this action
and for future actions."


CELLADON CORP: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the
U.S. District Court, Southern District of California, on behalf of
investors of Celladon Corporation ("Celladon" or the "Company")
that held shares between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015 (the
"Class Period").

If you purchased Celladon securities during the Class Period or
you held shares traceable to Celladon's initial public offering
("IPO") on January 30, 2014, you may, no later than August 31,
2015, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Andrews & Springer LLC. If you would like to join the class
action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer,
Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-
423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn --
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter --
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

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

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

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

As a result of this news, Celladon's stock price fell 80% and
closed at $2.64 per share, wiping out millions of market value and
causing millions in losses for investors.
If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 31, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss your
rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact
Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call
toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn --
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter --
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

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

The firm may be reached at:

         Craig J. Springer, Esq.
         ANDREWS & SPRINGER LLC
         3801 Kennett Pike #305
         Wilmington, DE 19807
         Tel: 1-800-423-6013
         Email: cspringer@andrewsspringer.com


CHEVRON: Judge Dismissed $5 Billion Suit Over Oil Rig Fire
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonnera, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge in San Francisco, California, dismissed a $5 billion
complaint against Chevron for an oil rig fire in Nigeria, finding
the plaintiffs were "not cooperating with their own counsel."

U.S. District Judge Samuel Conti ruled separately that a third
amended complaint was filed without Chevron's consent or leave of
court.

Dr. Foster Ogola and others, on behalf of an estimated 65,000
residents of the Niger Delta region of southern Nigeria, sued the
energy giant in San Francisco in January 2014.  They claimed the
KS Endeavor, an offshore natural-gas rig drilling in North Apoi
Field, exploded on Jan. 16, 2012, igniting a fire that burned for
46 days.

Ogala et al. said they were "directly affected by, interested in
and having claims arising out of the incident," and suffered
"losses to their livelihood, environmental damage, and health
problems as a result of the explosion and fire," according to
Conti's summary of the case.  Ogala claimed KS Drilling
negligently operated the KS Endeavor under the management of
Chevron Nigeria Limited.

Chevron Corp., Chevron Investments and Chevron U.S.A. were named
as defendants, but not Chevron Nigeria Ltd., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Chevron Investments.

Conti dismissed the case in May 2014, finding the plaintiffs had
failed to state claims against the defendant companies as alter
egos of Chevron Nigeria Ltd.  The plaintiffs also failed to "claim
anywhere in the complaint to represent a class," Conti said,
dismissing claims on behalf of unnamed nonparties.

"There is no discussion whatsoever of how a fire on an offshore
rig damaged the businesses, livelihoods, property, or health of
Dr. Ogala or any of the other plaintiffs in this case," Conti
found. "Plaintiffs make claims about damage to fish, livestock,
contamination of water and soil, and 'general health breakdown.'
But there are no allegations that the damaged livestock belonged
to plaintiffs, that the plaintiffs' livelihoods depended on
fisheries, that the contaminated water or soil harmed them or
their property, or that the 'general health breakdown' affected
them. As for the claims of property damage and physical injury,
there are no allegations that the fire ever spread from the KS
Endeavor. Plaintiffs need to allege facts that make their damages
claims plausible; in this case, they need facts that indicate how
the fire actually harmed them."

In August 2014, Conti slammed the plaintiffs again, for copying
their amended lawsuit "almost verbatim from the original
complaint."  He dismissed the second amended complaint against
Chevron with prejudice on July 28.

Ogala and four co-plaintiffs had been served with two sets of
requests for production of documents and one set of
interrogatories. They not respond by their April 3 deadline,
however, and "are not cooperating with their own counsel," Conti
ruled.

"Defendant's efforts to meet and confer have not yielded any
commitment to respond to the discovery by the five plaintiffs and
there is no prospect that they will respond," Conti said.

"Accordingly, I find that no less drastic sanction is feasible."

Joining Ogola as named plaintiffs were Elder Endure Humphrey
Fisei, Mr. Fresh Talent, Matthew Kingdom Mieseigha, Chris Wilfred
Itonyo and Natto Iyela Gbarabe.

Conti separately granted Chevron's motion to strike a third
amended complaint, which removed five and added 11 named
plaintiffs.  Those plaintiffs, Conti said, filed the third amended
complaint without Chevron's consent or leave of court.

"The third amended complaint does not fall into either category,"
Conti wrote.

All was not in Chevron's favor, though. Conti called its request
to deny the plaintiffs leave to amend premature.

"Given that plaintiffs have not asked the court for leave to file
an amended complaint, Chevron's request is premature," Conti said.
"The court will consider Chevron's arguments if and when
plaintiffs file an amended complaint."

The KS Endeavor explosion killed two workers. Chevron said that
152 workers on the gas exploration rig and an associated barge
were evacuated safely.


CHILDREN'S NAT'L MEDICAL: Faces Potential Data Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Reed, writing for Washington Business Journal, reported that
Children's National Health System is facing a potential class-
action lawsuit following the hack of the personal data of up to
18,000 patients.

Fardoes Khan, a longtime patient at Children's, filed the suit
after receiving a letter in February from Children's informing her
and other patients that their Social Security numbers, addresses,
birth dates and telephone numbers were compromised. Personal
health data -- including diagnosis, treatment received, medical
record number, medical record service codes and health insurance
information -- were also part of the data breached.

The suit, originally filed in Montgomery County, was moved to
federal court.

Children's has not immediately commented on the case but released
the letter it sent to patients to the Washington Business Journal.

The letter said the data breach was discovered Dec. 26, 2014, and
occurred as a result of a phishing scam. Certain employees
responded to emails they believed were legitimate but were
actually from hackers, allowing possible unauthorized access to
those individual email accounts from July 26, 2014, to Dec. 26,
officials said.

"In a small number of instances, Social Security number were
included," the letter read. "Importantly, neither our patient
charts nor our electronic medical records system were compromised.
Only the discrete information contained in the email accounts was
potentially affected."


CHIPOTLE: Sued by Colorado Workers Over Unfair Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Anna Boiko-Weyrauch, writing for KBIA.org, reported that Chipotle
recently extended paid sick leave, vacation and tuition
reimbursement to its hourly workers.

Still, tens of thousands of employees at Chipotle Mexican Grills
around the country are not happy with the Denver-based fast casual
poster child over how they are paid. Earlier, a court in Los
Angeles approved a $2 million settlement with over 38,000
plaintiffs for allegations of unpaid overtime, rest breaks and
minimum wage. These Chipotle employees and others in more lawsuits
across the country have joined a national workplace trend: filing
class-action lawsuits against their employer claiming unfair pay.

Brittany Swa started working at a Chipotle in Centennial,
Colorado, in 2010 as a crew-member. Swa ran the cashier, grilled
meat and served customers at $14.50 an hour plus overtime at time-
and-a-half. When she was promoted to apprentice manager a few
months later, she expected to get more managerial training, but
she said the only difference was making the daily morning bank
deposit.

"It takes you like 15 minutes," she says.

On top of that, she was now averaging 55-60 hours a week, she
says, and she was now an exempt employee and couldn't claim
overtime.

"If they needed coverage, you'd be the one to cover, or someone
calls in sick or they can't come in that day, you gotta cover."

Swa is one of the tens of thousands of plaintiffs in settled and
ongoing lawsuits from California to New York suing Chipotle for
unpaid wages either because they allege they were misclassified as
managers or because they worked off the clock, cleaning the store
and attending mandatory meetings.

"Cases of this kind are happening with increasing frequency around
the country and are not unique to Chipotle," company spokesman
Chris Arnold says.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, federal lawsuits like this one
have more than doubled in the past decade.

"It's very confusing to figure out how to follow this law," says
Lorrie Ray, an attorney at Mountain States Employers Council.

The federal law was written during the Great Depression. Rules on
when to pay overtime, for example, are complicated, and there's a
lot of room for error, Ray says.

"Plaintiffs' attorneys, the employees' attorneys, became aware
that this was sort of lucrative ground for them to cover," she
says. "They started insisting that employers pay their clients for
mistakes they'd made under the law."

There's another reason, according to Denver University law
professor Nantiya Ruan, who is also helping with the apprentice
overtime lawsuit against Chipotle. The modern-day workplace is
different.

"We expect workers to be on call and working a tremendous amount
of hours in a way that we hadn't been in the '60s and '70s," she
says.

Chipotle has now settled lawsuits with workers in Maryland,
California and Florida. In the coming months, wage lawsuits
against the company in Colorado, Minnesota and Texas are pending
class action certification.


CHRYSLER CAPITAL: Faces Suit Over Car Financing Interest Rate
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franklyn Cabrera Garcia, and all others similarly-situated v.
Chrysler Capital LLC and B&Z Auto Enterprises, LLC dba Eastchester
Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Case No. 1:15-cv-05949 (S.D.N.Y., July 29,
2015), seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, relief,
attorney's fees and costs of suit, including expert witness fees,
pursuant to the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

Mr. Garcia brought the action on behalf of himself and all other
Chrysler Capital borrowers in the State of New York who purchased
vehicles at Chrysler-brand dealerships, whose financing was
approved by Chrysler Capital before their respective retail
installment contracts were executed, and whose annual interest
rate exceeds 16%.

Mr. Garcia alleges that these claims:

     -- Claim I: Usury (N.Y. GEN. OBLIG. LAW Sec. 5-501) against
Chrysler Capital;

     -- Claim II: deceptive acts or practices (N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW
Sec. 349) against Chrysler Capital;

     -- Claim III: unjust enrichment against Chrysler Capital;

     -- Claim IV: deceptive acts or practices (N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW
Sec. 349) against Chrysler Capital and the Dealership;

     -- Claim V: unconscionability against Chrysler Capital and
the Dealership; and

     -- Claim VI: violation of the motor vehicle retail instalment
act (N.Y. PERS. PROP. LAW Sections 301-316 against Chrysler
Capital and the Dealership

Chrysler Capital is a "captive" nonbank -- "an auto lender whose
primary business is to finance the purchase of a specific
manufacturer's automobiles." As Chrysler Capital's name implies,
its primary consumer business is to finance the purchase of
Chrysler-brand automobiles, including Dodge vehicles.

B&Z Auto Enterprises dba Eastchester Chrysler Jeep Dodge, LLC
operates as an automobile dealer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Barton Dalbey, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Tel: (212) 558-5642
      Fax: (646) 293-4350
      E-mail: cdalbey@weitzlux.com

          - and -

      Karla Gilbride, Esq.
      PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
      1825 K St. NW, Ste. 200
      Washington, DC 20006
      Tel: (202) 797-8600
      Fax: (202) 232-7203
      E-mail: kgilbride@publicjustice.net


CLIFTON ADULT: Faces FLSA Suit Seeking Wage, OT Payment
-------------------------------------------------------
Martha Perez, Maria Liliana Hurtado and all other similarly-
situated individuals v. Clifton Adult Opportunity Center (CAOC),
Grace Lisbona, Corey Bober, Jodi Neumann, John Does 1-10 and ABC
Corps. 1-10., Case 2:15-cv-05341-MCA-LDW (D.N.J., July 8, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, overtime pay and other monies
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce that
provides assistance to adults with developmental disabilities and
also supports several group homes on its premises which house
disabled adults.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Anthony M. Rainone, Esq
     101 Eisenhower Parkway
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Tel: (973) 228-5700
     Fax: (973) 228-7852
     E-mail: arainone@bracheichler.com
      lmarkowitz@bracheichler.com


COMENITY BANK: Faces "Pritchard" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Lynn Pritchard, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Comenity Bank, Case No. 2:15-cv-05994-KM-MAH
(D.N.J., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


CONSUMER PORTFOLIO: Sued Over Illegal Credit Report Inquiries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Van Horn and Michael Harvey, individually and on
Behalf of all others similarly situated v. Consumer Portfolio
Services, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01236 (C.D. Cal., August 4,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged consumer credit
report inquiries without the consent of members of the Class.

Consumer Portfolio Services, Inc. is a debt collector and
portfolio servicer incorporated in the State of California, with
its principal place of business in the City of Irvine, State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              gouya@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: Doesn't Pay Workers for Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the Corrections Corporation
of America stiffs workers for overtime, a class action claims in
federal court in Lexington, Kentucky.


CREDICO LLC: "Vasto" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
------------------------------------------------
Philip Vasto, Zao Yang, Alex Torres, and Xiaoj Zheng, and all
others similarly situated v. Credico (USA) LLC, Cromex Inc., Jesse
Young and Meixi Xu, Case No. 1:15-cv-06503 (N.D. Ill., July 27,
2015), seek restitution of all wages deprived, payment for
training time, and all other relief entitled pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law.

Credico (USA) LLC, on its own and through various entities
operated by Credico, including CroMex, provides its clients with
face-to-face sales and marketing services through its team of
workers located throughout the country. Jesse Young is the
president of Credico (USA) LLC.

CroMex Inc provides clients with face-to-face sales and marketing
services throughout its team of workers located in New York,
Maryland, Michigan, Arizona and Nevada. Meizi Xu is the owner and
manager of Cromex Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 233-1550
      Fax: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

         - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      LICHEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com


CRESTWOOD MIDSTREAM: Sued by Unitholders Over Merger
----------------------------------------------------
Angela Neville, writing for Texas Lawyer, reported that members of
the board of directors of Crestwood Midstream Partners are facing
an angry unitholder revolt.

A number of Crestwood Midstream unitholders are not pleased with
what they allege are breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of
the company's board of directors in connection with a proposed
merger with Crestwood Equity.

The group of disgruntled unitholders recently filed a class action
suit in federal court in Houston. In the case, Farber v. Crestwood
Midstream Partners in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, the plaintiffs allege that the Crestwood
Midstream board members attempted to sell the master limited
partnership to Crestwood Equity Partners and its general partner,
Crestwood Equity GP (Equity GP), by means of an unfair process and
for an unfair price. In the class action suit, the plaintiffs also
bring a claim against the defendants for their violations of 14(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 14a-9.

According to the class action complaint, on May 6 the buyout group
and the partnership announced that they had entered into a series
of agreements that would culminate in Equity Partners and Equity
GP, through CEQP ST SUB and MGP GP, acquiring all of the
outstanding units of Crestwood Midstream in a unit-for-unit
transaction. Crestwood Midstream unitholders would receive 2.75
common units of Equity Partners for each common unit of Crestwood
Midstream they own. In addition, each preferred unit of Crestwood
Midstream would be exchanged for 2.75 preferred units of Equity
Partners.

The complaint alleges that the merger is the result of an
inadequate strategic process and that the board engaged in a
process that involved several unrelated potential transactions and
never shopped the partnership for a stand-alone sale. In addition
the complaint states that the board "failed to control for
significant, obvious conflicts of interest until the merger was
essentially a fait accompli." The complaint further alleges that
the board breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the merger
for grossly inadequate consideration.

Thomas Bilek, a solo attorney in Houston who represents the
plaintiffs in the case, said it involves a self-dealing
transaction with Crestwood Equity taking advantage of Crestwood
Midstream by paying an unfair price for Crestwood Midstream.

"The process for determining the price that Crestwood Equity was
going to pay for Crestwood Midstream was unfair," Bilek said.
"They did not solicit bids for Crestwood Midstream from outside
potential buyers."

Michael Holmes, a partner and shareholder in Vinson & Elkins'
shareholder litigation and enforcement group in Dallas, represents
Crestwood Midstream. He did not return a call seeking comment.
Elizabeth Brandon, counsel with Vinson & Elkins' Dallas office,
who also represents Crestwood Midstream, declined to discuss the
case.

Greg Waller and Kelly Sandill, both partners with Andrews Kurth in
Houston who represent Crestwood Equity, were unavailable for
comment.

Earlier, the two master limited partnerships signed a definitive
agreement to merge Crestwood's corporate structure into a single
publicly traded partnership with a consolidated enterprise value
of approximately $7.5 billion.

A scheduling conference in the case will take place sometime in
the near future, according to Bilek.


CRUZMAN RUM: Faces Class Suit Over Rum Operations Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
David McFadden, writing for The News Tribune, reported that the
U.S. Virgin Islands' environmental agency plans to file a
violation order against two rum producers on St. Croix as
residents of several communities complain of a black mold
persistently staining their properties, cars and boats.

Jamal Nielsen, spokesman for the Department of Planning and
Natural Resources, said authorities are "in the process of
crafting a violation order" against Cruzan Rum and Diageo USVI, a
subsidiary of global liquor giant Diageo PLC that produces the rum
for the Captain Morgan brand. It's not yet clear if any corrective
action will be ordered.

Exasperated residents in several St. Croix communities say a
sooty-looking fungus has been accumulating in their neighborhoods,
including on water cisterns and fruit trees. They blame it on the
ethanol from neighboring rum facilities.

Andrea Daley, the president of the Enfield Green Estates owners
association, said the mold started growing on exterior surfaces
exposed to sunlight several years ago when Diageo built a rum
storage facility.

"It's been tough. We have a red-and-white boat that is parked up
in our yard, but now it's black. We had a soursop tree but the
leaves got so covered in black fungus that we had to cut it down,"
she said during a phone interview.

Like residents around Scotland whisky storage sites and bourbon-
making sections of the U.S. state of Kentucky, they believe the
mold is "Baudoinia," a natural-occurring growth created by a
chemical reaction involving emissions of ethanol.

St. Croix residents are pursuing a class-action lawsuit demanding
the two companies install technology to capture ethanol emissions
and pay damages to homeowners.

William F. McMurry, a lawyer in Louisville, Kentucky, who is
representing the St. Croix residents in one of several lawsuits he
has filed against distillers, said a judge is expected to rule
soon on an effort by the rum companies to have the action
dismissed.

In a joint letter sent to acting DPNR Commissioner Dawn Henry,
lawyers for Diageo USVI and Cruzan said the companies are
committed to working with authorities. But they said mandating new
technology to capture ethanol "would threaten the viability of
aging rum on St. Croix."

"This technology is untested and expensive. It would impact the
quality of the rum and drive up the cost of making it," said the
June 2 letter, which was sent to The Associated Press when the
companies were asked for comment.

Daley said residents want the rum companies to stay on St. Croix,
where the industry employs about 125 people. But they also don't
want to live with the mold nuisance, which she says has roughly
quadrupled home maintenance costs.

"We are not anti-business. We just want them to take care of this
problem responsibly," Daley said.


CVS PHARMACY: Overcharged Customers for Generic Drugs, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Singh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal class action in San Francisco, California, accuses CVS
pharmacies of overcharging customers for generic prescription
drugs by as much as 400 percent and submitting fraudulently
inflated claims to insurers.

Christopher Corcoran is the lead plaintiff in the July 30
complaint against CVS over its so-called Health Savings Pass, "the
centerpiece of its fraud."  The Health Savings Pass "includes
long-term maintenance medications, which, in many instances, are
prescribed to elderly and disabled patients on a regular basis,"
the complaint states.

Customers claim that by law the co-pay that CVS takes from insured
customers "may not exceed CVS's usual and customary price, which
is generally defined as the cash price to the general public for
the same drug," but that a CVS co-pay often does exceed that
customary price -- and that CVS also bills the insurer for it.

The 48-count, 84-page lawsuit claims that CVS has overcharged
insured customers "in many cases by more than three or four times
the usual and customary price," since at least November 2008.

"CVS is a major pharmacy chain throughout the United States,"
plaintiffs' attorney Christopher Lebsock said. "Through this
litigation our clients hope to ensure that CVS lives by its
commitment to price drugs fairly to all of its customers. We look
forward to presenting our claims to the court as soon as
possible."

With 7,866 U.S. outlets, CVS is the nation's largest purchaser of
drugs, according to the complaint. Half of the population are
customers, and it fills or manages more than 1 billion
prescriptions a year -- nearly one-third of the prescriptions in
the nation, the complaint states. It reported net revenue of
$139.4 billion, $67 billion of it from its retail pharmacy
business, the class claims.

The plaintiffs claim that CVS charges cash-paying customers less
than it charges insured ones. They claim that CVS is required to
disclose its regular prices for every transaction when it submits
electronic claims to third-party payors, but it knowingly inflates
these prices.

"By submitting false and inflated usual and customary prices to
third-party payors, CVS knowingly and wrongfully overcharged plan
participants co-pay amounts that often exceeded the HSP drug
prices available to the general public for the same drugs," the
complaint states. "In essence, the unlawful scheme that CVS
designed allowed CVS to have its cake and eat it too: CVS could
maintain and increase its cash-paying customer base while also
maintaining higher reimbursement payments from third-party payors
and higher co-pays from plan participants who filled their
prescriptions at CVS pharmacies."

CVS did not respond to a request for comment.

Attorney Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- is with the Hausfeld
firm in San Francisco.


DANIEL BOULUD: Workers Settle Class Suit for $1.4-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------
Julia Marsh, writing for New York Post, reported that it's not
even enough to cover dinner with pals at one of his restaurants.

More than 1,000 workers at Daniel Boulud's Manhattan eateries
recently settled their class-action suit against the Michelin-
starred chef for $1.4 million.

