CAR_Public/150824.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 168


                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
AIA DIRECT: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ABGENGOA: Directors Misrepresented Financial Condition, Suit Says
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Licht" Suit for Antitrust Law "Breach"

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Swipe Fees Class Suit Settlement Rejected
APPLE INC: Judge Retained Wiretap Act Claims in "Backhaut"
BALFOUR BEATTY: Faces "Slinkey" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "King" Suit in Ill. Over Antibiotic Drugs
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Batten" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Laplante" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Baughman" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cartwright" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fagan" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Annis" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs

BRASKEM SA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Yassian" Suit Over Avago Merger Plan
CANADA DRY: Recalls Unsweetened Strawberry Products
CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Faces New Class Suit Over Speed Cameras
CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Warranty
CVS PHARMACY: Wellness Exam "Voluntary", Judge Says
DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN: Jail Officers Seek $7M From Metro Government
DONALD TRUMP: Judge Limits Discovery in RICO Class Suit
E.I. DUPONT: Cristal Arabia Dropped From TiO2 Lawsuit

ECOLAB: Dec. 9 Final Approval Hearing of $9.5 Million Settlement
EDISON INT'L: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
EDISON INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
FAIRWORTH LEGAL: Sent Unsolicited Ads, Urban Suit Claims
FANEUIL INC: Faces "McNeil" Suit Seeking to Recover Unpaid Wages

FEDEX: Faces Class Suit Over "Misclassified" Drivers
FINTEGRA HOLDINGS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Investments
GALLUP: Settlement Reached Over TCPA Violation Class Suit
GOODYEAR TIRE: Employee Files Class Suit Over Pay Dispute
HARPERSVILLE, AL: Faces Suit for Constitutional Violations

HILLSIDE HOSPITAL: "Freeman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HUNG KEE: Recalls Wonton and Dumpling Products Due to Wheat
IKEA CANADA: Recalls Patrull Nightlight Products
INDIANA: Child-Services Caseworkers Hired Amid "Abuse" Claims
INTEGRITY STAFFING: 9th Circuit Reversed Decision on Class Action

IVOX SOLUTIONS: Faces "Kie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JAG INDUSTRIAL: "Bradley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
JC GALAXY: Faces "Granados" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Levaquin(R)
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Stommes" Suit Over Levaquin(R)

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Falsely Advertised Benecol, Suit Says
JRP GROUP: Faces "Montoya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KEURIG GREEN: Faces "Patel" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
KIDDE CANADA: Expands Residential Smoke Alarms Recall
KMART CORP: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Materials, Suit Claims

LAKIN TIRE: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
LOGITECH INC: Home-Security Systems "Unreliable", Suit Claims
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Elson" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
LUZERNE, PA: Settlement in "Kids for Cash" Case Has Initial OK
MACY'S WEST: Fails to Refund Electronic Services Cost, Suit Says

MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Judge Dismisses Volunteer Wage Claims
MANITOBA LIQUOR: Recalls Sweetwater Blood Orange Radler Products
MARICOPA, AZ: DOJ May Intervene in Civil Rights Case
MARKWEST ENERGY: Faces "Kleinfeldt" Suit Over MPLX Merger Plan
MDC PARTNERS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit

MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
MERCEDES-BENZ US: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Ledbetter" Suit Says
MERCEDES-BENZ: Arbitration Ruling in "Kaghazchi" Case Upheld
MILLY'S COMER: Faces "Lantigua" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: 3rd Circ. Rules Against Recorder of Deeds

NAT'L HOCKEY: Ordered to Turn Over Injury, Concussion Data
NETFLIX INC: 9th Circ. Affirms Dismissal of Video Privacy Suit
NEVADA: Won't Issue License for Marijuana Dispensaries, Suit Says
NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 4
NEW YORK: Teacher-Certification Exam Not Biased, Judge Rules

NGK SPARK: Faces WAL Inc. Suit Over Oxygen Sensor-Price Fixing
OLYMPUS AMERICA: Recalls VG-170 Digital Point-and-Shoot Cameras
ON DECK CAPITAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
ONE LUCKY: "Shubmehl" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PASON SYSTEMS: "Ratliff" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

PAZCON AMOR: "Campos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PEPSICO BEVERAGES: Recalls Pureleaf Lemon Iced Tea Products
PLAZA SEAFOOD: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
POWELL TRADING: Recalls Fried Seaweed Cookie Due to Peanut
PROVIDENT FUNDING: Faces "Steinberg" Suit Over Late Fee Policy

PRYM CONSUMER: Recalls Cheesecloth Products Due to Noncompliance
RIDDELL INC: Football Club's Misleading Ad Suit Tossed
ROMANZI CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
SAFEWAY: Recalls Cooked Chicken Wings Product Due to Bacteria
SAMSUNG: "Dang" Suit Over Infringement Can't Proceed as Class

SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
SANDY FORD: Faces "Barber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SCOTTRADE INC: Illegally Routes Costumers Investment, Suit Claims
SG TWO: Sued Over Failure to Provide Handicap-Accessible Parking
SOLARWINDS INC: Federman Firm Files Securities Class Suit

SOLARWINDS INC: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
SOUL CIRCUS: Support for Animal Rights "Sham", Suit Claims
SPRINT/UNITED: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
SSA CONTAINERS: Faces "Conner" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, MI: Pays $270K for "Over-Detaining" People

SUNOCO INC: Faces "White" Suit Over False Cardholders Benefits
TAMKO BUILDING: Judge Trims Class Suit Over Defective Products
TENNESSEE: State Legislators Must Give Depositions, Judge Says
TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Suit
TEXAS A&M: Faces Class Suit Filed by Law Graduates