But after they pay their lawyers, each worker will receive only
about $889 -- or $250 less than what they would need to treat
themselves and three friends to the pricey tasting menu at
Boulud's restaurant Daniel.

The meal -- one of the most expensive in America -- features
delicacies such as Marcona almond-crusted duck terrine rings. It
costs $1,134 for four, including tax and tip but no drinks.

The 1,050 employees involved in the suit claimed that in addition
to their $5-an-hour jobs as tipped servers, they were required to
do other menial work, such as cleaning bathrooms, that should have
paid them $8 an hour.

The workers also accused the acclaimed French chef of pocketing
gratuities from private events, forcing waiters to pool their tips
with kitchen staff, and not paying overtime.

In defending the practices, Boulud snipped to The Wall Street
Journal, "If I was the only one in New York being into these
things, I will be upset. But I'm not the only one."

The servers are past and current employees who have worked in one
of Boulud's six city hot spots, including db Bistro Moderne and
DBGB Kitchen, after June 2008. They had sought millions of
dollars.

The three named plaintiffs -- Carlos Cruz, Edison Lopez and Justin
Wands -- are expected to ask the judge to give them a bigger slice
of the settlement pie. Cruz and Lopez will seek $20,000 apiece,
while Wands wants $10,000.

Wands was a server at Bar Boulud from 2007 to 2009, Lopez has
worked at DBGB Kitchen and Bar and db Bistro Moderne since 2009
and is still employed, and Cacildo started at db in 2008 and still
bartends there.

While the group of servers, bartenders and hosts won't be
pocketing much cash, their lawyers are seeking a huge portion of
the settlement: $466,666.67. A judge must still approve the
request.

The site for Boulud's Dinex Group says all staff members are "part
of a large team, 'the Daniel Boulud Family,'" but the suit claims
not everyone was treated equally.

The judge will hold a hearing in September to approve the
settlement. As part of the deal Boulud does not admit any guilt.

Boulud settled another suit with 88 other employees with similar
complaints in federal court.


DEL MONTE: Judge Declines to Certify "Kosta" Mislabeling Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge for the third
time on July 30 refused to certify a class that claims Del Monte
Foods intentionally mislabeled its foods, and dismissed the case.

This is a putative consumer class action alleging that Del Monte's
canned tomato products, and their SunFresh and FruitNaturals fruit
products, include unlawful and misleading claims in three general
categories. As to the tomato products, Plaintiffs seek
certification for the products labels bearing:

     (1) antioxidant claims, which include a statement and symbol
("blue flag") indicating that the products "contain antioxidants,"
despite failing to meet the minimal FDA nutritional requirements
for that statement;

     (2) a statement that the product is a "natural source" of
lycopene, a nutrient for which there is no FDA established daily
value; and

     (3) "no artificial flavors or preservatives" claims, where
such products contain ingredients such as calcium chloride, citric
acid, high fructose corn syrup, and carmine.

The case is Michael Kosta and Steve Bates, individuals on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Del Monte Foods, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-
1722 YGR (N.D. Cal.).


DLUGOSCH IV: Faces "Losoya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Losoya, Walter Gordon, Abel Segovia, David Minasian, and
Rodney Lassiter, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated v. Dlugosch IV, LLC d/b/a D&B Rental Service and 5-D
Operating, Inc. d/b/a Innovative Energy Services, Case No. 6:15-
cv-00058 (S.D. Tex., August 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per work week.

The Defendants are based in Yorktown, DeWitt County, Texas and
provide oilfield services to drilling and production sites at
different locations in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Joshua Blanchard, Esq.
      THE BLANCHARD LAW FIRM
      6243 IH-10 West, Suite 850
      San Antonio, TX 78201
      Telephone: (210) 888-9299
      Facsimile: (210) 910-6577
      E-mail: michael@blanchardfirm.com

         - and -

      Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: dsinkule@eeoc.net


DOXAS INC: "Bowen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Benjamin Bowen, and all others similarly-situated v. Doxas
Inc. dba Doxas, Emanuel Roufakis, Eudoxia Roufakis-Mavrogiannis,
and Michael Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-04402 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage, overtime, applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate, and control an apartment building
under the name Doxas in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. 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


ESURANCE INSURANCE: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Transfers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Grenier, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Esurance Insurance Services, Inc., and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 1:15-cv-01210-GSA (E.D.
Cal., August 4, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' illegal
action of debiting the Plaintiff's and also the putative Class
members' bank accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a
written authorization signed or similarly authenticated for
preauthorized electronic fund transfers from their accounts.

Esurance Insurance Services, Inc. is an insurance company
incorporated in Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces "Rodriquez" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Jesse Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Experian Information Solutions Inc. and AllianceOne
Receivables Management Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01224 (W.D. Wash.,
August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation
of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Matthew Pesicka, Esq.
      CONCORD LAW, P.C.
      6608 216TH Street SW, Suite 107-A
      Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043
      Telephone: (206) 512-8029
      E-mail: Ryan@ConcordLawSeattle.com


FIRST TOWER: Mississippi Woman Files TCPA Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reported that in
Chicago's federal court, it's Dial L for Lawsuit, as a Mississippi
woman has brought a class-action complaint against a multi-state
personal finance company for allegedly violating federal law by
making hundreds of thousands of unsolicited, automated telephone
calls.

Shirley Williams filed the suit July 22 against First Tower Loan
LLC on behalf of herself and a class including others similarly
situated, alleging the company violated the 1991 Telephone
Consumer Protection Act. The act prohibits automated and
prerecorded phone calls to wireless phone numbers, except for
emergencies or with the consent of the person called. The act was
enacted to protect the public from the nuisance and privacy
invasion of "autodialed" telemarketing. Further, it was recognized
wireless customers are charged for such incoming calls. The
Federal Communications Commission oversees implementation of the
act.

First Tower has more than 180 branches in five states, including
Mississippi and Illinois. There are 18 offices in Illinois, all
downstate, including Springfield, Kankakee, Bloomington, Macomb,
Peoria, Danville and Effingham. But the company also has stationed
an agent for service of process in Chicago.

Williams' complaint asserts she took out a loan from a First Tower
office in Hollandale, Miss., around 2012. Over time, the consumer
loan company made automated calls to Williams about collecting her
alleged debt. Williams said she never gave prior consent for the
calls, and on Feb. 13, 2015, she told First Tower by phone to stop
calling her cell phone. However, Williams said that after that
date she still received six "harassing and unsolicited" calls,
most recently on July 3. Williams alleged the calls were in an
"artificial or prerecorded voice."

In seeking class-action status, Williams said she believes there
are at least hundreds of thousands of people who have also been
the subject of similar calls from First Tower. In light of such a
high number of people, Williams asserted it is not practical for
each such person to file a suit against First Tower. To this end,
Williams noted she has retained counsel experienced in class
action suits and violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Williams is alleging two counts against First Tower - one, the
loan company negligently violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and two, the company knowingly and willingly
violated the law.

For the first count, Williams wants $500 for herself and every
member of the class action for every violation. For the second
count, she wants $1,500 for herself and every member for every
violation. Williams also seeks attorney fees in the event of a
class recovery and costs.

The lawsuit notes possible damages in the case are likely to
exceed $5 million.

Williams also has asked the court to prohibit First Tower from
making further calls that violate the law. To preserve possible
evidence, Williams is asking the court to also require First Tower
to preserve any materials, such as recordings, documents and
emails that relate to the allegations.

Williams is represented by Salas & Wang, of Chicago and the San
Diego firm of Ronald A. Marron. The case has been assigned to U.S.
District Judge Robert M. Dow Jr., with a status hearing set for
Sept. 15, at which time attorneys are to report whether settlement
is possible, according to court documents. If settlement is not
possible, they are to report on the nature and length of discovery
needed to prepare for trial, the documents said.


FLAGSHIP SHELL: Removes "Armenteros" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Antonio Armenteros, Shawanna
Johnson individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Flagship Shell, LLC, Case No. 15-015294-CA-01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit for 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-22912-
FAM to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher John Whitelock, Esq.
      WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES
      300 SE 13th Street
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316-1154
      Telephone: (954) 463-2001
      Facsimile: 463-0410
      E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com


FLOWERS BY ZOE: Recalls Girls Hoodies and Jackets
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Flowers By Zoe, Melville, NY, announced a voluntary recall of
about 122 Girls Hoodie and Jacket. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

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

This recall involves girls zippered striped hoodies and tie dye
jackets. The lightweight hoodie has multi-colored stripes (yellow,
white, orange and pink). It has a drawstring hood, zip-up front
and pockets on both sides. It is made from 100% Rayon and was sold
in sizes S (7, 8), M (10) and L (12). A label sewn into the
garment's neck seam reads "Flowers By Zoe" and a label sewn into
the side seam reads style #SRH125MS.

The tie-dye jacket has tie-dye-effect dark blue, teal, orange,
pink and lime green horizontal stripes. It has a drawstring hood,
zip up front and pockets on both sides. It is made from 100% Rayon
and was sold in sizes S (7, 8), M (10) and L (12). A label sewn
into the garment's neck seam reads "Flowers By Zoe" and another
label in the side seam reads style #NRH125TA.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/e8XHx1

The recalled products were manufactured in Indonesia and sold at
several children's boutique specialty retailers; such as LaBella
Flora in Auburn IN; Kids Only in Los Angeles, CA; Kids Biz,
Dallas, TX and Polkadot Pony in Jackson, MS, and other on-line
childrens stores; such as Everything But the Princess, from
February 2015 through May 2015 for about $45.

Consumers should immediately take the hoodies and jackets away
from children and remove the drawstring to eliminate the hazard.
Consumers can return the hoodies to the place of purchase for a
full refund.


FOODWORKS SOLUTIONS: Faces "Salazar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Salazar, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Foodworks Solutions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
06803 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

Foodworks Solutions, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located
at 100 West Higgins Road in South Barrington, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FREEDOM FRESH: "Quesada" Suit Seeks Payment for OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fulvio Jose Quesada aka Fulvio Jose Quezada and others similarly-
situated v. Freedom Fresh, LLC and Jorge Vazquez, individually,
Case 1:15-cv-22562-KMM (S.D. Fla., July 8, 2015), seeks all
available relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Freedom Fresh is a wholesaler and storage facility for
conventional and organic fruits, vegetables and herbs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     MAMANE LAW, LLC
     Co-counsel for Plaintiff
     1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
     Bat Harbor Island, FL 33154
     Tel: (303) 773-6661
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


GARDA SECURITY: "Tanza" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Tanza, Michael S. Bosman, Robert T. Giani, Gary E. Sobek,
Charles Ingel, Fred H. Smith, Carmela A. Syzmanski, William R.
Shannon, Barry Dubrow, Alexander Cioffi, Lana Bongiovi, Jimmy
Adkins, Justin A. Griffin, Glenny V. Adon, Michael Boneta, Dieter
Kern, Dennis J. Delucie, Albert Velasquez, and James R. Hetti, and
all others similarly-situated v. Garda Security, Inc. and Garda
International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04394 (E.D.N.Y., July 28,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to serve a
60-day written notice of its relocation in violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Defendants together are one of the largest privately owned
business solutions and security service providers in the world,
and one of the top ten fastest-growing security companies
globally.  Their services include armored truck cash services and
personal security for a wide range of domestic and international
corporations.

The Class worked at the Defendants' facility located at 1640
Veterans Memorial Highway, Central Islip, NY 11722.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Frank, Esq.
      FRANK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      500 Bi-county Blvd., Suite 112N
      Farmingdale, NY 11735
      Tel: (631) 756-0400
      Fax: (631) 756-0547
      E-mail: promero@laborlaws.com


JENA FOODS: "Diaz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Renato Polanco, and all others similarly-situated v. Jena Foods,
LLC dba Bravo Supermarket and Jesus Diaz, Case No. 1:15-cv-05921
(S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, penalties, interests, attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate retail grocery business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi Jill Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      Lawrence Office Park
      168 Franklin Corner Road
      Bldg. 2, Suite 220
      Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
      Tel: (201) 687-9977
      Fax: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: jjaffe@jaffeglenn.com


GREEN MOUNTAIN: Must Face Securities Fraud Suit, 2nd Circ. Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the maker of the Keurig single-cup coffee system must face a
securities fraud class-action lawsuit, the Second Circuit ruled
on.

Five employee retirement systems acquired stock in Green Mountain
Coffee Roasters Inc., which manufactures Keurig coffee makers.

The plaintiffs are the retirement systems of the Virgin Islands
government, Louisiana municipal police employees, Ft. Lauderdale
(Fla.) city employees and Mississippi public employees and Sjunde
AP-Fonden, a Swiss firm.

They took Green Mountain to Federal Court in Vermont, alleging
that the company misrepresented its inventory, growth prospects
and business performance.

During 2011, Green Mountain's stock soared from $32.96 in February
to $111.62 per share in August.

The plaintiffs stated that during this time, Green Mountain had
represented to them that demand for its coffee makers was so high
that it was increasing production without accumulating excess
inventory.

However, the plaintiffs alleged that witnesses within the company
had stated that Green Mountain was in fact accumulating excess
inventory.

One said that inventory was piling "up to the rafters" and was
being stored in employees' work spaces. Another said the company
was throwing away "pallet after pallet after pallet" of excess K-
cup inventory.

The plaintiffs alleged that during the 2011 stock boom period,
Green Mountain's senior executives sold some of their stock and
added $49 million to their personal net worth.

In the fall of 2011, investor David Einhorn reported that Green
Mountain had engaged in "a variety of shenanigans that appear
designed to mislead auditors and to inflate financial results."

Einhorn confirmed the report of one of the plaintiffs' witnesses
that the company had inventories half a million Keurig machines in
the second quarter of 2011 that were never shipped.

After the report was published in the Wall Street Journal, the
company's stock dropped to $69.80 per share.

The district court granted Green Mountain's motion to dismiss the
plaintiffs' case for failure to allege a misleading statement or
omission of material fact, along with failure to plead a
compelling inference of scienter.

However, the Second Circuit overturned the ruling and allowed the
plaintiffs to continue their case. U.S. Circuit Judge Chin stated
that the plaintiffs "adequately pled" its allegations of false
statements.

"The complaint alleges (1) specific misleading statements by
defendants about the status of Green Mountain's inventory during
the class period, the identity of the speakers, and where and when
the statements were made, and (2) explains why these statements
were fraudulent," he wrote.

Chin added that the plaintiffs also successfully pleaded scienter
and can move forward with their class action.

"Plaintiffs plead strong circumstantial evidence of Green
Mountain's intent to deceive or defraud plaintiffs by detailing
both (1) Defendants' efforts to deceive auditors and investors and
conceal the true facts about Green Mountain's excess inventory,
and (2) Defendants' significant personal gain from these efforts,"
he wrote.


GROUP HEALTH: Denied Mental Health Coverage, Psychotherapist Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karina Brown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that in
a class action, psychotherapists claim an insurer uses secret
guidelines based on "inadequate data, vague impressions or biases"
to deny mental health coverage to people in Washington state.

Lead plaintiff Karen Hansen sued Group Health Collective in King
County Court, in Washington State on Aug. 3, alleging deceptive
business practices and violations of state law.  Hansen, a
licensed independent clinical social worker, says psychotherapy
can help the more than 1 million Washington adults with mental
illness, at least 200,000 of whom have contemplated suicide.

Washington's Mental Health Parity Act in 2006 guarantees mental
health coverage to anyone with medical insurance. It states that
mental health care need not be curative to be medically necessary,
that treating symptoms of mental illness is enough.

Yet fewer than half of Washington residents with mental illness
get the care they need, Hansen says. And she says Group Health's
deceptive practices are one reason for that.

Group Health in 2007 adopted "Milliman Care Guidelines" as its
criteria for approving psychotherapy, according to the complaint.
But Hansen says the company refuses to divulge the guidelines its
uses to approve or reject coverage. It divulges its criteria only
in "limited and unhelpful ways," such as portions of the
guidelines it used to deny coverage.

An Internet search for Milliman Care Guidelines led to password-
protected sites for members only, and to a 5-year-old press
release touting the guidelines.

Hansen says in the complaint that Group Health claims it won't
publish its guidelines because they are proprietary, but Hansen
says the secrecy shields the guidelines from necessary peer
review.  She says the guidelines "were prepared using inadequate
data, vague impressions, or biases rather than comprehensive data
concerning all psychotherapy techniques by which psychotherapists
can provide reasonable and medically necessary psychotherapy."

The guidelines promote short-term therapy techniques over long-
term techniques even when more sessions of therapy are medically
necessary, Hansen says.  She likened the need for long-term
therapy to a diabetic's need for long-term insulin, and asked
whether Group Health would limit a 10-hour surgery to just five
hours.  She seeks declaratory judgment, treble damages and costs
of suit.

She is represented by Albert Kirby -- ahkirby@soundjustice.com --
with Sound Justice Law Group, who was not immediately available
for comment on Aug. 4.

Group Health did not return a phone call requesting comment.


HIGHGATE HOTELS: "Henkel" Suit Claims FLSA, Penn. Wage Law Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Henkel, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, v. Highgate Hotels, LP and Cove Haven, Inc., Case 3:15-
cv-01435-RDM (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2015), seeks to remedy unpaid
tips and gratuities due to Plaintiffs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Highgate is the parent corporation of Cove Haven and both Highgate
and Coven Haven jointly operate the resorts Coven Haven, Paradise
Stream and Pocono Palace located in Pennsylvania.  The Defendants
are engaged in the hospitality industry and operate the three
resorts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Blit, Esq.
     LEVINE & BLIT, PLLC
     350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3601
     New York, NY 10118
     Phone: (212) 967-3000
     E-mail: mblit@levineblit.com


IDI INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Federamn & Sherwood, on July 22, 2015, said a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against IDI, Inc. (NYSE MKT: IDI). The
complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws, Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of material or
false misrepresentations to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price during the Class Period,
which is April 30, 2015 through July 21, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all IDI, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period
and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You
may move the Court no later than, September 21, 2015 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:


IDI INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
complaint alleges that officers and directors of IDI, Inc. (NYSE
MKT: IDI) violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015, by making materially false and
misleading statements about IDI's business prospects.  IDI, Inc.,
through its subsidiaries, operates as an information solutions
provider focused on the data-fusion market.

According to the complaint, IDI officials failed to disclose
adverse information concerning Michael Brauser, who was elected to
IDI's board on June 2, 2015, and became Executive Chairman of the
company on June 16, 2015.  On April 30, 2015, IDI filed a proxy
statement with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission in
connection with its annual shareholders meeting to elect members
of its Board of Directors.  The proxy statement, which included
biographical information about Brauser as a director nominee,
failed to disclose that Brauser was named as a defendant in
various civil fraud litigation, was co-owner of a
telecommunications firm that filed for bankruptcy, and was sued in
an adversary proceeding related to that firm.

The complaint further alleges that the disclosure of the company's
legal proceedings in its 2015 Form 10-Q for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, was incomplete and misleading.  The 10-Q
mentioned that the company was being sued by TransUnion Risk and
Alternative Data Solutions, Inc., but failed to disclose that an
adverse ruling could have an immediate near-term impact on the
company's financial position, results of operations, and
liquidity.

On July 21, 2015, Seekingalpha.com published an article detailing
Brauser's involvement in multiple lawsuits and stating that IDI's
TransUnion lawsuit could render IDI's stock worthless.  The same
day, the company's stock fell $5.26 per share, or over 46%, to
close at $6.16 per share.

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

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

The firm may be reached at:

         Darnell R. Donahue, Esq
         ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
         600 B Street, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Tel: (619) 525-3990
         Toll Free (800) 350-6003
         Email: DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com


ILLINOIS TOOL: Sued in Ill. For Damages Caused by Washer Fluid
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Tawil, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Illinois Tool Works Inc. and South/Win Ltd., Case No.
1:15-cv-06808 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the consumers who bought and installed the Defendants' Rain-X
windshield washer fluid that caused damages in their vehicles'
electronic windshield washer fluid sensors requiring expensive
repairs.

Headquartered in Glenview, Illinois, Illinois Tool Works Inc.,
produces engineered fasteners and components, equipment and
consumable systems, and specialty products.

Headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, South/Win Ltd.,
engages in the manufacture and distribution of car care products
for consumer and commercial use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Amy E. Keller, Esq.
      Adam Prom, Esq.
      WEXLER WALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              aek@wexlerwallace.com
              ap@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
      Andre M. Mura, Esq.
      Steve Lopez, Esq.
      GIBBS LAWGROUP LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1125
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
              amm@classlawgroup.com
              sal@classlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq
      GREG COLEMAN LAWPC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              elechtzin@bm.net


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Wins Bid To Halt $867.5-Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Allison Lampert, writing for BD Live, reported that British
American Tobacco was among the JSE's few gainers, rising 0.44% to
R693.99 after a Canadian appeal court ruled its subsidiary,
Imperial Tobacco Canada, along with two other cigarette companies
will not have to make a preliminary deposit of C$1.13bn ($867.56m)
as they appeal against a case that awarded more than C$15bn in
damages to Quebec smokers.

Imperial Tobacco Canada, along with Japan Tobacco's JTI-Macdonald
and Philip Morris International's Rothmans and Benson & Hedges,
had originally been ordered by a lower court judge to deposit the
amount in trust with their attorneys.

The companies were ordered to make the payment as part of a
historic June 1 ruling that awarded the damages in two related
Quebec smoking class-action cases.

But the Quebec Court of Appeal overturned the lower court judge's
order last to make a provisional payment, saying that even the
exceptional circumstances of the case did not warrant it.

"We are certainly not without empathy for potential class members
who may die of a tobacco-related illness prior to receiving any
compensation," the ruling said.

"Unfortunately, the law relating to class actions makes it such
that the order of provisional execution is of questionable benefit
to potential class members." Launched in 1998, the action was
considered to be the largest civil case in Canadian history,
marking the first time tobacco companies have gone to trial in a
civil suit in the country.

The damages would compensate about 100,000 Quebec smokers and
former smokers who alleged that the companies had known since the
1950s that they were selling a harmful product that was causing
cancer and other illnesses, but that the industry allegedly failed
to adequately warn consumers.

British American Tobacco (BAT) said on its subsidiary, Imperial
Tobacco Canada, would now focus on its appeal on the judgment
"which the company argues ignored the reality that both adult
consumers and governments have known about the risks associated
with smoking for decades". This appeal process is expected to
conclude in two to three years with a potential further appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada.

"We are pleased to see Imperial Tobacco Canada's arguments prevail
with the cancellation of an unprecedented and legally unjustified
provisional execution order," BAT legal and external affairs
director Jerome Abelman said.


INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Walters, and all others similarly-situated v. Intec
Communications, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02673 (N.D. Ga., July 29,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest on unpaid wages, and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a telecommunication company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louise N. Smith, Esq.
      SMITH LAW, LLC
      P.O. Box 1396
      Dacula, GA 30019
      Tel: (678) 889-2898
      Fax: (678) 889-2890
      E-mail: louise@smithlaw-llc.com


INTERNATIONAL DELIGHT: Faces "Arias-Hernandez" FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Jose Manuel Arias-Hernandez, Vinicio De Jesus Lora Peralta and all
similarly-situated v. The International Delight Cafe Inc., Antonia
Rollandi and Marcello Rollandi, Case 2:15-cv-03998 (S.D.N.Y., July
8, 2015), seeks monetary damages, declaratory relief, and
affirmative relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a restaurant/cafe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
     ZABELL & ASSOCIATES,P.C.
     1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
     Bohemia, NY 11716
     Tel: (631) 589-7242
     Fax: (631) 563-7475
     E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: No Trial Date Set in Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that no trial date has been
set in the Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation.

On April 26, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit entitled
Abrams v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5-13-cv-1920, was filed
against several of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. A substantially identical complaint,
entitled Adel v. Intuitive Surgical, et al., No. 5:13-cv-02365,
was filed in the same court against the same defendants on May 24,
2013. The Adel case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on
August 20, 2013.

On October 15, 2013, plaintiffs in the Abrams matter filed an
amended complaint. The case has since been re-titled In re
Intuitive Surgical Securities Litigation, No. 5:13-cv-1920. The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class
of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
common stock between February 6, 2012, and July 18, 2013. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and misleading
statements and omitting certain material facts in certain public
statements and in the Company's filings with the SEC.

On November 18, 2013, the court appointed Employees' Retirement
System of the State of Hawaii as lead plaintiff and appointed lead
counsel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint on December 16, 2013, which was granted in part and
denied in part on August 21, 2014. The plaintiffs elected not to
further amend their complaint.

On October 22, 2014, the court granted the Company's motion for
leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's August
21, 2014, order. The Company filed its motion for reconsideration
on November 5, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opposition on
November 19, 2014, and the Company filed its reply on November 26,
2014. The court denied the motion for reconsideration on December
15, 2014. The case is moving forward on the claims that remain. No
trial date has been set.

Based on currently available information, the Company does not
believe the resolution of this matter will have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, financial position, or future
results of operations.


INTUITIVE SURGICAL: 25 Plaintiffs Added to Product Liability Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is
currently named as a defendant in approximately 101 individual
product liability lawsuits filed in various state and federal
courts by plaintiffs who allege that they or a family member
underwent surgical procedures that utilized the da Vinci Surgical
System and sustained a variety of personal injuries and, in some
cases death, as a result of such surgery. The Company has also
received a large number of product liability claims from
plaintiffs' attorneys that are part of certain tolling agreements.
The Company has also been named as a defendant in a multi-
plaintiff lawsuit filed in Missouri state court.

On May 1, 2015, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add 25
additional plaintiffs. In total, plaintiffs seek damages on behalf
of 45 patients who had da Vinci Surgeries in 20 different states.
The cases raise a variety of allegations including, to varying
degrees, that plaintiffs' injuries resulted from purported defects
in the da Vinci Surgical System and/or failure on the Company's
part to provide adequate training resources to the healthcare
professionals who performed plaintiffs' surgeries. The cases
further allege that the Company failed to adequately disclose
and/or misrepresented the potential risks and/or benefits of the
da Vinci Surgical System. Plaintiffs also assert a variety of
causes of action, including for example, strict liability based on
purported design defects, negligence, fraud, breach of express and
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and loss of consortium.
Plaintiffs seek recovery for alleged personal injuries and, in
many cases, punitive damages.

The Company has reached confidential settlements in many of the
filed cases. With certain exceptions, including the Taylor case,
the remaining filed cases generally are in the early stages of
pretrial activity.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have engaged in well-funded national
advertising efforts seeking patients dissatisfied with da Vinci
Surgery. Among the allegations, a substantial number of claims
relate to alleged complications from surgeries performed with
certain versions of Monopolar Curved Scissor ("MCS") instruments
that included an MCS tip cover accessory that was the subject of a
market withdrawal in 2012 and MCS instruments that were the
subject of a recall in 2013. The Company has received a
significant number of claims from plaintiffs' attorneys that it
believes are a result of these advertising efforts. In an effort
to avoid the expense and distraction of defending multiple
lawsuits, the Company entered into tolling agreements to pause the
applicable statutes of limitations for these claims and engaged in
confidential mediation efforts.

After an extended confidential mediation process with legal
counsel for many of the claimants covered by the tolling
agreements, the Company determined during the first quarter of
2014 that, while it denies any and all liability, in light of the
costs and risks of litigation, settlement of certain claims may be
appropriate. During the year ended December 31, 2014, the Company
recorded pre-tax charges of $82.4 million, of which $9.6 million
and $77.0 million was recorded in the three and six months ended
June 30, 2014, respectively, to reflect the estimated cost of
settling a number of the product liability claims covered by the
tolling agreements. During the three and six months ended June 30,
2015, the Company recorded pre-tax charges of $6.6 million and
$13.8 million, respectively, related to these product liability
claims. The Company's estimate of the anticipated cost of
resolving these claims is based on negotiations with attorneys for
claimants who have participated in the mediation process.

Nonetheless, it is possible that more claims will be made by
additional individuals and that the claimants whose claims were
not resolved through the mediation program, as well as those
claimants who have not participated in mediations, will choose to
pursue greater amounts in a court of law.  Consequently, the final
outcome of these claims is dependent on many variables that are
difficult to predict and the ultimate cost associated with these
product liability claims may be materially different than the
amount of the current estimate and accruals and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, financial
position, and future results of operations. Although there is a
reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount
recognized exists, the Company is unable to estimate the possible
loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this
time.

As of June 30, 2015, and December 31, 2014, a total of $38.0
million and $49.5 million, respectively, were included in other
accrued liabilities in the accompanying Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets related to the tolled product liability claims.

In February 2011, the Company was named as a defendant in a
product liability action that had originally been filed in
Washington State Superior Court for Kitsap County against the
healthcare providers and hospital involved in plaintiff's
decedent's surgery (Josette Taylor, as Personal Representative of
the Estate of Fred E. Taylor, deceased; and on behalf of the
Estate of Fred E. Taylor v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., No. 09-2-
03136-5).  In Taylor, plaintiff asserted wrongful death and
product liability claims against the Company, generally alleging
that the decedent died four years after surgery as a result of
injuries purportedly suffered during the surgery, which was
conducted with the use of the da Vinci Surgical System. The
plaintiff in Taylor asserted that such injuries were caused, in
whole or in part, by the Company's purported failure to properly
train, warn, and instruct the surgeon. The lawsuit sought
unspecified damages for past medical expenses, pain and suffering,
loss of consortium as well as punitive damages.

A trial commenced in the action on April 15, 2013. On May 23,
2013, the jury returned a defense verdict, finding that the
Company was not negligent. Judgment was entered in the Company's
favor on June 7, 2013. Subsequent to the verdict, the plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal. That appeal was denied on July 7, 2015.
As of the date of this filing, no further appeal has been filed.


JC PENNEY: Sued Over 2013 Building Collapse
-------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Workers Compensation, reported that J.C
.Penney, The Children's Place, and Wal-Mart knew of unsafe
conditions at an eight-story factory in Bangladesh, yet allowed
workers to toil there until the building collapsed, a class action
claims.

In a complaint filed July 21, the plaintiffs, family members of
the workers killed in the April 24, 2013 disaster that left 1,100
dead and 2,500 injured, say the retailers were "aware that there
was a significant and specific risk to workers ... [and] were also
aware that the reason subcontractors could manufacture and supply
... garments at such low cost was ... because the subcontractors
often operated substandard and unsafe factories which put garment
workers at significant risk of severe personal injury or death."

Similar lawsuits were filed against the three companies earlier,
as well as against other clothing manufacturers such as Canadian
companies Joe Fresh and Loblaw Companies Limited.

The Rana Plaza building was declared safe the day before the
disaster, despite the fact structural cracks had been seen
throughout the building. The building had been evacuated prior to
the inspection, but the workers were told to return the next day.

Vibrations from generators used during the production process are
believed to have added to the stresses on the building, and caused
it collapse hours after the first shift workers arrived.

Among the dead were children of the employees, who were in the
onsite nursery at the time.

The suit claims that an engineer had warned of dangerous
structural conditions prior to the collapse, and that the
building's owner failed to comply with several building codes and
permit requirements.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages
on multiple claims of negligence and wrongful death.

They are represented by Peter Andrews of Andrews & Springer LLC of
Wilmington, Del.

The retailers declined to comment, saying they do not comment on
ongoing litigation.


J.M. MATTRESS: Recalls Mattress Products Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
J.M. Mattress, of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of
about 240 Mattresses. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

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

This recall involves renovated (rebuilt) Tight Top RB Sweet Dream
mattresses sold in twin, full, queen and king sizes. Recalled
mattresses are ivory colored, have a white federal tag with
"Manufactured By: J.M. Mattress, 4536 W. Gladys Ave. Chicago IL
60624, Model: Tight Top RB Sweet Dreams, Protoype ID: TTQRBD Sweet
Dreams." The federal tag is located on the top side near the foot
of the mattress.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/4XeBD9

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at independent mattress stores in Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin
from September 2014 through December 2014 for between $50 and
$500.

Consumers should immediately contact J.M. Mattress to arrange to
have the recalled mattresses picked up, recovered and returned
free of charge.


JYMD FOOD: "Calderon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cosme Calderon, and other similarly situated individuals v. JYMD
Food Corp. d/b/a Price Choice Food Markets, Juan Y. Diaz, and Juan
E. Diaz, Case No. 1:15-cv-22922 (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate hotels and motels located in Miami
Gardens, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
     Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     Court House Tower
     Suite 2200, 44 West Flagler Street
     Miami, FL 33130
     Telephone: (305) 416-5000
     Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
     E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
             agp@rgpattorneys.com


KABIRHU ASSOCIATES: "Pierre" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Magdalie Pierre, and all others similarly-situated v. Kabirhu
Associates, LLC dba Golden Glades Nursing and Rehabilitation
Center, Case No. 1:15-cv-22837 (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages or
pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a nursing and rehabilitation center located in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Scott Norell, Esq.
      ROBERT S. NORELL P.A.
      300 NW 70th Avenue, Ste 305
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Tel: (954) 617-6017
      Fax: (954) 617-6018
      E-mail: robnorell@aol.com


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Accrued $7.2MM of Settlement Related Costs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Transportation, Inc., said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
22, 2015, that during the second quarter of 2015 the Company
accrued $7.2 million of expense ($4.4 million after-tax) related
to expected settlement costs for two class action lawsuits
involving employment-related claims in California and Oregon.


KOHL'S CORP: Calif. Suits Challenge Discount Pricing Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Romell, writing for Journal Sentinel, reported that Kohl's
Corp. is being targeted in two lawsuits in California over the
retailer's longtime practice of promoting its merchandise as being
heavily discounted.

Both actions allege that the discounts are false and that Kohl's
does not routinely sell much of its merchandise at the "original"
or "regular" prices. The fictitious discounts mislead shoppers
into thinking they are getting bargains that are, in fact,
illusions, the lawsuits claim.

In both lawsuits, the plaintiffs are asking federal judges to
declare their cases to be class actions.

"Tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of California
consumers have been victims of defendant's deceptive, misleading
and unlawful pricing scheme," one of the suits alleges.

Kohl's, based in Menomonee Falls, operates 1,164 department stores
nationwide, including, as of late January, 126 in California. The
company did not respond to requests for comment.

So-called high-low or promotional pricing is a staple retailing
strategy, and Kohl's has been a leading practitioner.

Aside from Walmart, few mass market merchants can succeed without
routinely holding sales. J.C. Penney famously tried the everyday-
low-prices approach a few years ago under the leadership of since-
ousted CEO Ron Johnson and met with disaster. J.C. Penney, a
Kohl's competitor, quickly returned to high-low pricing.

J.C. Penney also is the target of litigation over its pricing
practices. That case, also pending in federal court in California,
was certified in May as a class action  --  a step that opens the
company to widespread claims from shoppers if the firm loses.

The first of the new lawsuits against Kohl's was filed less than a
month after the J.C. Penney plaintiffs won class-action status.
The second lawsuit followed less than six weeks later.

Proving that "original" prices are fake can be difficult, but
California law is fairly specific about defining an original
price. It has to have been the "prevailing market price" within
the three months just before the sale.

In an action filed in early June, Steven Russell, of Riverside
County, Calif., claims that on about 15 occasions he bought
products from a Kohl's store in Palm Desert that were "falsely
advertised as being a certain percentage off a false original or
regular price."

In a separate lawsuit brought, two San Diego County women allege
there were phony discounts on items they bought -- a Jennifer
Lopez dress, a Sonoma robe and an Apt. 9 shirt -- from three of
Kohl's private-label or exclusive lines.

The women allege that what they say are misleading practices are
widespread at Kohl's and that the retailer knows that "as discount
size increases, consumers' perceptions of value and their
willingness to buy the product increases."

Twice in the early 2000s, public officials went after Kohl's over
the way it promotes its prices.

In Wichita, Kan., the company paid a total of $500,000 to settle
deceptive-advertising cases brought by the district attorney.
Kohl's agreed to consent judgments in the actions but admitted no
wrongdoing.

Later, the Massachusetts attorney general concluded that Kohl's
had violated a law barring false advertising of sale prices but
decided not to prosecute because he didn't think it would
significantly help consumers.

Kohl's also was sued in California in 2010 over allegedly false
markdowns. That action was dismissed by agreement of both sides.


LANDAMERICA: Pays $5MM in Class Suit Against Former Execs
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond Bizsense, reported that
LandAmerica's big bosses are off the hook again.

A $5 million settlement was officially approved to resolve a long-
standing class-action lawsuit against former heads of the
collapsed Richmond financial firm.

The case was born out of two separate suits filed by a pair of
disgruntled employees who blamed 15 former LandAmerica Financial
Group executives and directors for allegedly mishandling the
company's pension fund as the firm faltered and failed.

Similar to the end of a case filed against the group of insiders
in 2012 by the trustee overseeing LFG's bankruptcy, this $5
million settlement was reached after triggering an insurance
policy that was in place to cover board members and executives in
such an instance.

It allows the defendants, who denied liability throughout the
case, to end the matter without admitting any wrongdoing.

The case was closed July 22, and the court appointed California
attorney Nicholas L. Saakvitne to administer the settlement funds
and oversee distribution. The class included all participants in
the LFG Savings and Stock Ownership Plan between Feb. 7, 2008 and
July 31, 2009. Court documents indicate that nearly 1,000 class
members had been identified thus far.

The attorneys that represented the class were awarded $1.4 million
in fees and $152,000 in expense reimbursement, amounting to about
28 percent of the total payout.

Former LandAmerica employees Kerrie Borboa, Timothy O'Grady and
Bertrand Francis were the lead plaintiffs. They each were awarded
$5,000 for their contributions to the case.

The defendants in the case were former LandAmerica CEO Ted
Chandler; former Chief Administrative Officer Ross W. Dorneman;
former CFO G. William Evans; and former directors Janet A. Alpert;
Gale K. Caruso; Michael Dinkins; Charles H. Foster Jr.; John P.
McCann; Dianne M. Neal; Robert F. Norfleet Jr.; Robert T. Skunda;
Julious P. Smith Jr.; Eugene Trani; Thomas G. Snead Jr.; and
Marshall B. Wishnack.

The case alleged that the 15 defendants failed to avoid inherent
conflicts of interest in their oversight of the pension fund and
its heavy reliance on LandAmerica stock, as many of their pay
packages were tied to the performance of the company's shares. The
lawsuit claims violations of the federal Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

LandAmerica filed for bankruptcy in November 2008. At its height,
the company was the third-largest title insurance underwriter in
the United States. It was toppled when the market for auction rate
securities froze in February 2008. Much of the company's fortunes
were tied up in such securities.

At the end of 2007, the pension plan held about 812,000 shares of
LFG stock, which at the time had a value of $28.4 million.

A year later, the holdings of LFG stock had increased to more than
850,000, and their value stood at just $76,500. The company
terminated its retirement plan in July 2009.

The plaintiffs and the class were represented by attorneys from
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check in Radnor, Pennsylvania. The
defendants were represented by attorneys with Foley & Lardner in
Washington, D.C., and from Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom.

Kessler Topaz may be reached at:

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Rd
         Radnor, PA 19087


LEE COUNTY, FL: Deputies' Suit Over OT Pay Certified
----------------------------------------------------
Michael Braun, writing for News-Press.com, reported that a federal
lawsuit filed on behalf of deputies from the Lee County Sheriff's
Office has been certified and will proceed, a representing
attorney said.

Attorney Benjamin Yormak said the suit was filed in September,
2014, in U.S. District Court and received certification by Judge
John Steele on July 16.

"This is a federal collective action under the Fair Labor Act,"
Yormak said, as well as a violation of the Florida Minimum Wage
Act. The suit also sought class certification but was denied by
the judge.

The Bonita Springs attorney said the case is two-fold: "To recover
wages owed to the deputies and to change the policies to be in-
line with state and federal law."

Yormak and Kevin Calderone, one of the four original complainants,
said the crux is an aspect called "donning and doffing."

Calderon said deputies are seeking to be paid for their time from
when they enter their patrol cars, not when they actually start
their shifts at a Lee County Sheriff's Office facility. Some
deputies are allowed to drive a sheriff's office vehicle home and
are allowed to use it for non-work activities.

Calderone said the distinction between starting work from the
point of entry into the vehicle and arriving at a facility is
usually about a 15-minute difference, which can add up.

Sheriff Mike Scott responded to the suit via a statement.

"I typically refrain from commenting on matters pending
litigation; however, I believe our taxpayers and my co-workers
deserve some perspective on recent media stories regarding a class
action lawsuit wherein 33 employees (2.2 percent) of our total
membership want to be paid from the time they put on their uniform
until the time they take it off," Scott said.

Scott said many law enforcement agencies including the LCSO
subscribe to "take home vehicles." The sheriff said the lawsuit
deals with official activity a deputy may engage in during the
commute to or from their shift, such as rolling up on an incident
and starting their work early. "It is up to that Deputy to notify
their supervisor and reflect same on their timesheet," he said in
the statement. "They would then be compensated accordingly."

Scott said that the sheriff's office's compensation practices have
been, remain and always will be consistent with all applicable
state and federal laws.

"It is important to note that the plaintiffs in the current
litigation completed their own time sheets and certified their
time sheets to be true and accurate. Consequentially, the
plaintiffs were paid based upon what they themselves presented and
certified as the hours they worked," his statement said. "The
plaintiffs now contend that they should be paid for time they did
not report on the very time sheets they themselves prepared and
certified as accurate."

Additionally, the sheriff's statement said, "the law is well-
settled that plaintiffs are not entitled to the additional
compensation they now seek."

However, Calderon said while there is a process for recording and
submitting the time as the sheriff described, many deputies don't
push the issue for fear of being branded a troublemaker.

"You have to push the issue. Some guys won't. They don't want to
get a name," he said. "I'm one who pushes the issue. I don't work
for free."

Calderone and Yormak said there are other law enforcement
departments in Florida who do pay in the "donning and doffing"
manner including the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office and
Florida Highway Patrol.

Yormak said the court recently denied class certification and an
appeal will be filed on that aspect. Additionally, he said since
the suit was filed there have been 34 names added.

Yormak said he is awaiting a list from the sheriff of the names
and emails of all deputies at the LCSO who could be affected.


LEXINGTON LAW: "Hale" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, and all others similarly-situated v. John C. Heath,
Attorney at law, PLLC, dba Lexington Law Firm, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01676 (S.D. Cal., July 28, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant offers credit repair services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      KAZEROUNIAN LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Tel: (800) 400-6808
      Fax: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108-3551
      Tel: (619) 233-7770
      Fax: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


LIFELOCK INC: Briscoe, Powers Taylor File Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the
securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona against LifeLock, Inc.
("LifeLock") (NYSE: LOCK) and several officers and directors for
acts taken during the period of July 30, 2014 to July 20, 2015
(the "Class Period").

Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are
investigating additional legal claims against the officers and
Board of Directors of LifeLock. If you are an affected LifeLock
shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the
action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via
email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at
Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or
call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you.

According to the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have
violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that LifeLock failed to establish and maintain a comprehensive
information security program to protect its users' sensitive
personal data, including credit card, social security, and bank
account information and that it falsely advertised that it
protected consumers' sensitive data with the same high-level
safeguards as financial institutions. The complaint also alleges
that LifeLock failed to meet the 2010 settlement orders'
recordkeeping requirement. According to the complaint, these
factors caused LifeLock's statements about its business,
operations, and prospects to be false and misleading.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation,
commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20
years of experience in complex litigation and transactional
matters.

Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a
variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.

The firms may be reached at:

         Willie Briscoe, Esq.
         THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
         8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
         Dallas, TX 75206
         Tel: (214) 239-4568
         Fax: (281) 254-7789
         Email: shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com

            -- and --

         Patrick Powers, Esq.
         POWERS TAYLOR LLP
         8150 N Central Expy #1575
         Dallas, TX 75206
         Tel: (214) 239-8900
         Toll: (877) 728-9607
         Email: shareholder@powerstaylor.com


LIFELOCK INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, announces that
a shareholder class action has been filed against LifeLock, Inc.
(NYSE: LOCK) ("LifeLock" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's securities between July 30, 2014 and July 20,
2015,  inclusive (the "Class Period").

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/lifelock-inc.

LifeLock provides identity theft protection services for
consumers, and fraud and risk solutions for enterprises.  In 2010,
LifeLock entered into a settlement order with the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC") and purportedly changed its marketing and
business practices in connection with that settlement.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, LifeLock
and certain of its executive officers made a series of false
and/or misleading statements to investors, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.

Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among other
things: (1) that the Company had failed to establish and maintain
a comprehensive information security program to protect its users'
sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security,
and bank account numbers; (2) that the Company falsely advertised
that it protected consumers' sensitive data with the same high-
level safeguards as financial institutions; (3) that the Company
failed to meet the 2010 settlement order's recordkeeping
requirements; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On July 21, 2015, the Company's shares declined over 49%, or $7.91
per share, after the FTC "asserted that LifeLock violated a 2010
settlement with the agency and 35 state attorneys general by
continuing to make deceptive claims about its identity theft
protection services, and by failing to take steps required to
protect its users' data." According to the FTC, LifeLock violated
the 2010 settlement order "from at least October 2012 through
March 2014."

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or (610) 667-7706, or via e-mail at
info@ktmc.com

Members of the class may, no later than September 21, 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 against
LifeLock.  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). The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check.

The firm may be reached at:

         Darren J. Check, Esq.
         D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
         Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Tel: (888) 299-7706
         Tel: (610) 667-7706
         Email: info@ktmc.com


LIFELOCK INC: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock" or the
"Company") (NYSE: LOCK) between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period), alleging violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 against the Company and certain of its
officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of LifeLock during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold
LifeLock, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888)
969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at:
http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/lifelock-inc-lock.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on July 21, 2015, the Federal Trade
Commission revealed in a press release that LifeLock violated a
2010 settlement with the agency and 35 state attorneys general by
continuing to make deceptive claims about its identity theft
protection services, and by failing to take steps required to
protect its users' data.

On this news, shares in LifeLock plummeted more than 49%, closing
at $8.15 per share on July 21, 2015, on extremely high trading
volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 21, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
proposed 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.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this
matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden
City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative
and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate
governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in
state and federal courts throughout the United States.

CONTACT:

         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Peter Allocco, Esq.
         RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
         Toll: (888) 969-4242
         Tel: (516) 683-3516
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Email: tjm@rl-legal.com
                pa@rl-legal.com


LOS ANGELES, CA: Cop Sues Over Termination, Race Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Los Angeles fired a veteran police detective after another officer
gave the media a recording of his allegedly racially based remarks
during a training seminar, the detective claims in court.

Frank Lyga sued the City of Los Angeles in Federal Court on July
30, alleging racial discrimination and civil rights violations.
Lyga says the LAPD hired him in 1986 as a patrol officer and
promoted him to detective in 1990.  Among his assignments during
his 28-year career was undercover work with the Clandestine
Laboratory Team. He received awards and commendations for his work
in narcotics and is a "nationally recognized expert in the
manufacturing of controlled substances," according to the
complaint.

Lyga is perhaps best known for his 1997 fatal shooting of fellow
LAPD Officer Kevin Gaines.  While working undercover, Lyga got
into in a heated traffic dispute with Gaines. Neither man realized
the other was also a police officer. During the altercation, Lyga
put his gun on his lap for protection when Gaines allegedly pulled
beside him, yelled, "I'll cap you, motherfucker!" and pointed a
gun at him. Lyga shot Gaines twice, he acknowledges in the
complaint.

Investigation showed that Gaines was working for Death Row Records
producer Suge Knight and was romantically involved with Knight's
estranged wife, Sharitha Knight, according to the complaint.

Lyga says that investigation also revealed that two of Gaines's
associates were involved in criminal activities, and led to the
Rampart Scandal, involving corrupt officers in the LAPD's Rampart
Anti-Gang CRASH unit.

Gaines' death also sparked controversy because Gaines was black
and Lyga is white.

Lyga was found to be acting in self-defense and was cleared of
wrongdoing by the LAPD and District Attorney's Office, but
prominent African-American civil rights attorney Johnny Cochran
filed a $25 million civil rights suit claiming Lyga intentionally
killed Gaines because he was black, Lyga says.

The city settled that lawsuit for $250,000 though the judge
determined that Lyga had acted within LAPD guidelines, Lyga says.
He says he had "had to live with the charge that he was a racist
cop-killer despite the truth of the matter."

About 16 sixteen years later, in November 2013, Lyga says, he was
giving a training seminar on search warrants when students asked
him how the Gaines shooting had affected his career.  Among other
things, Lyga told the students about a confrontation he had during
a deposition with Carl Douglas, the attorney for Gaines's family.
He claims in the lawsuit that Douglas tried to paint him as a
racist and asked if he had any regrets about the incident.

"I says, 'No. I regret he was alone in the truck at the time,'"
Lyga says in the complaint, apparently quoting from the leaked
video. "I could have killed a whole truck load of them. And would
have been happily doing it," Lyga told the students.  He also
called Douglas an "ewok" and made sexist comments about a female
LAPD officer, according to the L.A. Times.

Lyga says he did not know the conversation was being recorded by
police Officer Bruce Stallworth, who was friends with Kevin
Gaines.  Stallworth released the comments to the press in June
2014 and filed a personnel complaint against Lyga, which prompted
an Internal Affairs investigation. About two months later, Capt.
Charles Hearn wrote a letter stating that Lyga "poses a
significant liability to the department," that his comments "are
inconsistent with our principles and values," and that he should
be fired, according to the lawsuit.

Lyga says he apologized for his comments in a statement to the
LAPD board of rights panel, saying: "I fully admit and recognize
that the things I said were very wrong and I deeply regret that I
used such poor judgment when I spoke that day. I have no excuse
for what I did. I realize that my words were hurtful to many
people as well as to the department. I accept responsibility for
the harm I caused."

He said he hoped he could continue to serve the LAPD, but the
panel found in October that he should be fired for his remarks.
Instead, Lyga says, he chose to retire early so he could collect
pension benefits.

Lyga claims he has suffered "physical illness and physical
injuries" and mental distress from the humiliation of being fired
and "from the defamation and the attacks on his character."  He
claims the LAPD had no evidence that he is racist, but fast-
tracked his termination because he is white and because his
statements made the LAPD look like a racist institution.

Lyga claims he was fired because of political pressure from the
African-American community "based on their unfounded allegations
that Lyga was a racist cop killer."  He claims he would not have
been fired if he were black, and that black officer would not be
fired for making the same statements he did.

A spokesman for the Los Angeles Attorney's Office could not
immediately be reached for comment on July 31.

Lyga seeks $300,000 in compensatory and statutory damages, special
damages, back pay, front pay and reinstatement.  He is represented
by Joseph Avrahamy of Encino and Marla Brown of Los Angeles, who
did not immediately return requests for comment.

Tyler Izen, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League,
told the L.A. Times that Lyga did not deserve to be fired.

"There is not a shred of evidence those comments were racially
motivated, and there is no evidence of that in Frank's career,"
Izen told the Times.


LOS ARRIEROS: Seeks Minimum Wage, OT Payment Under FLSA, OMFWSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Ornelas, Rito Cruz, Victor Vergara and all others similarly-
situated v. Los Arrieros, LLC (d/b/a Los Arrieros Mexican
Restaurant), Chen Los Arrieros Inc. (d/b/a Los Arrieros Mexican
Restaurant), Xiu Yan Dong (aka Winnie Chen) and Yong Xiu Chen (aka
Jackie Chen), Case: 1:15-cv-01361 (N.D. Ohio, July 8, 2015), seeks
appropriate monetary, declaratory and equitable relief, minimum
wages and overtime compensation as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution and the Ohio Minimum Fair
Wage Standards Act.

The Defendants principally own and operate a Mexican-style
restaurant and bar.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert J. Beggs, Esq.
     BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA
     1675 Old Henderson Road
     Columbus, OH 43220
     Tel: 614-678-5640
     Fax: 614-448-9408
     E-mail: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com

        - and -

     Andrew Kimble, Esq
     KIMBLE LAW OFFICE
     1675 Old Henderson Road
     Columbus, OH 43220
     E-mail: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com
     Tel: 937-286-6428
     Fax: 614-448-9408


LUMBER ONE: 11th Circ. Reinstates Class Suit
--------------------------------------------
Timothy St. George, Esq. -- tim.stgeorge@troutmansanders.com --
David M. Gettings, Esq. -- david.gettings@troutmansanders.com --
and David N. Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com --
at Troutman Sanders LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reported that
although most states have consumer protection laws that provide
for private rights of action, certain states also hold that such
remedies cannot be invoked and pursued on behalf of a class.
However, when such a case is filed in federal court, such state-
based restrictions conflict with the class action mechanism that
is set forth under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

In Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving LLC, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS
11891 (11th Cir. July 10, 2015), the Eleventh Circuit held that
class actions can still be pursued in federal court when the
underlying state statute prohibits class action procedure.  To
that end, the court reinstated a nationwide class action under the
Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act ("ADTPA"), despite a
provision in the ADTPA prohibiting class actions.

The court's interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in
Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v. Allstate Insurance Co., 559
U.S. 393 (2010), which was critical to its analysis, is contrary
to the recent trend in federal district courts prohibiting class
actions based on state law when that same state law also prohibits
the class action mechanism.

In Shady Grove, a five-member majority ruled that Rule 23
preempted a New York law barring class actions for recovery of a
"penalty" even when the claim for a penalty arose under a New York
law.  Four members of the majority also issued an opinion making
clear they viewed the decision as being generally applicable to
just about any state law that might limit the right to bring a
class action in federal court under state law, while the fifth
judge of the majority filed a concurrence indicating that whether
a specific state law barring a class action would be preempted in
federal court would depend on a detailed analysis of the
particular state law.

Embracing the more expansive view of the law adopted by the four
justices of the majority in Shady Grove, the Eleventh Circuit held
that "how a state chooses to organize its statutes affects the
analysis not at all."  To emphasize its point, the court noted
that "surely the New York legislature could not change the Shady
Grove holding simply by reenacting the same provision as part of
the [relevant statute]."  The general impact of the Eleventh
Circuit's decision is clear: the door to federal court for class
actions to enforce state-law rights has potentially been opened
ever further.

Troutman Sanders LLP has extensive experience in defending class
actions.  We will continue to monitor this case and like
developments in other federal circuits.


MAID FOR CHICAGO: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Contreras, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Maid for Chicago, LLC and Susie Nguyen, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06805 (N.D. Ill., August 4, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a cleaning and maid services
company in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Hill" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rory Hill, Nicole Hill, and Dawn McLaughlin, individuals, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Medical
Informatics Engineering, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00204-JD-SLC (N.D.
Ind., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to properly safeguard consumers' personally-identifiable
information entrusted to, including names, dates of birth,
telephone numbers, street addresses and personal health
information.

Headquartered in Fort Wayne, Indiana, Defendant Medical
Informatics Engineering, Inc. operates an information technology
and services company located at 6302 Constitution Drive, Ft.
Wayne, Indiana 46804.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William R. Riley, Esq.
      Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
      James A. Piatt, Esq.
      PRICE WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, LLC
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 633-8787
      Facsimile: (317) 633-8797
      E-mail: wriley@price-law.com
              jwilliams@price-law.com
              jpiatt@price-law.com

MENZIES AVIATION: Removes "Wright" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled Sara Wright, individually and on behalf of all
current and former similarly situated v. Menzies Aviation, Inc.,
Menzies Aviation USA, Inc., Aviation Group USA, Inc., Does 1
through 10, inclusive, and Aeroground, Inc., Case No. BC441808,
was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the
United States District Court for the Central District Of
California (Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-05874 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sara Wright
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher Gary Ward, Esq.
      FOLEY AND LARDNER LLP
      555 South Flower Street Suite 3500
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-2411
      Telephone: (213) 972-4646
      Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
      E-mail: cward@foley.com


MERIDIAN: Trustees Accused of Failing Basic Loan Checks
-------------------------------------------------------
Kylar Loussikian, writing for The Australian Business Review,
reported that had Australian Executor Trustees, a division of the
troubled financial services giant IOOF, exercised reasonable
diligence, it would have detected serious deficiencies with
Provident's lending practices by April 2006, according to
documents filed by Meredian Lawyers, six years before the
debenture firm collapsed leaving thousands of small-time investors
owed millions.

The Meredian class action follows the filing of another, by Slater
& Gordon, alleging similar deficiencies in Australian ET's
diligence, which has been assigned a trial date in the Federal
Court early.

Meredian partner Douglas Raftesath said it remained possible both
class actions would be heard in tandem, and potentially moved to
ensure they are heard by the same judge. "Quite what's going to
happen I don't know. There will be some similar factual issues, so
for that reason there may be some move at some point, if these
matters progress to hearing, to ensure they are heard by the same
judge," Mr Raftesath said.

Simultaneous class actions are rare, but do occur, most notably
the four-year case brought on behalf of Centro shareholders, which
resulted in a $200 million settlement. Slater & Gordon and Maurice
Blackburn ran separate actions on that occasion.

But Ben Phi, head of Slater & Gordon's class actions group, said
he would be surprised if "the defendant, if not the courts on
their own motion, did not take action to ensure that only one
claim proceeded".

In a detailed submission, Meredian will allege Australian ET
allowed the Michael O'Sullivan-led Provident to lend money and
rollover borrowings, breaching loan-to-value ratios, and on
occasion lending to companies that were insolvent or in default.

Provident collapsed in July 2012, months after telling its 3500
investors it was confident it could stay afloat despite more than
90 per cent of its $176m loan book being many months in arrears.

"Had (Australian ET) conducted an independent inquiry, they
wouldn't have had to scratch too far below the surface to have
uncovered major issues with the loan portfolio," Mr Raftesath told
The Australian.

The most significant borrowing in Provident's loan book was to
Burleigh Views, for the development of a property near the Gold
Coast, originally for $4m in 2000.

Despite development approval lapsing in 2002, with no construction
having taken place, Provident agreed to roll over the loan, which
was subsequently increased in 2004. Burleigh View defaulted
several months later, and remained in default as the loan value
continued to increase. Burleigh View was placed into liquidation
in 2008 and by 2012 the debt had grown to $27.94m.

Similar large loans were made out to Chrysalis Holdings for a
development in Newcastle, which grew from about $2m to $12.6m,
which was written off. The loan was in default from the end of
2004.

Other loans included $3.3m made out for the construction of a hot
spring health farm in Moree, and more than $5.65m made to the
Neolido Group for a townhouse development in Brisbane, where the
loan was made 7 days after the Australian Securities & Investments
Commission wrote to Provident to inform them it was conducting a
review of the developer's solvency.

By April 2006, Provident had 25 loans worth $60.95m in arrears, a
total of 29.9 per cent of its portfolio, which it reported to
Australian ET.

Despite Provident breaching its lending rules by not providing
value certification nearly 40 times between 2000 and 2012,
Australian ET did not act, Meredian will allege.

"Had they done their own checks at an earlier date, (Australian
ET) would have uncovered breaches, and given there were breaches
their obligations would be to ensure they were remedies, and if
they weren't they should have appointed a receiver," Mr Raftesath
said.

Provident receiver PPB has already begun pursuing directors of the
failed debenture firm, but expects to return just 19c for every
dollar in a fixed-term investment, at most $23.5m.

Mr O'Sullivan has already been barred by ASIC from managing
companies for 5 years and providing financial services for 7
years. He has since appealed.

Earlier ASIC banned another Provident Capital director, John
Sweeney, after finding he engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct during his time at the debenture fund.

Australian ET said it had complied with all its duties with
respect to Provident and would not comment further, citing the
legal action.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Removes "Martin" Class Suit to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Joanne W. Martin, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group,
Inc., Case No. 602179/2015, was removed from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York County of Suffolk to the U.S. District Court
Eastern District of New York (Central Islip). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-04560 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joanne W. Martin
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Matthew Brady Johnson, Esq.
      MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
      Wall Street Plaza
      88 Pine Street, 21st Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 376-6433
      Facsimile: (212) 376-6490
      E-mail: mbjohnson@mdwcg.com


MOMOYAMA INC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Hugo Grajeda Garcia, and all others similarly-situated v.
Momoyama, Inc. dba Gabose Restaurant and Eun Suk Hong, Case No.
0:15-cv-61562 (S.D. Fla., July 30, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Eun Suk Hong is a corporate officer, owner and manager of Gabose
Restaurant located at Broward County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
       J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
       300 71st Street, Suite 605
       Miami Beach, FL 33141
       Tel: (305) 865-6766
       Fax: (305) 865-7167
       E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


MYLAN NV: Faces Class Suit Over Misuse of Dutch Foundation
----------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that a
group of shareholders of Mylan NV have filed a class action
lawsuit against the company, alleging that it misused a Dutch
foundation to fend off a takeover by Teva.

Heather Bresch and Robert J. Coury were also named as defendants
in the suit.

City of Riviera Beach General Employees System and Doris Arnold
claim in November Mylan entered into an agreement to a merger with
Abbott Labs to combine "Old Mylan" with certain non-U.S.
businesses of Abbott labs and create "New Mylan," which was
organized under the laws of the Netherlands, according to an
amended complaint filed July 10 in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania.

The plaintiffs claim although the merger was structured as a tax
inversion to allow Mylan to lessen its obligations under the U.S.
tax code, Old Mylan and its executive chairman and CEO repeatedly
assured shareholders that shares of New Mylan would be traded on
the NASDAQ Global Select Market and the surviving corporation
would abide and be bound by NASDAQ listing rules.

The representations made by Old Mylan and the individual
defendants that New Mylan would abide by the NASDAQ listing rules,
however, was a sham, according to the suit.
The plaintiffs claim Mylan lowered the value of their shares.

The company also breached its fiduciary duty to shareholders of
Old Mylan by not notifying them of its defense plans before they
voted to approve the merger with Abbott that led to the formation
of Mylan NV, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim as a consequence of the breach of duty, Old
Mylan shareholders were deprived of their change to cast a fully-
informed vote on the merger.

"By failing to disclose the full truth about the call option, the
individual defendants deprived the Old Mylan shareholders of the
right to cast an informed vote on whether they wanted to hold
securities in a company that had a Dutch poison pill in place and
that, accordingly, likely would trade at a discount to where it
would have traded had it not had such an anti-takeover device in
place," the complaint states.

The defendants also breached their contract with the plaintiffs
and caused them damages, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs are seeking the court to rescind the shareholder
vote approving the Abbott merger and to award compensatory
damages. They are being represented by Benjamin J. Sweet Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela LLP; Mark C. Gardy, James S. Notis and
Meagan A. Farmer of Gardy & Notis LLP; and Michael J. Barry and
Jay W. Eisenhofer of Grant & Eisenhofer PA.


NATURE'S VALUE: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leticia Santamaria, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Nature's Value, Inc., Ram-Fin
Holdings Inc.; Oscar Ramjeet, and John Doe Corporations 1 through
10, Case No. 2:15-cv-04535 (E.D.N.Y., August 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of formulating and
manufacturing oral supplements for the domestic and international
market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven John Moser, Esq.
      STEVEN J. MOSER, PC
      3 School Street, Suite 207B
      Glen Cove, NY 11542
      Telephone: (516) 671-1150
      Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
      E-mail: smoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Circ. Validates Data Breach Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bernstein, writing for Tech Zone 360, reported that a very
important decision was recently handed down in the U.S. by the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that should command everyone's
attention.

The case of interest is REMIJAS v. NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, LLC. It
involves the assertion by customers of the luxury department store
Nieman Marcus that the company did not take the proper precautions
in protecting their private customer information which was
compromised when a data breach occurred in 2013. As a result
customers had to take measures to protect their identities and
argued that Neiman Marcus should ultimately be held liable for
their lack of protecting their private personal information. The
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals over-ruled a lower court which
said the plaintiffs did not have standing to proceed and said
plaintiffs in this matter do in fact constitute a class under
Article III of the U.S. Constitution and thus are qualified to
seek redress for the damages they believe they have suffered.

While this is the first in what could be a long process, the
reason this case is so important is that just as victims are a
class, by extension Neiman Marcus could be viewed as a stand-in
for all organizations that capture, store, process and share
private personal data.

As those of us who live in the U.S. know, ours is a litigious
society and the legal profession in recent years has looked to
class action suits as a nice revenue source. Businesses for their
part have argued that such suits, which aggregate the complaints
of numerous parties that have alleged grievances, are frivolous
and should be tossed. In fact, many have been. However, without
going into the details of this case what the Court essentially
said is that those who have had their personal information
compromised have established that Neiman Marcus did not take good
care by following known best practices, and hence they can proceed
to explore their legal remedies as a group.

The decision, albeit, is only about whether plaintiffs are a class
and once recognized as one can sue. Nevertheless in the context of
the daily barrage of news about data breaches, both of commercial
entities and government agencies, this one has to be scored as
consequential and a win for all consumers, and obviously not just
those who were impacted by the Neiman Marcus data breach.

Why is this possibly so consequential? The answer is easy to
contemplate. In the future a court decides in favor of plaintiffs
-- who have argued they had no control over the security of their
data once captured by the department store chain and were left
with the time and costs of protecting their identities
"Everywhere.  The cost of damages paid out by entities who do not
take good care to protect private personal information could be
enormous. For example, damages for breaches such as the recent one
at Target, where tens of millions of records were stolen by bad
actors, even if nominal per individual could quickly add up to
hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions of dollars.

How all of this turns out is problematic. In fact, it may end up
being something that the U.S. Supreme Court may have on its docket
in the future. What should be noted here, and those with legal
training are invited to send along their comments, is that there
is legal precedent going back many decades that entities who
willingly choose not to employ known and readily available best
practices for safeguarding the person and property (which our
identities likely would be considered) can be held liable when bad
things happen.

In this regard, whether or not giving individuals a year of
monitoring services is deemed to be fair compensation for damages
suffered -- the most common remedy offered by those who have been
breached -- could now be up to a court to decide. Let's just say
this is a class action to watch. Certainly any entity that
captures, stores, processes, shares and otherwise provides access
to personal customer information, by internal and not just
external individuals and organizations, will be watching.  And,
you can bet data protection firms will be too.


NEW YORK: Settles $27,500 Class Suit
------------------------------------
Nathan Tempey, writing for Gothamist, reported that the city has
agreed to pay $27,500 to the man police wrongfully arrested for
trespassing as he went to visit his girlfriend in a public housing
development in Washington Heights in 2014. The settlement,
reported by the Post, ends the lawsuit Marcus Bussey filed over
his February 15th trip through the system.

It all began when he went to meet his long-term girlfriend Denise
Clark in her Polo Grounds Towers apartment. According to the
lawsuit, after being buzzed in by a stranger, he found no one at
home in her seventh-floor apartment, then called her and arranged
to meet her in the lobby. In the stairwell, he encountered Officer
Francisco Garcia, who through a cracked door said, "Come here!"
Not seeing who had barked the order, Bussey ran back up the stairs
to Clark's apartment, but hearing walkie talkies, he realized he
was dealing with a cop. His lawyers say he then put his hands up
and faced the wall to await Garcia's arrival.

When Garcia arrived, with Officer Elvis Cornea and five other cops
in tow, Bussey explained he was visiting and that he would have
stopped if Garcia had identified himself, but instead of looking
into his assertions, the crew "forced him to the floor face-first"
and punched, kicked, and clubbed him, his lawyer said. At the
precinct, officers subjected Bussey to a body-cavity search, but
refused to say what they had arrested him for, according to the
suit.

Prosecutors dismissed trespassing and assault charges against
Bussey nine months later, according to the Post. Now other friends
of Clark's have stopped visiting her because of how often people
are stopped and searched in the building. This process played out
as the city was crawling toward the settlement to end a federal
lawsuit by NYCHA residents and visitors claiming that the Police
Department's program of stairwell patrols, ticketing residents for
"lingering" in lobbies, halls, and stairwells, and arresting
visitors for trespassing, together amounted to racial profiling on
par with stop-and-frisk.

"The same practices that led to the class-action suit led to his
arrest," Bussey's lawyer, Darrell Andrew Marshall told the Post.
"You have to protect tenants from crime, but there has to be a
balance, and in this case, there was no balance."

The class-action settlement, announced in April, ended five years
of litigation. The city agreed to pay $270,000 total to the 17
named plaintiffs, to pay $3 million in attorney fees, and to
acknowledge that someone simply existing in a common area of a
NYCHA building is not enough justification for a police stop.

The city also pledged to revise the NYPD patrol guide and training
protocol to "promote constitutional interactions," agreed to keep
data on trespassing arrests, and agreed to subject its NYCHA
policing to the same federal court monitoring as previously agreed
to for stop-and-frisk.


NIKE: Agreed to Pay $25 to Settle FuelBand Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Dante D'Orazio, writing for The Verge, reported that owner of
Nike+ FuelBand can claim a little surprise "gift" courtesy of Nike
and Apple. The two companies have settled a class action lawsuit
and have agreed to pay owners $25 in the form of a Nike gift card.
Alternatively, you can opt to receive a check for $15 from Nike.

Anyone in the US who purchased a FuelBand from the fitness
tracker's original release on January 19th, 2012 to June 17th,
2015 is eligible, and you can receive a payment for each and every
Fuelband you've purchased over the years. You can submit a claim
online here, and you have until January 4th to do so.

The plaintiffs alleged that both Nike and Apple made false claims
about the fitness tracker's ability to track steps, calories, and
even NikeFuel points. In addition, the lawsuit alleges that the
companies failed to properly follow through with the terms of the
product's warranty. Both companies deny the claims, but, according
to the settlement, they agreed to the class action terms "in order
to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and distraction of continued
litigation."

Correction: The original headline for this story stated that both
Nike and Apple were paying claims. While both Nike and Apple
agreed to the settlement, the terms state that "Nike has agreed to
provide" the $15 and $25 payments. It's unclear how or if the
payments are being divided between the two companies. We regret
the error.


NUCOR CORP: 4th Circ. Gives Boost to Class Discrimination Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Rose Harris, Esq. -- sharris@dimuro.com -- writing for
Virginia Employment Law Letter, reported that in a 2-1 decision,
the 4th Circuit -- which covers Maryland, North Carolina, South
Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia -- recently reversed a
district court's decision that decertified a class of African-
American steel workers at a plant in South Carolina owned by Nucor
Corporation and Nucor Steel Berkeley.

The 4th Circuit's ruling is a major legal victory for workers and
indicates that the traditionally conservative court may be more
receptive to class action litigation than it has been in the past.
Facts

The workers who filed suit claimed that Nucor engaged in habitual,
pervasive, and unconscionable acts of discrimination and hatred
based on their race.

The wrongful acts included the use of racially derogatory terms in
companywide announcements and among employees, the circulation of
racist e-mails, and the prominent display of a hangman's noose and
the Confederate flag. There was even an episode in which a white
employee draped a white sheet over his head with eyes cut out in
the form of a KKK hood.

Previous legal proceedings

The case had been to the 4th Circuit once before after the lower
court decertified two classes in the lawsuit: a hostile work
environment class and a discriminatory promotions practices class.
The 4th Circuit reversed decertification in both classes.

When the case returned to the district court, the court allowed
the hostile work environment class to go forward but reaffirmed
the decertification of the discriminatory promotions practices
class. In doing so, the lower court held that the precedent set by
the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes governed its decision.

In Wal-Mart, the Court decertified a previously unprecedented
class of 1.5 million female employees who worked in more than
3,400 stores nationwide and claimed that Wal-Mart discriminated
against them on the basis of sex. The Court held that they failed
to present a "common contention" of employment discrimination that
was capable of being resolved as a class.

According to the Supreme Court, "Without some glue holding the
alleged reasons for all those decisions together, it would be
impossible to say that examination of all class members' claims
for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question
why was I disfavored."

Because the employees' theory in Wal-Mart was premised on a
company policy of diffused, decentralized, and subjective decision
making by local managers, the employees could not satisfy the
"commonality" requirement for class certification.
4th Circuit's decision

In Nucor, the 4th Circuit held that the district court had erred
in applying the Wal-Mart decision to arrive at the same outcome.
In Nucor, the 4th Circuit held that the district court abused its
discretion in granting decertification because statistics clearly
showed that promotions at the company were based on race.

There was also anecdotal evidence suggesting discrimination in
specific promotion practices at the plant, and there was
significant evidence that promotion decisions were made in the
context of a racially hostile work environment.

The appeals court's decision was not unanimous, however. Circuit
Judge G. Steven Agee issued an 80-page dissent in which he argued
that the majority's opinion was in conflict with the 8th Circuit's
decision in another case involving Nucor, Bennett v. Nucor Corp,
and "drains a critical Supreme Court decision [Brown et al. v.
Nucor, 2015 WL 2167646 (4th Cir., May 11, 2015).
Impact of Nucor decision

Without a doubt, Nucor will be a boost to future class action
employment discrimination lawsuits. Nucor means that the 4th
Circuit will not apply the class action certification requirements
as stringently as the Supreme Court did in Wal-Mart.

Nevertheless, it does not entirely open the floodgates for
employees seeking to pursue class action lawsuits. The facts of
the case were compelling, and the challenged promotion practices
were arguably much more centralized and objective than the
employment practices challenged in Wal-Mart.

The obvious takeaway for employers is to always avoid
discriminating on the basis of a legally protected category such
as race, color, religion, national origin, disability, and gender.
You should scrutinize your hiring and promotion policies and
practices to determine whether they screen out minorities.

Remember, intentional discrimination is not the only illegal
practice. Any policies or practices that have a negative impact on
persons because of their race or gender, for example, can be
unlawful. To help avoid legal liability, it's always good to have
clear and explicit written policies that provide for equal
treatment of job applicants and employees.

Finally, don't forget the importance of training. Continued
training of employees and -- especially -- supervisors on your
company's nondiscrimination policies is always an asset in
preventing a discrimination lawsuit, particularly a class action
complaint.


OLD NATIONAL BANK: Court Rejects Appeal in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark Wilson, writing for Courier & Press, reported that The
Indiana Supreme Court will not consider Old National Bank's
petition to hear arguments on whether a lawsuit against the
Evansville-based bank can proceed as a class action.

The lawsuit accuses the Evansville-headquartered bank with
purposefully posting debit card and ATM transactions so as to
increase depositors' overdraft fees.

Class actions allow one or more people to file a lawsuit on behalf
of a larger group. Three former Old National customers -- Steven
Kelly, Jon Cook and Rebecca Cook -- filed the lawsuit in
Vanderburgh Circuit Court in December 2010.

Circuit Court Judge David Kiely ruled that the lawsuit can move
forward as a class action.

The Indiana Court of Appeals in April affirmed the ruling, a
decision left standing by the Supreme Court's denial of the bank's
petition to transfer the case -- meaning that the court won't
consider it.

That means that the Oct. 27 trial date is back on again, said
Scott Danks, one of the attorneys representing the customers. Both
sides have agreed it would be a bench trial, with only a judge
listening to the evidence and issuing a verdict.

"We are going to do our best to hold their feet to the fire. Old
National has done everything they can to intentionally delay this.
It's been four and a half years since it was filed," Danks said.
"It doesn't take a lawyer or judge to figure out that arranging
transactions from high to low to maximize fees and penalties on
customers without the customer's knowledge is wrong."

Old National Bank spokeswoman Kathy Schoettlin, however, said the
bank still had some options and its legal counsel were still
evaluating the courts' decisions. She pointed out that both Kiely
and the Court of Appeals did side with the bank on four of the
five allegations in the lawsuit.

"We believe strongly that the law is on our side," Schoettlin
said.

Appeals Court Judges L. Mark Bailey, John Baker and Margaret Robb
concluded in their ruling that while banks are authorized to
charge overdraft fees, they are not authorized to ignore state
law. As a result, they ruled, the bank had not shown that the
customers' breach of contract claim was invalid.

The judges wrote: "We cannot, by examination of the contract and
with reference to undisputed facts, conclude that the deposit
agreement unambiguously and consistently provides for the sums
actually charged by the bank. Summary judgment is inappropriate
where, as here, a fact finder could infer from the designated
materials that the bank breached its duty of good faith and fair
dealing."

However, the Appeals Court judges threw out conversion,
unconscionability, and unjust enrichment claims that alleged Old
National Bank intentionally exerted unauthorized control over
deposits, as well as a claim that the bank violated the Indiana
Crime Victim Relief Act.

"We are aware of no substantive cause of action in Indiana to
recover monetary damages for drafting or enforcing an
unconscionable contract term," the judges wrote.


OM SUBWAY: Faces "Morman" Suit for Alleged Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Morman, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
v. OM Subway One, Inc., (d/b/a "Subway"; OM Subway Two, Inc.
(d/b/a "Subway"), and Vijay Patel, individually, Case 8:15-cv-
01718-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2015), seeks payment for
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate two Subway restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
     Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 North Orange Avenue
     14th Floor
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Tel: (407) 849-2303
     Fax: (407) 245-3487
     E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com
             bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


ON DECK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Misleading Registration Statement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Stitt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. On Deck Capital, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06126-
AT (S.D.N.Y., August 4, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' false
and misleading Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's December 16, 2014 initial public
offering.

On Deck Capital, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides
financing products to small businesses in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Alan 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
              jahood@pomlaw.com


PAE GROUP: Labor Action Belongs in Superior Court, 9th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the labor class action
against PAE Group and Arch Resources Group belongs in Los Angeles
Superior Court where it was filed, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit ruled on July 30, 2015.

The Ninth Circuit panel reversed an order by the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California denying a plaintiff's
motion to remand the action to state court after the case had been
removed to federal court pursuant to the provisions of the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, and remanded with instructions to
remand the matter to the state court.

The case is Porfiria Yocupicio, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PAE GROUP, LLC; ARCH
RESOURCES GROUP LLC, Defendants-Appellees. No. 15-55878 (9th
Cir.); D.C. No. 2:14-cv-08958-GW-JEM (C.D. Cal.).


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Set New Trial Date in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2015, that the Court
has set a new trial date of March 2017 in the securities class
action.

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



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

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


PALL CORPORATION: Defendants Entered Into MOU
---------------------------------------------
Pall Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2015, that the
Defendants in a consolidated action entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with respect to a proposed settlement of
the lawsuit.

The class action was filed in relation to the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of May 12, 2015, among Pall Corporation, a New
York corporation ("Pall"), Danaher Corporation, a Delaware
corporation ("Danaher"), and Pentagon Merger Sub, Inc., a New York
corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Danaher
("Merger Sub"), providing for the merger (the "Merger") of Merger
Sub with and into Pall.

Specifically, four putative class actions were filed by
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of an alleged
class of Pall's shareholders, in New York state court (Nassau
County) in connection with Danaher's proposed acquisition of Pall,
naming Pall, its directors, Danaher and Merger Sub as defendants
(collectively, the "Defendants").

The lawsuits filed in New York, Bernstein v. Pall Corp., et al.,
Index No. 603314/2015 (filed May 22, 2015); Scheiner, et al. v.
Pall Corp., et al., Index No. 603517/2015 (filed June 2, 2015);
Shekhar v. Pall Corp., et al., Index No. 603554/2015 (filed June
3, 2015); Markovic v. Pall Corp., et al., Index No. 603632/2015
(filed June 5, 2015), include substantially similar allegations
and on June 19, 2015, the parties stipulated to consolidation of
the above actions under the caption: In re Pall Corp. Stockholder
Litig., Index No. 603314/2015 (Sup. Ct., Nassau Cnty.) (the
"Consolidated Action").

The consolidated amended complaint, filed June 24, 2015, generally
alleged that members of the Pall board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to shareholders of Pall by agreeing to the
proposed transaction, including by engaging in a flawed sales
process, agreeing to an unfair price and to unreasonable deal
protection devices, and failing to disclose material information.
The amended complaint also alleged that Danaher and Merger Sub
aided and abetted the alleged breaches by the members of the Pall
board of directors of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs
sought injunctive relief, including enjoining the consummation of
the Merger, compensatory damages, and an award of unspecified
attorneys' and other fees and costs, in addition to other relief.

On July 20, 2015, the Defendants in the Consolidated Action
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with
respect to a proposed settlement of the Consolidated Action,
pursuant to which the parties have agreed, among other things,
that the Defendants in the Consolidated Action will make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the Merger. The supplemental
disclosures to the Definitive Proxy Statement should be read in
conjunction with the Definitive Proxy Statement, which should be
read in its entirety. The information contained in this Current
Report is incorporated by reference into the Definitive Proxy
Statement.

The settlement will not affect the timing of the special meeting
of the shareholders of Pall, which was scheduled to be held on
July 28, 2015, or the amount of the consideration to be paid to
Pall's shareholders in connection with the Merger. The settlement
is not, and should not be construed as, an admission of wrongdoing
or liability by any of the Defendants. The Defendants believe that
no further disclosure is required to supplement the Definitive
Proxy Statement under applicable law; however, to avoid the risk
that the Consolidated Action may delay or otherwise adversely
affect the consummation of the Merger and to minimize the expense
of defending such action, the Defendants have agreed, pursuant to
the terms of the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the Merger, all of which are set forth below. Nothing
in this Current Report, the MOU or any settlement shall be deemed
an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of the
disclosures set forth herein. The parties have agreed to use their
collective best efforts to obtain final approval of the settlement
and the dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice. The
MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be subject to
customary conditions, including court approval following notice to
the Company's shareholders. As explained in the MOU, if the
settlement is finally approved by the New York state court, the
parties anticipate that it will resolve and release all claims in
all actions pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to Pall's
shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
will file a petition in the New York state court for an award of
attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Pall or its successor.
Pall or its successor will pay or cause to be paid any attorneys'
fees and expenses awarded by the New York state court. There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the New York state court will
approve the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation. In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU may be terminated.


PANERA BREAD: Faces Class Action by Jason Lofstedt
--------------------------------------------------
Panera Bread Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2015, that on July
2, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against one of
the Borrower's subsidiaries by Jason Lofstedt, a former employee
of one of the Borrower's subsidiaries. The lawsuit was filed in
the California Superior Court, County of Riverside. The complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of the California Labor
Code, failure to pay overtime, failure to provide meal and rest
periods, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law.
The complaint seeks, among other relief, collective and class
certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the
Court might find just and proper.


PATH MEDICAL: "Marin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Gabriela Marin, and all others similarly situated v. Dr. Eric
Braverman, Path Medical P.C., and Total Health Nutrients, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05852 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay wages on time in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants operate a medical clinic that focuses on "brain
health" and longevity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Orin Robert Kurtz, Esq.
      Gardy & Notis, LLP
      501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508
      E-mail: okurtz@gardylaw.com


PHARMAKON SOLUTIONS: Faces "Mauthe" Suit Over TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert W. Mauthe M.D., P.C., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Pharmakon Solutions, LLC. and
Champion Medical Solutions, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-04275-LS (E.D.
Pa., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
      SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC
      6775 Daly Road Suite 102
      West Bloomfield, MI 48322
      Telephone: (248) 562-1320
      E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com


PIZZA HUT: Franchisees Launch Class Suit Over Price War
-------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Mayes, writing for ABC News, reported that angry Pizza Hut
franchisees have launched legal action against the company after a
price war with rival Domino's forced them to slash the price of
pizzas, sending many out of business.

A class action to be heard in the Federal Court alleges Pizza Hut
parent company Yum Brands breached its duties to its franchisees
by denying them the chance to make a profit.

The franchisees are seeking damages to cover the losses they have
incurred.

At least one franchisee has also lodged a complaint with the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), claiming
Pizza Hut's actions forced them into insolvency and the
termination of their franchise agreement.

Solicitor for the franchisees Jim Kartounis, who is also the
president of the Australasian Pizza Association, said the class
action represented 288 of the chain's 298 stores nationwide.

He said many franchisees had been forced to give up their
businesses because of the price war, which Pizza Hut had
anticipated "because the strategy did not allow for franchisees to
sustain their businesses".

It is believed 32 franchisees have lost their businesses since the
introduction of the pricing strategy.

Lyn and Fred Bayakly had a thriving store in Perth's northern
suburbs before the price war began.

Ms Bayakly said the store was one of the highest trading stores in
Western Australia, had won several national awards and was used to
train new franchisees.

"We had 40 staff and we continued to dominate in terms of
operational excellence, sales growth and compliance," Ms Bayakly
told 7.30.

She said WA franchisees agreed to a three-month trial period of
selling pizzas for $8, on the condition that it would be stopped
if it proved unsuccessful.

Gourmet pizzas previously selling for $14.95 were included in the
trial, despite assurances from Pizza Hut that this would not be
the case, and free deliveries were also introduced at different
times.

Her store lost $9,000 a month during the trial period but Pizza
Hut refused to stop the trial, despite Ms Bayakly providing
financial data to management soon after it started showing the
scale of the loses being incurred.

"They said the marketing has all been done, it's too late to stop
the trial," Ms Bayakly said.

Following the trial, the company decided to implement a nationwide
policy of selling pizzas for $4.95 from July 1.

At this point, Ms Bayakly said the losses incurred by the business
increased to $5,000 per week.

"It sent us spiralling further into debt, but the company didn't
want to know," she said.

"Their conduct has been bullying, unconscionable, deceptive and
intimidatory throughout.

"They think they're untouchable -- their arrogance is astounding."

Eventually, in November 2014, Pizza Hut terminated the franchise
agreement and closed the store, leaving the Bayaklys hundreds of
thousands of dollars in debt.

Unable to service the debts, the couple face losing their home.

They have a fleet of delivery vehicles they have been unable to
sell, and have had to borrow money from family members to make
ends meet.

"Our credit ratings have been destroyed -- I can't even get a $20
mobile phone plan," Ms Bayakaly said.

The couple have lodged a complaint with the ACCC, claiming Pizza
Hut forced them to sell pizzas at below cost "with full knowledge
that the franchisee [was] in serious financial difficulties and
trading towards insolvency".

Ms Bayakly said she wanted the ACCC to make Pizza Hut more
accountable to its franchisees.

"We don't want another poor unsuspecting franchisee being coerced,
misled, lied to and sent to the wall," she said.

A Tasmanian franchisee who is in the process of selling his
businesses said the decision to match Domino's pricing had
"absolutely killed" his business.

"I'm operating with eight staff where I used to have 25-30, and
I've gone from working three days a week to seven days a week non-
stop," the franchisee, who asked not to be named, said.

"I'm losing tens of thousands of dollars, I'm $70,000 in debt and
I've had to remortgage my house.

"I hardly see my family and it's causing real issues with my
teenage son, who is having a lot of problems."

A franchisee in Queensland said he would typically make just $4 on
a $34 delivery order, which made the business unviable.

"We're trading to break even and struggling to pay the bills," he
said.

"We are just barely hanging on at the moment and the only glimmer
of hope is that the judge will rule in our favour [in the class
action] -- that's if we can last that long."

Another Perth franchisee who is also trying to sell his business
said he had gone from making $100,000 per year from each of his
three stores, to being more than $100,000 in debt.

"I've had to start working six days a week and I can no longer
afford to pay myself from the business," he said.

"I'm using the last of my savings to pay my mortgage at the
moment, my wife is having to work in the business and we are
getting absolutely nowhere," he said.

Pizza Hut general manager Graeme Houston said the company would
not comment while the matter was before the courts.

"We are looking forward to finally resolving this matter in court
and moving on so we can focus on our core role of helping our
franchisees build their businesses," he said in a statement.


PRECISION ELECTRIC: Faces Suit Seeking Benefits Under ERISA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Arrias, Hugo Suarez and Jessie Vitello v. Precision Electric
of Washington Incorporated; Joseph R. Downing and "Jane Doe I"
Downing; Jacob M. Downing and "Jane Doe II Downing", Case 3:15-cv-
05470 (WA, July 8, 2015), alleges failure of the Defendants to pay
wages and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act.

The Defendants own a business in Clark Country, Washington that
offers electrical and low-voltage services, including
communications, network and security solutions, system design,
installation and testing, and long-term maintenance on a variety
of projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Loyd Willaford, Esq.
     HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
     600 Stewart Street, Suite 901
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: 206-838-3055
     E-mail: lwillaford@hkm.com


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Can Arbitrate Class Claim, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Pre-Paid Legal Services dba
LegalShield can arbitrate a class claim accusing it of charging
Californians without consent or disclosure, a federal judge in San
Francisco ruled on July 30.

This is a putative consumer class action alleging that LegalShield
improperly charged recurring payments to its California members
for pre-paid legal services without providing sufficient consent
or disclosure.

The Defendant -- who during the initial round of briefs agreed
that California law applied -- now asserts Oklahoma law should be
applied, whereas Plaintiff continues to seek the application of
California law.

The case is MICHAEL SAVETSKY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES,
INC., d/b/a LegalShield Case No. 14-03514 SC (N.D. Cal.).


PW STEPHENS: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Aned Lopez v. PW Stephens Environmental Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
03579 (N.D. Cal., August 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

PW Stephens Environmental Inc. is an environmental remediation
contracting company that provides asbestos abatement and other
environmental remediation services to residences and commercial
buildings throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron D. Kaufmann, Esq.
      LEONARD CARDER, LLP
      1330 Broadway, Suite 1450
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 272-0169
      Facsimile: (510) 272-0174
      E-mail: akaufmann@leonardcarder.com


RELIABLE MANAGEMENT: "Sorto" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Sorto and other similarly situated individuals v. Reliable
Management Services Group, LLC and Marat Dekhkanov, Case No. 0:15-
cv-61604-WPD (S.D. Fla., August 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Reliable Management Services Group, LLC is a Florida Limited
Liability Company that provides the design of, implementation of,
and ongoing management and support of enterprise IT and
Telecommunications environments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anaeli Caridad Petisco, Esq.
      Rainier Regueiro, Esq.
      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Suite 2200
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
              rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com
              agp@rgpattorneys.com


RIVERBED TECHNOLOGY: Professor Urges Rejection of Class Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reported that a professor whose
research has questioned the value of shareholder lawsuits over
mergers put words into action on by taking the unusual step of
going to a Delaware court to try to block a class action
settlement.

A lawyer for Fordham Law School Professor Sean Griffith argued
that the settlement of a class action brought on behalf of
investors of Riverbed Technology over the company's $3.6 billion
sale to private equity firm Thoma Bravo unfairly benefits lawyers
at the expense of shareholders they represent.

As Griffith saw it, the shareholder attorneys got a $500,000 fee
while the shareholders who sued for more money only got a bit more
information, known as a "disclosure-only settlement." In addition,
the settlement provides Riverbed directors protection from a wide
range of lawsuits.

The judge hearing the case in Delaware's Court of Chancery did not
rule at the end of settlement hearing, but Griffith's objection is
the latest sign the booming class actions are coming under greater
scrutiny.

There has been growing criticism of the shareholder class actions
over merger deals, which often benefit attorneys but not
shareholders. The U.S Chamber of Commerce has compared the cases
to extortion.

Judges have been questioning the fees paid to attorneys and
examining if plaintiffs are actually involved in the litigation.

At hearing, shareholder attorney Jason Leviton argued that his
work on the case should reassure Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock
that the Riverbed settlement was fair, something Griffith's
attorney, Joseph Christensen, disputed.

"You should not be comforted," Christensen said, noting the lack
of discovery. "You should be alarmed."

Christensen read from a deposition transcript that he said raised
questions of whether Riverbed's chief executive had cut a self-
serving deal, yet shareholder attorneys never pressed him on it.

Although the Riverbed case ended as most do, with a disclosure-
only settlement, judges generally approve the agreements because
shareholders from the class rarely object.

That makes unusual the involvement of Griffith, who used his
standing as a shareholder to fight the proposed settlement.

"The problem is there is no adversary," Griffith told Reuters."
The plaintiffs' attorneys and defendant are in cahoots to get the
settlement approved."

Griffith told Reuters he has been buying stock of companies that
have announced merger deals and intends to object to settlements
if he feels the litigation is not serving stockholders.

Glasscock said he would take the settlement under advisement. He
noted the four other judges on the Court of Chancery, which hears
a bulk of the shareholder class actions over mergers, were
reassessing the disclosure-only settlements.

"I want to examine the recent case law," Glasscock said.


RIVERCITY MOTOR: Has $1.68BB Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------
Bridget Carter and Gretchen Friemann, writing for The Australian
Business Review, reported that the settlement with one of the
world's largest suppliers of engineering services was for a sum
that some estimate could be as much as $700m.

It follows a legal saga between the pair surrounding incorrect
traffic forecasts for Brisbane's Clem7 tunnel, blamed for
Rivercity's collapse into receivership in 2011 with $1.3bn worth
of debts.

While the size of the settlement is said to be confidential,
earlier estimates were that it could reach close to $700m,
although insiders did not comment.

The latest agreement is expected to trigger a move by some lenders
to profit on the decision by offloading debt at a premium to the
discounted price that they paid. Hedge funds such as York Capital,
Clearwater Capital and Centerbridge Capital had snapped up debt
after the collapse at less than 50c in the dollar. Macquarie is
thought to be an owner of some loans.

RiverCity's receiver, Korda Mentha, along with its original
financiers, launched the action against Aecom Australia. It was
related to traffic flow assumptions, made by Aecom, that proved to
be incorrect. The case against Aecom was due to go to trial in
September and the claims were publicly refuted by Aecom.

Aecom also faces a $200m class action launched by Maurice
Blackburn, which is representing investors in RiverCity's public
offering.

The latest episode is likely to add pressure to the lawsuit by
BrisConnections' lenders and receivers against Arup surrounding
claims it provided inaccurate traffic forecasts on the Brisbane
AirportlinkM7.

Receivers PPB advisory is pursuing Arup through the Federal Court
for losses of up to $1bn over claims the company had a role in
giving inaccurate traffic estimates in the lead-up to the
construction of the Brisbane airport link.

A sales process for BrisConnections is expected to be begin, when
prospective bidders will likely start receiving flyer documents
for the sale. Macquarie-backed funds and Transurban are perceived
as being close to impossible to beat in the contest.

In some previous sales processes where securing a wide field of
contestants has proved to be challenging, advisers have agreed to
pay the bidding costs for prospective suitors in an effort to drum
up further interest.

However, advisers Fort Street Capital and Macquarie Capital are
not said to have made such a deal.


ROBERT HALF: Settles with Recruiter to Avoid Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Staffing Industry Analysts reported that Robert Half International
Inc. (NYSE: RHI) agreed to settle a case with a recruiting manager
in California, Theresa Daniels, who claimed the company
misclassified her and other recruiting managers as exempt from
overtime requirements, according to a filing with the US
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The case had sought class action status, but Robert Half settled
the recruiting manager's individual claims. The settlement amount
was immaterial to the company, and a court has dismissed the
lawsuit, according to the filing.

Daniels' claim was announced by the company in October.


ROCK FARMS: "Liles" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------
Clayton Liles, Perry Casey and Gregory Halley, and all others
similarly-situated v. Rock Farms of Arkansas, LLC, Rocky Harrell
dba Rock Farms of Arkansas, Case No. 4:15-cv-00469 (E.D. Ark.,
July 30, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Defendants own and operate a dump truck business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Ste. 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


ROGER WUGHALTER: Faces "Aracena" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Nastasya Aracena, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Rogers, Wughalter, Kaufman & Corredine, Esqs., Case
No. 3:15-cv-05981 (D.N.J., August 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:


      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (347) 526-4093
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Filed Motion for Reconsideration
-------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that SEI and SEI Private
Trust Company (SPTC) filed motions seeking reconsideration of the
District Court's June 17 denial of the motion to dismiss or, in
the alternative, seeking leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal
of certain elements of the denial.

SEI has been named in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana. Five
lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for the
Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports to
set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a
defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.
All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and,
in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of
action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act.
Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.

In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the
23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against
SEI and SPTC and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the
uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana
Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.

The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported
role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust
Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted
or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit"
issued by Stanford International Bank.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court
and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet
been established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the
petitions.

In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI
and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and
SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment. The Court
deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that the motion
would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on class
certification. After the Court held a hearing on class
certification, it certified a class composed of persons who
purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates
of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust
Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009.

SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the class certification
judgments. On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for
Leave to File a First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition
in which they asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition
and add claims against certain of SEI's insurance carriers.

On February 5, 2013, the Court granted two of the motions for
appeal and the motion for leave to amend. On February 28, 2013,
SEI responded to the First Amended and Restated Class Action
Petition by seeking dismissal of the action. On March 11, 2013,
the newly-added insurance carrier defendants removed the case to
the Middle District of Louisiana.

SEI notified the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL)
of this case as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a
motion to remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI
filed a motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt
the state court's order regarding class certification, which the
court dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of
the jurisdictional issue.

On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel transferred the matter against
SEI to the Northern District of Texas. On October 1, 2014, SEI
filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Northern District of
Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On June 17, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, and on
June 24, 2015 set a briefing schedule for SEI and SPTC's motion
challenging the Louisiana court's decision to certify a class,
which motion was filed on July 15, 2015. SEI and SPTC filed their
answer on July 1, 2015, and this case is now pending in the
Northern District of Texas.

On July 15, 2015, SEI and SPTC also filed motions seeking
reconsideration of the District Court's June 17 denial of the
motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, seeking leave to pursue
an interlocutory appeal of certain elements of the denial, as well
as a motion seeking partial judgment on the pleadings pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with respect to claims
brought under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the
same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that
court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of
the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on
February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no
material activity has taken place since that date.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against ServiceSource International, Inc. ("ServiceSource"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SREV), for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between January 22, 2014 and May 1, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until September 8, 2015 to
serve as lead plaintiff in the class action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

ServiceSource provides recurring revenue management and support
for technology healthcare and life sciences companies. The
complaint alleges that ServiceSource issued misleading statements
concerning their business and operations, which caused shares to
trade at an artificially high price. This allowed certain company
insiders to sell their shares at a higher price than what was
merited by the Company's financial position. The complaint also
alleges that Mike Smerklo, President and CEO of ServiceSource,
obtained millions of dollars in cash bonuses as a result of the
alleged fraud. When the truth reached the investing public, the
stock dropped causing investors harm.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us
at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.

The firm may be reached at:

         Michael Goldberg, Esq
         Brian Schall, Esq
         GOLDBERG LAW PC
         13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Suite 1404
         Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
         Tel: 800-977-7401


SONY: Lawyers in Disk Drive Class Suit Gets $13-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge awarded over $13 million to attorneys for
direct-purchaser plaintiffs that sued Sony, Toshiba, Samsung,
Panasonic and others for conspiring to fix the prices of optical
disk drives.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg found the plaintiffs' request
for $11.37 million, or 30 percent of the $37.9-million settlement,
for attorney's fees was "fair and reasonable."

Seeborg cited five factors that justified an "upward adjustment of
the Ninth Circuit's 25 percent benchmark."

Those factors included results obtained by the class counsel; the
risks and complex issues of the case that required a high level of
skill to overcome; the fact that attorneys' fees were entirely
contingent upon success; the range of awards made in similar
cases; and the opportunity given to class members to air any
concerns about the fee request.

The $11.3 million figure was less than half of the "reasonable
lodestar," or total hours worked by the plaintiff class attorneys
multiplied by their historic hourly rates, which came to $24.8
million, Seeborg said.

He also approved an additional $1.68 million in litigation costs
and expenses, finding the plaintiff class counsel spent $3.28
million in expenses litigating the case.

The $37.9-million settlement package for direct-purchaser
plaintiffs consisted of $26 million from Hitachi-LG Data Storage,
Korea, Inc., $5.75 million from Panasonic Corporation and $6.15
million from NEC Corporation.

A long list of plaintiffs including Hewlett-Packard sued the
defendants in 2010 over an alleged bid-rigging and price-fixing
scheme that allowed the defendants to control 90 percent of the
optical disk drive market and rake in more than $45 billion in
revenue between 2004 and 2008, according to HP.

The direct-purchaser class was represented by Kaplan Fox and
Kilsheimer of New York City, the Walner Law Firm of Chicago,
Saveri & Saveri of San Francisco and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
of Berkeley, Calif.

Richard Saveri of Saveri & Saveri declined to comment on the
award.

NEC Corporation's attorney, Ian Simmons of O'Melveny & Myers in
Washington, D.C., did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.


SPECTRANETICS CORP: Guidance Cut Prompts Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Melissa Kay, writing for Financials Trend, reported that
spectranetics Corp (NASDAQ:SPNC) move to lower its second quarter
guidance has not gone well with shareholders seen by a class
action lawsuit lodged by law firm Goldberg Law PC.  The company
lowered its full-year guidance to a range of between $240 million
and $250 million from an initial guidance of $258 million

Spectranetics Corp (NASDAQ:SPNC) lowered its guidance on concerns
that the ongoing push to optimize the sale team as well as the
competitive drug-coated balloon launches could take a toll on
operations going forward. Full Year, the company expects to post a
net loss of between 96 cents and $1.07 cents a share against
analyst estimates of $1.05 a share.

Spectranetics Corp (NASDAQ:SPNC) posted a net loss of $7.2 million
for the second quarter translating to a loss of 17 cents a share
on revenues of $61.7 million. Revenue was up by 42%, but the
improvement was tied to the AngioScult acquisition. Excluding the
acquisition, revenue was up by 9%. Lowering full year guidance
while the company continues to operate at a loss sealed the
stock's fate in the market forcing a 29% slump.

Sell Rating

The company is certainly taking actions to reinvigorate sales to
prevent a further slump. However, rapid adoption of competitive
products is a point of concern especially on the long-term
prospects of AngioScult. TheStreet research firm currently rates
this stock as a 'Sell' citing weakness that could make it
extremely difficult for shareholders to generate value from the
stock.

Feeble growth in earnings per share in recent quarters is a point
of concern to analysts at TheStreet research firm as Spectranetics
Corp (NASDAQ:SPNC) continues to post deteriorating net income.
High debt management risk also raises further doubt on
shareholders ability to generate value from the stock as the
Company continues to struggle with weak operating cash flow.


STANCORP FINANCIAL: $5-Bil. Merger Attracts Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woods, writing for Financials Trend, reported that news
that Japanese insurance company Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance has
struck a deal to acquire US Insurer StanCorp Financial Group, Inc.
(NYSE:SFG) for $5 billion saw the stock soar by more than 47%.
However, a number of law firms have lodged investigations into the
deal over allegations that certain fiduciary obligations were not
met.

Japanese Companies Push for US Market

There are sentiments that StanCorp Financial Group, Inc.
(NYSE:SFG) could be more valuable than the $5billion agreed
between the two companies.  The deal if approved by shareholders
will be the largest overseas acquisition by a Japanese company.
Meiji Yasuda follows in the footsteps of its peer Dai-ichi Life
insurance that has already tapped into the US market with the
acquisition of Protective Life Insurance Co for $5.6 billion early
in the year.

Japanese companies have been forced to seek growth opportunities
abroad as the addressable market back at home continues to shrink
as the Yen continues to struggle against the dollar.  Japanese
companies are also under pressure back at home to demonstrate
corporate governance in a push to return more equity to
Shareholders.  Meiji Yasuda hopes to generate at least 9% of its
total profit from overseas insurance operation on completing the
StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE:SFG) acquisition.

Terms of The Deal

Meiji Yasuda plans to finance the deal with cash and cash
equivalents having reiterated that the deal will lead to a
substantial amount of cash premium to shareholders.  The
transactions should expand Meiji Yasuda areas of operations adding
to its operations in China. Upon the deal being approved by
shareholders and completed, StanCorp Financial Group, Inc.
(NYSE:SFG) is to continue providing its products through the
Standard brand.

StanCorp Financial Group, Inc. (NYSE:SFG)'s Chairman President and
CEO are to continue leading the business as part of the agreement.
StanCorp has also been given 25 days to solicit competing bids,
which if another deal is endorsed, Meiji Yasuda is to receive a
termination fee of about $180 million.  Meiji Yasuda hopes to
complete the deal at the end of March 2016.


STANDEX INT'L: Andrews & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, is
investigating potential securities fraud and breach of fiduciary
duty claims against Standex International Corporation ("Standex
International" or the "Company").

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


STYLES FOR LESS: Faces "Mehrazar-Arzani" Suit Over TCPA Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pooneh Mehrazar-Arzani, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Styles for Less, Inc., Case No.
8:15-cv-01234-CJC-JPR (C.D. Cal., August 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Suzanne Havens-Beckman, Esq.
      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      PARISI AND HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: shavens@parisihavens.com
              dcparisi@parisihavens.com


SUNDAY BEST: "Arias" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glemny Sanchez Arias, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Sunday Best Cleaners, Inc., and
Peter Bum Sung Lee, Case No. 1:15-cv-04554 (E.D.N.Y., August 4,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a laundry business located at 3505 Junction
Boulevard, Corona, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


TOP HANDS: "Frisco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Frisco, and others similarly-situated v. Top Hands Oilfield
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00318 (S.D. Tex., July 27, 2015),
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant provides oilfield services to oil and gas
exploration companies throughout South Texas and Eagle Ford Shale
area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 653-3300
      Fax: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


TRACTOR SUPPLY: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cherry Magana, and all others similarly-situated v. Tractor Supply
Company, Case No. 4:15-cv-00470 (E.D. Ark., July 30, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Arkansas
Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, and civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees, within the applicable
statutory limitations period.

Tractor Supply Company is a retail chain of stores that offers
products for home improvement, agriculture, lawn and garden
maintenance, and livestock, equine and pet care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford Road, Ste 411
      Little Rock, AK 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


TREMCO INC: Sued in W.D. Pa. Over Defective Roofing Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Slippery Rock Area School District, on behalf of all similarly
situated v. Tremco, Inc., Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc., and
RPM International, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01020-JFC (W.D. Pa.,
August 4, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the
misrepresentations and false statements made by Defendants, as
well as from the sale of defective roofing products and the
marketing of roofing construction and maintenance services.

Tremco, Inc. is a major manufacturer and supplier of roofing
materials and a member of RPM's Building Solutions Group.

Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc. supplies roofing, construction,
and general contracting services to building owners and facility
managers in the United States.

RPM International, Inc. through its subsidiaries, manufactures,
markets, and sells various specialty chemical products, including
paints, protective coatings, roofing systems, sealants and
adhesives.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
      ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      707 Grant Street
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (866) 273-1941
      Facsimile: (412) 281-4229

         - and -

      Jason Medure, Esq.
      MEDURE BONNER BELLISSIMO PEIRCE & DALEY
      22 North Mill Street
      New Castle, PA 16101
      Telephone: (724) 653-7855
      Facsimile: (724) 202-7918

         - and -

      N. Scott Carpenter, Esq.
      Rebecca Bell-Stanton, Esq.
      CARPENTER & SCHUMACHER, P.C.
      Parkway Centre IV
      2701 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 570
      Plano, TX 75093
      Telephone: (972) 403-1133
      Facsimile: (972) 403-0311
      E-mail: scarpenter@cstriallaw.com
              rstanton@cstriallaw.com


TRIO EQUIP: Faces "Bourne" Suit Alleging Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Bourne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Trio Equip. Rental & Services, LLC., Vince Haigood,
Danny Haigood, and Wylie Haigood, Case 2:15-cv-00312 (S.D. Tex.,
July 23, 2015), seeks to recover all unpaid wages and other
damages owed to the Plaintiff under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Trio Equip. Rental provides numerous oil field rental services,
servicing the need for drilling rigs, tools needed for coiled
tubing, pump septics for fracs, and other production jobs.
Defendants offer these services to oil field operators across
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David W. Hodges
     KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
     711 W. Alabama St.
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: (713) 523-0001
     E-mail: dhodges@kennedyhodges.com

        - and -

     Beatriz Sosa-Morris, Esq.
     KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
     711 W. Alabama Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Tel: 713-523-0001
     Fax: 713-523-1116
     E-mail: Bsosamorris@kennedyhodges.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge Limits Discovery in "Cohen" RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Donald Trump need not turn over emails or records of his
contribution to Trump University for a RICO class action accusing
him of defrauding students of millions of dollars, a federal judge
ruled.

Former student Art Cohen sued Trump in October 2013, claiming the
billionaire misrepresented Trump University as a real university,
though it's just a scheme to bilk people for millions.  The class
was certified in October 2014.

Cohen claimed he spent more than $36,000 for real estate classes
that Trump promised would teach him Trump's investing strategies,
but he found that Trump does not teach any classes, design the
program's curriculum or choose professors.  Cohen claimed Trump
spent more than $6 million in advertising to lure people into the
program.

Tarla Makaeff filed a similar class action against Trump and Trump
University in 2010 alleging deceptive business practices. The case
is no longer a class action and Trump is no longer a defendant.

On July 2, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel ruled that Trump
must disclose in discovery how much money he made from Trump
University, but that he need not hand over documents on
contributions made, or benefits received by, his partners.

Four more discovery disputes emerged that month. The court
resolved two of them and ordered the parties to send a joint
statement for the others, which involve emails between several
corporate officers of the Trump Organization and documents
concerning Trump's contributions to Trump University.

In the most recent ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Gallo on
July 31 denied Cohen's motions to compel discovery of the
requested documents.

Cohen argued that he is entitled to see emails between Jason
Greenblatt, general counsel of Trump Organization, its CFO Allen
Weisselberg and its executive vice president George Sorial.  He
claimed the emails are not subject to attorney-client privilege
because Weisselberg and Greenblatt denied giving or receiving
legal advice related to Trump University, and because Sorial
contradicted testimony he gave for the Makaeff case concerning his
involvement in an internal investigation of Trump University and
how to respond to a subpoena from the New York Attorney General's
Office concerning usage of the word "university."

In rebuttal, Trump argued that Cohen waited too long to request
the emails and that they are protected by attorney-client
privilege because they involve communications between legal
counsel and corporate clients concerning legal representation.

Gallo sided with Trump, pointing out that the court has previously
denied Cohen's discovery request for the 2011 emails.

Weisselberg's and Greenblatt's recent depositions provide no new
evidence to waive attorney-client privilege because Cohen knew
about their involvement in Makaeff for years, but chose to depose
them himself only recently, Gallo ruled.

The judge found Cohen's arguments about Weisselberg's testimony
misleading because the "snippets" he chose relate to Weisselberg's
lack of involvement in, and communication concerning, a legal
issue from 2005, not 2011. Moreover, Trump provided ample evidence
that Weisselberg was a client of the Trump Organization when he
exchanged the 2011 emails.

Cohen's arguments concerning Greenblatt fail as untimely, and also
because they erroneously assert that Greenblatt did not provide
legal counsel concerning Trump University in 2011, though his
testimony states that he does not remember doing so -- which does
not mean he did not give legal advice, Gallo wrote.

He denied Cohen's request to depose Sorial because Cohen failed to
mention that Sorial testified to getting status calls from his
attorney in the New York subpoena matter, indicating that he
actually was involved. Even if Sorial did contradict himself,
Gallo added, it is not enough to waive attorney-client privilege.

Gallo also shot down claims that Cohen is entitled to see
financial documents concerning Trump's and his partners'
contributions to Trump University.

Trump handed over a few documents but held back the rest, which
Cohen said should have been handed over with the others. He
claimed that Judge Curiel had ordered all such documents released.

Gallo disagreed, saying that Curiel had denied Cohen's request as
overbroad and stipulated that he will be able to reopen certain
people's depositions to ask about the contribution process for
Trump University, nothing more.

Cohen's assertion that he is merely seeking full discovery, in
accord with Curiel's order, is nothing but a "semantical word
game" designed to gain access to documents he has been barred from
having, Gallo wrote.

Claims that Trump agreed to hand over the documents after the
court handled the deposition dispute also fail because Cohen has
no evidence of any such agreement. Declarations from the parties'
counsel reveal that they did not agree on the scope of document
production, and an email between attorneys that Cohen said
expressed this agreement was never submitted into evidence.

Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

Gallo closed the ruling by ordering the parties to complete fact
discovery by Aug. 10.


TWC ADMINISTRATION: "Pulse" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Katelyn Pulse, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. TWC Administration, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00582-HFS
(W.D. Mo., August 4, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, and related penalties and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

TWC Administration, LLC operates a call center at 6550 Winchester
Street in Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael F. Brady, Esq.
      Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
      BRADY & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
      10901 Lowell, Suite 280
      Overland Park, KS 66210-2326
      Telephone: (913) 696-0925
      Facsimile: (913) 696-0468
      E-mail: brady@mbradylaw.com
              mkistler@mbradylaw.com


UBER: Toronto Cab Drivers' Class Suit Stops Operation
-----------------------------------------------------
Chelsea West, writing for The Weather Space, reported that
hundreds of taxi drivers converged on airports and other areas
around the capital to demonstrate against UberPOP, a popular taxi
app that is facing fierce opposition from traditional cabs.

The lack of an advanced booking service will put off the majority
of corporate travellers, who need to be sure that their taxi will
be ready at 6.30 am with their engine running to get them to a
flight or an important meeting on time. It is also banned in
Vancouver and Calgary.

After much local debate, and a surprise morning announcement, ride
sharing company Uber has begun operating in London.

Alongside the city, Hamilton's cabbies have been fighting Uber's
arrival for months, saying the ride-sharing app threatens their
business.

Uber has now introduced its services in more than 25 Canadian
communities, including Toronto, Montreal, Edmonton, and Ottawa. He
says that the service now operates on outdated rules.

Typically, a court has to certify a class-action lawsuit before
eligible members of the public -- in this case taxi and limousine
drivers -- are allowed to join.

In the suit by taxicab owner Dominik Konjevic, he alleges that
Uber has diverted "millions of dollars of revenue" away from
licensed taxis and limos, and asks for an injunction to shut down
the company's operations in Ontario.

The law firm is looking to receive $400 million (CAD), which is
around 306$ million (USD).

Naturally, Uber has once again come under fire for this with users
taking to social channels to vent about how ripped-off they felt
when needing the service most.

However, Toronto police responded by stating that they won't
enforce section 39.1 of the Highway Traffic Act as it applies to
UberX drivers because of the June decision by the prosecutor in
Toronto Superior Court. If a judge agrees to hear the case,
drivers and cab companies can choose to be omitted.

"This protectionist go well with is with out benefit", Uber Canada
spokeswoman Susie Heath stated by way of e-mail.

The low-value Uber X service is the San Francisco-based mostly
firm's most controversial, because it makes use of contract
drivers who will not be licensed as taxi operators.

Uber Canada officials were unavailable for an interview with CTV
Windsor, but did say in an email that they will continue to work
with officials at all levels of government as part of their
ongoing process to expand across Canada.


UCLA HEALTH: Data Breach Suit Caution For Connecticut Hospitals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan R. Huntington, Esq. -- shuntington@daypitney.com -- at Day
Pitney LLP, in an article for Mondaq, reported that a proposed
class action filed in California federal court on July 20 (Allen
v. UCLA Health Systems Auxiliary et al., case no. 2:15-cv-05487 in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California)
alleges that the UCLA Health System Auxiliary and The Regents of
the University of California (together, "UCLA Health") failed to
adequately secure the private financial and health information of
4.5 million patients receiving services at their hospitals.

The patient information was stored in an unencrypted state on a
server that was accessed by cyber thieves. Generally, healthcare
organizations require that data be encrypted in transit (such as
email) or on mobile devices. This lawsuit takes the standard one
step further and claims that private financial and health datamust
be encrypted even when stored on an internal server. The plaintiff
accuses UCLA Health of fraud, invasion of privacy, breach of
contract, negligence, and violating California laws, including the
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA") and
California's Unfair Competition Law, Section 17200, et seq. of the
Business and Professional Code.

Although Connecticut does not have a broad confidentiality statute
like the CMIA, the Connecticut Supreme Court held last year (as
previously discussed here) that the HIPAA privacy standards can be
used to establish the standard of care required to protect privacy
and that a patient may sue a healthcare provider for negligence
and emotional distress caused by an alleged violation of these
standards. Thus, Connecticut hospitals and other providers would
be well served to assess their security risk for unencrypted data
and take appropriate proactive steps to avoid exposure for class
action claims similar to those filed against UCLA Health.


UNITED STATES: Calif. Judge Orders Release of Illegal Immigrants
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Graham, writing for Digital Journal, reported that a federal
judge in California has ruled the Obama Administration's detention
of mothers and their children who were caught crossing the border
illegally should be released, in another apparent setback to the
president's immigration policy.

In a decision, U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee rejected the
administration's arguments for holding the families, finding their
detention "deplorable" and in violation of an earlier court
settlement.

The judge cited a 1997 settlement that barred immigrant children
from being held in unlicensed, secure facilities. Judge Gee found
the settlement covered all children in the custody of federal
immigration officials, even those being held with a parent,
according to Breitbart.com.

The 1997 court settlement is a class-action lawsuit known as
Flores and has governed the treatment of unaccompanied minors
caught at the border, Gee's decision found the Flores settlement
also applied to children caught with their parents.

Of course, the ruling also puts into question the plight of over
1,700 illegal women and children being held at at three detention
facilities, two in Texas, and one in Pennsylvania. Gee said the
two centers opened last summer in Texas failed to meet the "legal
minimum requirements laid out in the 1997 settlement for
facilities housing children."

In the 25-page ruling, Judge Gee also found that immigrant
children were being held in "widespread deplorable conditions"
when first caught by the U.S. Border Patrol, adding that
authorities had "wholly failed" to provide the "safe and sanitary"
conditions required for children even in temporary cells.

Tens of thousands of women and children from Central America
crossed our southern border, believing a rumor that unaccompanied
children and single parents with at least one child would be
allowed to stay in the U.S. Over 68,000 of these undocumented
immigrants were rounded up and detained while immigration
officials decided if they had the right to stay. Until new
detention centers were opened, many were released and told to
appear at immigration offices.

Judge Gee, in her decision, gave the administration until August 3
to respond to her ruling. In a prepared statement given to the LA
Times, Marsha Catron, press secretary for the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security said, "We are disappointed with the court's
decision and are reviewing it in consultation with the Department
of Justice."


UNITED STATES: Illegally Uses Private Properties, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward L. and Janice R. Huffman Living Trust, Douglas and Judith
McDowall, for themselves, and as representatives of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. The United States of America,
Case No. 4:15-cv-00484-JLH (E.D. Ark., August 4, 2015), is an
action for damages as a result of the Defendant's taking of
private property for public use, without just compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul S. Penticuff, Esq.
      BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, LLC
      Crown Center
      2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
      Kansas City, MO 64108-2504
      Telephone: (816) 471-2121
      E-mail: penticuff@bscr-law.com


UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Hobbs" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor W. Hobbs, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. United States Office of Personnel Management,
Katherine Archuleta, Chief Information Officer Donna Seymour, and
KeyPoint Government Solutions, Case No. 2:15-cv-00302-BLW (D.
Idaho, August 4, 2015), arises out of multiple cyber-breaches of
OPM's systems that compromised the security of at least 21.5
million current, former, and prospective employees, and
contractors, of the U.S. government, as well as family members or
other contacts of federal applicants.

United States Office of Personnel Management is a U.S. agency that
handles many aspects of the federal employee recruitment process,
including managing federal job announcements, conducting
background investigations and security clearances, overseeing
federal merit systems, managing personal retirement and health
benefits, providing training and development programs, and
developing government personnel policies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Anderson, Esq.
      ELSAESSER JARZABEK ANDERSON ELLIOTT & MACDONALD CHTD.
      320 East Neider Avenue, Suite 102
      Coeur d'Alene, ID 83815
      Telephone: (208) 667-2900
      Facsimile: (208) 667-2150
      E-mail: brucea@ejame.com

         - and -

      Michael Louis Kelly, Esq.
      Behram V. Parekh, Esq.
      Joshua A. Fields, Esq.
      KIRTLAND & PACKARD LLP
      2041 Rosecrans Avenue, 3rd Floor
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 536-1000
      Facsimile: (310) 536-1001
      E-mail: mlk@kirtlandpackard.com
              bvp@kirtlandpackard.com
              jf@kirtlandpackard.com


USHEALTH GROUP: Faces "Fitzhenry" Suit Over TCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fitzhenry, individually and on behalf of a class of all
persons and entities similarly situated v. USHealth Group Inc. and
USHealth Advisors LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-03062-DCN (D.S.C., August
4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lance Shealy Boozer, Esq.
      BOOZER LAW FIRM
      807 Gervais Street, Suite 203
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Telephone: (803) 608-5543
      Facsimile: (803) 926-3463
      E-mail: lsb@boozerlawfirm.com


V&J SUSHI: Faces Mislabeling Suit Over "White Tuna"
---------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that in
a sushi class action, a diner claims a Southern California
restaurant's "white tuna" is actually escolar, a "succulent" fish
that induces diarrhea.

Lead plaintiff Cyntia Erickson sued V&J Sushi dba Maki Yaki Costa
Mesa and its owner In Won Ko, in Orange County Court.  Erickson
claims that in October 2014 she "ordered certain items off the
restaurant menu including fish labeled 'white tuna.' Plaintiff
discovered through a species identification test that the 'white
tuna' was actually escolar, a completely different family of
fish."

Escolar, a type of snake mackerel found in deep tropical waters
worldwide, cannot metabolize wax esters found in its natural diet.
A leading flavor chemist told Courthouse News that many esters are
flavorful compounds that lend food a rich, fatty taste, of the
sort that humans crave.

The esters the escolar cannot metabolize build up in its flesh.
The resulting oily substance, gempylotoxin, in named after the
fish's family, Gempylidae, and is similar to castor or mineral
oil. Escolar flesh carries an oil content of around 25 percent,
which acts like a natural laxative.

Reports of illness related to the fish include cramping, nausea,
diarrhea and other abdominal pains.  Gempylotoxin, while
indigestible, is not toxic to humans.

Food writer Harold McGee described escolar's ill effects in "On
Food and Cooking."  "The wax esters therefore pass intact, their
lubricating properties undiminished, from the small intestine into
the colon, where a sufficient quantity will defeat our normal
control over the ultimate disposition of food residues," McGee
wrote.

Aficionados call the firm, white fleshed fish "buttery" and
"balanced," and suggest limiting portions to 6 ounces or less.

The late chef Charlie Trotter, in ''Charlie Trotter's Seafood,"
called escolar "wonderfully succulent.''  "A spoon is all you
really need,'' Trotter wrote.  Trotter paired the fish with
braised endive, fava beans and a veal stock reduction.

Oceana, an environmental group, tested 114 samples of "tuna" from
2010 to 2013, and found that 84 percent of them were actually
escolar.

In her July 29 lawsuit, Erickson claims: "In Won Ko intentionally
participated in the deceptive mislabeling of escolar by the
combination of: (1) ratifying the restaurant menu that omits the
word escolar and (2) approving purchases of escolar with knowledge
that the restaurant menu omitted the word escolar and called it
'white tuna.'"

Escolar and its West Coast cousin, walu, are often fraudulently
sold as butterfish, super white tuna, oil fish or bincyo.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, after receiving complaints
over diarrhea related to escolar consumption, issued a bulletin
recommending against importation of the fish in the early 1990s.

Italy and Japan banned the sale of escolar due to its side
effects.

Canada, Sweden and Denmark all require that all escolar come with
warning labels.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency suggests grilling the fish to
remove as much oil as possible.

"Defendants' practice of bait and switch sale of seafood
constitutes a violation of Civil Code section 1750 et seq.,"
Erickson's lawsuit states.

Erickson's proposed class includes California residents who
purchased white tuna from the defendants in the past 4 years, and
"without their knowledge" were served escolar.  She seeks class
certification and punitive damages for deceptive advertising,
unfair business practices and consumer law violations.

She is represented by Wade Miller of Long Beach, who could not be
reached for comment on Aug. 2.  A phone call to the restaurant was
not answered.


VENUS LABORATORIES: Falsely Marketed Cleaning Products, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Baharestan and Jena McIntyre, individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated individuals v. Venus Laboratories,
Inc., d/b/a Earth Friendly Products, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03578
(N.D. Cal., August 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of a class of
consumers who purchased the Defendant's Earth Friendly(R)
household cleaners and products, that were falsely marketed to be
natural, naturally derived, made from plants, and safer
alternatives to traditional detergents.

The Products at issue are not, in fact, natural because they
contain multiple highly processed, synthetic, or non-natural
ingredients, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
      Abigail Blodgett, Esq.
      LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
      503 Divisadero Street
      San Francisco, CA 94117
      Telephone: (415) 913-7800
      Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
      E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
             ablodgett@lexlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Melissa W. Wolchansky, Esq.
      Charles D. Moore, Esq.
      HALUNEN LAW
      80 South Eighth Street, Suite 1650
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 605-4098
      Facsimile: (612) 605-4099
      E-mail: wolchansky@halunenlaw.com
              moore@halunenlaw.com


VISA INC: Settlement at Risk Over Emails from Lawyers
-----------------------------------------------------
Robin Sidel, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
the discovery of a trove of emails between two opposing lawyers
who are also close friends is threatening to scuttle a $6 billion
class-action antitrust settlement between Visa Inc., MasterCard
Inc. and millions of merchants.

Lawyers representing roughly 100 big merchants, including Wal-Mart
Stores Inc., Home Depot Inc., and 7-Eleven Inc., are expected on
to formally notify the card networks that they will seek to
unravel the three-year-old pact, according to people familiar with
the plans.

Those lawyers are expected to take the same steps in a similar
case involving a pending $79 million settlement involving American
Express Co. and roughly the same group of merchants, these people
said.

The twist in the case follows a remarkable series of events that
began when Keila Ravelo, who represented MasterCard in the
antitrust case when she was a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher
LLP, resigned from the firm in November. Shortly thereafter, she
and her husband, Melvin Feliz, were charged by the U.S. attorney's
office in New Jersey with conspiracy to commit wire fraud by
setting up two dummy companies to fraudulently obtain more than $5
million from Willkie Farr, law firm Hunton & Williams LLP -- where
Ms. Ravelo also had worked -- and MasterCard, according to
authorities and court filings.

While investigating the alleged theft, Willkie Farr discovered
emails and documents that were exchanged between Ms. Ravelo and
Gary Friedman, who represented merchants through his own law firm
Friedman Law Group LLC.

The two lawyers were colleagues at another firm early in their
careers, but the merchants plan to contend that the communication
between them involved confidential information and resulted in the
merchants getting inadequate representation, said the people
familiar with the matter.

Details about the lawyers' alleged behavior have trickled out in
court papers in recent months as parties in the case have wrangled
over viewing the lawyers' correspondence. The Wall Street Journal
reviewed hundreds of pages of court filings in the case, though
thousands more are under seal by a judge's order.

Willkie Farr said it found "certain documents which we believe
raise questions that appropriately should be discussed with the
court concerning communications in which Ms. Ravelo was involved
relating to this litigation and other matters," according to a
February letter submitted to Judge Margo Brodie, who sits in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Mr. Friedman represented merchants in both the Visa-MasterCard
case and the American Express case. A group of merchants filed
papers asking the court to vacate a $32 million fee "that has been
awarded or [he] expects to receive" in the Visa-MasterCard case
and return it to the settlement fund.

One filing from the law firm that is now representing MasterCard
says the disclosures from Willkie Farr "indicate that its former
partner and Mr. Friedman may have violated protective orders,
improperly disclosed confidential information and otherwise made
improper and inappropriate communications."

Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Friedman couldn't be reached for comment.
Samuel Issacharoff, a lawyer representing Mr. Friedman, declined
to comment. Steve Sadow, a lawyer who is representing Ms. Ravelo,
said "I am not in position to comment at this time."

A spokeswoman for Willkie Farr also declined to comment.

Mr. Feliz pleaded guilty in February to federal drug conspiracy
charges for his role in a plan to transport more than 40 pounds of
cocaine from California to New Jersey. He is facing a maximum
sentence of life in prison and a $10 million fine.

Experts not associated with the case said it is bizarre for a
number of reasons. In particular, the notion of rival lawyers
sharing confidential client documents raises significant ethical
issues and potentially represents "gross misbehavior," says
Geoffrey Hazard, a legal ethics expert who teaches at the
University of California's Hastings College of Law.

At a hearing, the magistrate who has been overseeing the sharing
of the emails among the parties described the situation as "a
serious breach," according to a transcript of the hearing.

Still, it isn't clear if the exchange of documents between Ms.
Ravelo and Mr. Friedman will be grounds for overturning the cases.
Both MasterCard and American Express have said in court filings
that the lawyers didn't play large enough roles in the cases to
justify an unraveling of the settlements.

Spokesmen for Home Depot and Wal-Mart declined to comment. A
representative for convenience-store chain 7-Eleven couldn't be
reached.

Spokesmen for MasterCard, American Express and Visa declined to
comment.

The expected challenge is the latest turn in a case that began in
2005 when large retailers, including Kroger Co. , Safeway Inc. and
Walgreen Co. , began filing price-fixing suits against Visa and
MasterCard. The lawsuits challenged Visa's and MasterCard's long-
standing rules that prohibited merchants from charging customers
more when they used a credit card over other forms of payment.

Merchants have long griped about their arrangements with card
networks, complaints that have intensified as credit cards and
debit cards increasingly replace cash for daily purchases. The
complaints have led to a slew of lawsuits against the networks
over the past decade.

Merchants pay a fee for each card transaction and are required to
follow myriad rules laid out by the card networks.

The Visa-MasterCard case was settled in 2012 when the card
networks and some banks agreed, among other things, to permit
merchants to charge more to customers who pay with credit cards. A
federal judge approved the pact in late 2013, but scores of
merchants still oppose it and are still fighting it in court.

Many details about the exact nature of the documents that were
exchanged between the two lawyers have been filed under seal or
are redacted in court filings. Willkie Farr turned over more than
10,000 pages of emails, text messages and hard copy files to the
parties in the antitrust cases, according to court filings.

According to court filings and hearing transcripts, Ms. Ravelo and
Mr. Friedman have known each other since they were associates at
law firm Sidley Austin LLP in 1992. They also worked together on a
pro bono case representing Mr. Feliz, before Ms. Ravelo and Mr.
Feliz were married.

"The families know each other. The kids know each other," Mr.
Issacharoff said at one hearing.


VOLVO CARS: 3rd Circuit Clarifies Article III Standing
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll, Esq. -- carrollm@ballardspahr.com -- Burt M.
Rublin, Esq. -- rublin@ballardspahr.com -- and Casey Watkins, Esq.
-- watkinsc@ballardspahr.com -- at Ballard Spahr LLP, in an
article for JD Supra, reported that in a case of first impression
in the Third Circuit, the Court of Appeals held that unnamed,
putative class members are not required to establish standing
under Article III of the U.S. Constitution. Rather, the Court held
that so long as any named representative has standing, a valid
case or controversy exists, and the requirements of Article III
standing are satisfied. The court previously reached that same
conclusion with respect to settlement classes, but it now has
clarified that the rule applies to litigated class actions as
well. The court also rejected the argument that class
certification requires a showing that all class members have
suffered an injury.

The decision in Neale v. Volvo Cars of North America arose from a
putative class action filed in the District of New Jersey by
plaintiffs from six states, alleging that certain Volvo vehicles
suffer from a design defect that allows water to seep inside the
vehicle's passenger compartment. The district court certified six
statewide classes, rejecting Volvo's argument, among others, that
unnamed, putative class members had suffered no injury and,
therefore, lacked standing as required by Article III.

Noting that the U.S. Supreme Court has not squarely addressed the
issue -- although it is poised to do so next term -- the Third
Circuit turned for guidance, in part, to its prior decision in In
re Prudential Insurance Co., which concerned Article III standing
in the context of a settlement class. In that appeal, the Third
Circuit held that if the named parties had standing under Article
III, no further constitutional inquiry was necessary and that
absent class members were not required to show standing.

In Neale, the court relied on the historical development of
representative class actions and the treatment of the issue by
other circuits, to clarify that the holding of In re Prudential
was not limited to settlement classes. To the contrary, the
"'cases or controversies' requirement [of Article III standing] is
satisfied so long as a class representative has standing, whether
in the context of a settlement or litigation class." Holding
otherwise, the court held, would be "inconsistent with the nature"
of class action litigation.

Despite that holding, the court revoked certification of the six
statewide classes and remanded the matter because the district
court failed to specifically identify the claims certified. It
ordered the district court, on remand, to "provide a complete list
of class claims, defenses and issues for each of the six statewide
classes."

Neale furthers an existing circuit split on the issue of absent
class member standing. That split is likely to be resolved. The
Supreme Court has granted certiorari in in an Eighth Circuit case,
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, in which one question presented
is "whether a class action may be certified or maintained under
Rule 23(b)(3)... when the class contains hundreds of members who
were not injured and have no legal right to any damages."

Finally, the Third Circuit addressed the Supreme Court's 2013
opinion in Comcast v. Behrend, in which the Supreme Court had held
that an antitrust class should not have been certified because the
plaintiffs' damages model did not demonstrate the theory of
antitrust impact that the district court had accepted for class
treatment. Volvo relied on Comcast to argue that plaintiffs in
Neale were required to show that damages were susceptible of
measurement across the entire class. The Third Circuit rejected
Volvo's argument, concluding that Comcast's analysis was specific
to the antitrust claim at issue in that case, and it did not
impose a broad-based rule applicable to all class actions under
Rule 23(b)(3). Indeed, relying in part on the dissent in Comcast,
the Third Circuit stated that had the district court denied
certification based on the need for individual damages
calculations, it would have constituted an abuse of discretion.


VOLVO CARS: Class Status of Sunroof Case Overtuned
--------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for GlassBytes.com, reported that the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals is vacating a previous class
certification and wants more details in a 2010 case by Volvo
owners who allege their sunroofs harbor a defect, allowing water
to flood the vehicles. "[W]e will vacate and remand the District
Court's class certification decision to allow the District Court
to define the class membership, claims, and defenses, and so that
it may rigorously analyze predominance in the first instance,"
according to court documents.

Unhappy with the U.S. District Court in New Jersey's decision to
approve a six-state class action lawsuit, Volvo appealed to the
Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Appeals Court vacated the
class action status of the case and remanded it back to the
District Court. The Appeals Court explained that the District
Court must be more specific in the claims and damages for each of
the six states involved.

"In this case, certification issues are genuinely in doubt,"
according to court documents. "[H]ere plaintiffs' proposed classes
and claims in the Second Amended Complaint were different from
those in the motion for class certification. Plaintiffs also
conceded at oral argument that they intended for the Class
Vehicles to include only those which actually have a sunroof. This
lack of clarity, combined with the District Court's failure to
address in detail or list the precise claims subject to class
treatment, means that we would be required to engage in some level
of guesswork were we to try to piece together the class claims. We
will not attempt to do so."

The six states the District Court judge had granted as subclasses
for class action are Massachusetts, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey,
California and Maryland.

The plaintiffs contend the alleged "defect" sunroofs are on
Volvo's S40, S60, S80, V50 (model years 2004 to present), XC90
(model years 2003 to present) and V50 (model years 2005 to
present).

The suit was filed in 2010 in U.S. District Court by Joanne Neale
of Needham, Mass., and seven other owners.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on November 6
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that a Court has
preliminarily approved the settlement in a shareholder class
action and set the final approval hearing for November 6, 2015.

On December 5 and 12, 2014, putative shareholders filed class
actions in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against the Walgreens Board of Directors, Walgreen Co., and
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. arising out of the Company's
definitive proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC in
connection with the special meeting of Walgreens shareholders on
December 29, 2014. The actions assert claims that the definitive
proxy statement/prospectus was false or misleading in various
respects.

On December 23, 2014, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Walgreens entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in both actions, pursuant to
which Walgreens made certain supplemental disclosures. The
proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, court
approval. On July 8, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and set the final approval hearing for November 6,
2015.


WALGREENS BOOTS: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Complaint Due Oct. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiff
in a class action lawsuit must file an amended complaint by August
17, 2015.

On April 10, 2015, a putative shareholder filed a securities class
action in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois
against Walgreen Co. and certain former officers of Walgreen Co.
The action asserts claims for violation of the federal securities
laws arising out of certain public statements the Company made
regarding its fiscal 2016 goals.

On June 16, 2015, the Court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and providing that the lead plaintiff will file an
amended complaint by August 17, 2015, and that the defendants will
move to dismiss or answer the amended complaint by October 16,
2015.


WD-40 COMPANY: Superior Court Dismissed Action by David Wolf
------------------------------------------------------------
WD-40 Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that the Superior Court has
dismissed the class action by David Wolf.

On February 25, 2014, a suit was filed against the Company in a
Superior Court of California (David Wolf v. WD-40 Company).  Mr.
Wolf's complaint sought class action status and alleged that the
Company violated California Penal Code Section 632.7, which
prohibits the interception or reception and intentional recording
of a cordless or cell phone call without the consent of both
parties to the communication.  As reported in the Company's
quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed on April 9, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a request for dismissal with prejudice on April 6,
2015.  On April 27, 2015, the Superior Court dismissed the
proceeding.


WHITE JACOBS: Faces "Fustos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Fustos, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. White, Jacobs & Associates, Inc., Tucker, Albin and
Associates, Incorporated, Allen Humphris and Edward LaMonica, Case
No. 3:15-cv-02572-P (N.D. Tex., August 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of selling credit repair
services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP
      Meadow Park Tower
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
      E-mail: jsiegel.esq@gmail.com


YUM! BRANDS: Oral Argument Held in C.D. Cal. Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 13, 2015, that in early 2013, four
putative class action complaints were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company
and certain executive officers alleging claims under sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's current and future business
and financial condition.  The four complaints were subsequently
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky.

On August 5, 2013, lead plaintiff, Frankfurt Trust Investment
GmbH, filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") on behalf of a putative class of all persons who
purchased the Company's stock between February 6, 2012 and
February 4, 2013 (the "Class Period").  The Amended Complaint no
longer includes allegations relating to misstatements regarding
the Company's business or financial condition and instead alleges
that, during the Class Period, defendants purportedly omitted
information about the Company's supply chain in China, thereby
inflating the prices at which the Company's securities traded.

On October 4, 2013, the Company and individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On December 24, 2014,
the District Court granted that motion to dismiss in its entirety
and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice.

On January 16, 2015, lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeal for the Sixth Circuit. Briefing
on plaintiff's appeal is complete and oral argument has been
scheduled for August 4, 2015. The Company denies liability and
intends to vigorously defend against all claims in the Amended
Complaint.  A reasonable estimate of the amount of any possible
loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Expert Discovery Continuing in Taco Bell Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 13, 2015, that discovery and expert
discovery is continuing in the Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions.

Taco Bell was named as a defendant in a number of putative class
action suits filed in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 alleging
violations of California labor laws including unpaid overtime,
failure to timely pay wages on termination, failure to pay accrued
vacation wages, failure to pay minimum wage, denial of meal and
rest breaks, improper wage statements, unpaid business expenses,
wrongful termination, discrimination, conversion and unfair or
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business &
Professions Code Sec. 17200. Some plaintiffs also seek penalties
for alleged violations of California's Labor Code under
California's Private Attorneys General Act as well as statutory
"waiting time" penalties and allege violations of California's
Unfair Business Practices Act. Plaintiffs seek to represent a
California state-wide class of hourly employees.

These matters were consolidated, and the consolidated case is
styled In Re Taco Bell Wage and Hour Actions. The In Re Taco Bell
Wage and Hour Actions plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint in
June 2009, and in March 2010 the court approved the parties'
stipulation to dismiss the Company from the action. Plaintiffs
filed their motion for class certification on the vacation and
final pay claims in December 2010, and on September 26, 2011 the
court issued its order denying the certification of the vacation
and final pay claims. Plaintiffs then sought to certify four
separate meal and rest break classes. On January 2, 2013, the
court rejected three of the proposed classes but granted
certification with respect to the late meal break class. The
parties thereafter agreed on a list of putative class members, and
the class notice and opportunity to opt out of the litigation were
mailed on January 21, 2014.

Per order of the court, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint to clarify the class claims. Plaintiffs also filed a
motion for partial summary judgment. Taco Bell filed motions to
strike and to dismiss, as well as a motion to alter or amend the
second amended complaint. On August 29, 2014, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. On that same
date, the court granted Taco Bell's motion to dismiss all but one
of the California Private Attorney General Act claims. On October
29, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the operative
complaint and a motion to amend the class certification order. On
December 16, 2014, the court partially granted both motions,
rejecting plaintiffs' proposed on-duty meal period class but
certifying a limited rest break class and certifying an underpaid
meal premium class, and allowing the plaintiffs to amend the
complaint to reflect those certifications. On December 30, 2014,
plaintiffs filed the third amended complaint. On February 26,
2015, the court denied a motion by Taco Bell to dismiss or strike
the underpaid meal premium class. Class notice will be issued
shortly to the two recently-certified classes, and discovery and
expert discovery is continuing.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. We have provided for a
reasonable estimate of the possible loss relating to this lawsuit.
However, in view of the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
there can be no assurance that this lawsuit will not result in
losses in excess of those currently provided for in our Condensed
Consolidated Financial Statements. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss in excess of that
currently provided for in our Condensed Consolidated Financial
Statements cannot be made at this time.


YUM! BRANDS: Discovery Continues on "Rodriguez" Remaining Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yum! Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 13, 2015, that discovery will continue
as to plaintiff's remaining claims in the Bernardina Rodriguez
class action lawsuit.

On May 16, 2013, a putative class action styled Bernardina
Rodriguez v. Taco Bell Corp. was filed in California Superior
Court. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of current and
former California hourly restaurant employees alleging various
violations of California labor laws including failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay hourly wages, failure to
provide accurate written wage statements, failure to timely pay
all final wages, and unfair or unlawful business practices in
violation of California Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200.
This case appears to be duplicative of the In Re Taco Bell Wage
and Hour Actions case.

Taco Bell removed the case to federal court and, on June 25, 2013,
plaintiff filed a first amended complaint to include a claim
seeking penalties for alleged violations of California's Labor
Code under California's Private Attorneys General Act. Taco Bell's
motion to dismiss or stay the action in light of the In Re Taco
Bell Wage and Hour Actions case was denied on October 30, 2013. In
April 2014 the parties stipulated to address the sufficiency of
plaintiff's legal theory as to her discount meal break claim
before conducting full discovery. A hearing on the parties' cross-
summary judgment motions was held on October 22, 2014, and on
October 23, 2014, the court granted Taco Bell's motion for summary
judgment on the discount meal break claim and denied plaintiff's
motion. Discovery will continue as to plaintiff's remaining
claims.

Taco Bell denies liability and intends to vigorously defend
against all claims in this lawsuit. A reasonable estimate of the
amount of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time.


* House Bill Seeks Further Limits on Class Action Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
David Lazarus, writing for The Detroit News, reported that many
companies already forbid you from joining other disgruntled
customers in filing a class-action lawsuit, forcing you instead to
take your beef to an arbitrator.

A bill making its way through the Republican-controlled House
would diminish your legal options even more.

"The backers of this bill aren't even trying to hide their
intentions," said Christine Hines, consumer and civil justice
counsel at the advocacy group Public Citizen. "The aim is to wipe
out class-action lawsuits."

How? By requiring that everyone in the suit have identical
injuries or losses, such as experiencing a broken leg because of a
car's faulty brakes. People with broken arms would have to file a
separate lawsuit against the automaker.

The shamelessly titled Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act was
approved by the House Judiciary Committee. It now heads to a vote
by the full chamber.

The legislation is the brainchild of Judiciary Committee Chairman
Bob Goodlatte, R-Virginia, and Rep. Trent Franks, R-Arizona, who
are passing it off as a much-needed improvement to the U.S. legal
system.

"The Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act is a simple, one-page
bill that furthers a common-sense principle that should apply to
class-action lawsuits in the future," said Goodlatte.

Said Franks:"Class-action lawsuits should allow those with serious
injuries to have their own day in court. The Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act would do just that."

Actually, it wouldn't. Just the opposite.

It's striking that such a far-reaching bill would fit on one side
of a napkin. Here it is in its entirety:

"No federal court shall certify any proposed class unless the
party seeking to maintain a class action affirmatively
demonstrates through admissible evidentiary proof that each
proposed class member suffered an injury of the same type and
extent as the injury of the named class representative or
representatives."

The key phrase is the requirement for "the same type and extent"
of harm. Under the existing system, people can join a class if
they share similar grievances against the defendant.

In a securities fraud case, for example, it wouldn't matter if you
lost $200 and the named plaintiff lost $100. Your losses stem from
the same alleged fraud.

Class actions are especially useful in situations where losses are
relatively small. You might not go to the trouble of filing a
lawsuit on your own. But joined with scores of others with similar
interests, a class-action lawsuit can be an effective way of
seeking redress for all.

Look what would happen if the Fairness in Class Action Litigation
Act became law. In that securities fraud example, you'd be
eligible to join the class action only if you experienced "the
same type and extent" of harm -- that is, if you also lost exactly
$100.

"If your injury is different by just $1, it would preclude joining
a class action," said Adam Prom, a Chicago lawyer who specializes
in consumer cases.

Businesses argue, with some justification, that class actions can
be abused by unscrupulous lawyers, who pack on additional
plaintiffs in hopes of squeezing a fatter settlement out of the
accused company. Certainly that happens.

But for every questionable class-action case, there's an Anderson
v. Pacific Gas and Electric Co., which was made famous by the
movie "Erin Brockovich."

PG&E was required to pay a civil settlement of $333 million after
it was found that the utility had contaminated groundwater beneath
the California town of Hinkley with a chemical that caused a
variety of cancers and birth defects.

Such diversity of harm clearly wouldn't be tolerated under the
Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act.

"The central question in a class action is -- and should remain --
whether a corporation has engaged in misconduct that harmed
consumers," said Linda Lipsen, chief executive of the American
Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers.

Passage of the Fairness in Class Action Litigation Act, she said,
would leave corporations "off the hook if they sell defective
products, engage in widespread price-fixing schemes or defraud
consumers with deceptive advertising."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce sees it differently. The powerful
business lobby is a key backer of the bill.

Lisa Rickard, president of the chamber's Institute for Legal
Reform, said after Judiciary Committee vote that class actions
"have become a tool of the plaintiffs' lawyers to game the system
of justice and inflate their compensation."

In March, the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Tom Donohue,
declared at a business forum that his organization is accustomed
to getting its way in court.

"We spend half of our time trying to reduce the number of suits by
class-action lawyers and the other half of our time suing the hell
out of the government," he said.

It seems pretty clear who's gaming the system.



                            *********

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  * * *