TIME WARNER: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mejia" Suit Claims
TOYODA GOSEI: Sued Over Alleged Automotive Hoses-Price Fixing
TRI-TECH HOLDING: Oct. 16 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing
TRUECAR: Misrepresented Growth Outlook, Class Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Secure Workers Insurance
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: No Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicles, Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Sued Over Failure to Pay VCS Workers Overtime
UNITED STATES: Aviation Analysts/Agents Seek Back Pay Under FLSA
UWT INC: Court Trims Claims in "Labaty" RICO Suit

VISA INC: Court Reverses Dismissal of ATM Pricing Class Suit
VASCO DATA: Briscoe Law Firm Files Securitites Class Suit
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Brake System
YAHOO! INC: 9th Cir. Rejects Appeal on Class Cert. Order
YELP INC: Reviewers Do Not Need to be Paid, Judge Says

* Canada Food Recalls Raw Oysters from BC Coastal Due to Vibrio
* Davis Wright Adds Employment Class Action Pro In Calif.
* Healthcare Employers Continue to Defend OT Suits




                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
those who purchased shares of 3D Systems Corporation. ("3D
Systems" or the "Company") during the period between October 29,
2013 and October 22, 2014 inclusive. (The "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
drove up 3D's stock price by issuing false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's (i) ability to increase the
capacity of its metal printing business; (ii) demand for its
consumer products; (iii) the value of multiple companies it was
acquiring; and (iv) expected earnings.

On October 29, 2013, 3D's CEO and President, Defendant Reichental,
proclaimed that the Company had "decided to triple our
manufacturing capacity over the next 12 months, as well as
accelerate the development of additional direct metal 3D printer
models." Defendant Reichental also touted the strategic value of
the Company's recent acquisitions. In addition, on February 28,
2014, Reichental also represented that "our plan is [to] quadruple
[direct metal printing] sales over the next 12 to 18 months."

On July 31, 2014, 3D issued its second quarter results whereby the
Company missed analysts' expectations and reported revenue of
$151.5 million on delays in the rollout of new products and
disappointing guidance. On this news, the Company's share price
fell nearly 11%.

On October 22, 2014, the Company surprised the market by
announcing disappointing preliminary Q3 results and guided lower
full year revenue and earnings. In a press release, the Company
blamed its disappointing results on capacity constraints for its
direct metal printers. On this news, 3D shares plummeted over 15%
on high volume.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in 3D Systems you have until August 14, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
60 East 42nd Street Suite 4600
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 697-6484
Fax: (212) 697-7296
info@bgandg.com


AIA DIRECT: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Moore Jr., individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AIA Direct Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-
01885-EAK-EAJ (M.D. Fla., August 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

AIA Direct Inc. is a Florida For Profit Corporation, with its
principal place of business located at 8209 Natures Way Suite 221,
Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202. AIA is in the business of selling health
insurance policies to the needy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      1715 N. Westshore Blvd, Suite 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


ABGENGOA: Directors Misrepresented Financial Condition, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that company directors
misrepresented Spanish conglomerate Abgengoa's financial condition
and the stock price dropped by 46% in two days, knocking $8.1
billion off the market cap, shareholders claim in federal court in
Manhattan.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Settles Data Breach Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Adobe is on the hook for $1.1 million in legal fees -- and an
undisclosed sum to users -- amid class allegations that its
"shoddy security protocols" led to a massive data breach.

Hackers stole credit card and login data from 38 million people in
October 2013 because of Adobe's lax practices, the class claimed,
a fiasco that was 13 times larger than the company initially
reported.

"The massive breach did not come as a surprise to industry experts
familiar with Adobe's security practices who warned that Adobe's
shoddy security protocols and track record of previous breaches
made it susceptible to massive hack of the scope and depth that
resulted," lead plaintiff Christian Halpain said in the complaint.

Adobe announced the security breach on Oct. 3, 2013, and said
hackers had stolen 3 million credit and debit card records and
login data from an undetermined number of users.  The San Jose-
based tech giant later acknowledged that about 38 million users
had been affected.

"Adobe promises its users that it will provide 'reasonable
administrative, technical, and physical security controls' to
protect their personally identifiable information and represents
that it uses industry-leading security practices to do so, but
Adobe's actual security practices are substandard in the industry
and continue to result in breaches of Adobe's networks and
software," the lawsuit, filed in Northern California, stated.

In September 2014, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh rejected Adobe's
request to dismiss the action, which included claims for violating
the Customer Records Act, declaratory relief and unfair business
practices.  Adobe argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing
because they could not show an actual injury.  Koh, who agreed
that users could not show the company failed to notify them of the
breach in a reasonable amount of time, found users' costs of
dealing with the data breach and the threat of future harm very
real.

"There is no need to speculate as to whether the hackers intend to
misuse the personal information stolen in the 2013 data breach or
whether they will be able to do so," Koh wrote. "Not only did the
hackers deliberately target Adobe's servers, but plaintiffs allege
that the hackers used Adobe's own systems to decrypt customer
credit card numbers. Some of the stolen data has already surfaced
on the Internet, and other hackers have allegedly misused it to
discover vulnerabilities in Adobe's products.

"Given this, the danger that plaintiffs' stolen data will be
subject to misuse can plausibly be described as 'certainly
impending.' Indeed, the threatened injury here could be more
imminent only if plaintiffs could allege that their stolen
personal information had already been misused. However, to require
plaintiffs to wait until they actually suffer identity theft or
credit card fraud in order to have standing would run counter to
the well-established principle that harm need not have already
occurred or be 'literally certain' in order to constitute injury-
in-fact."

Adobe violated its obligation to warn customers of apparently
subpar security systems, Koh added, though the company claimed its
problems were well publicized and that consumers should have been
aware of the issues as a result.

"It is one thing to have a poor reputation for security in
general, but that does not mean that Adobe's specific security
shortcomings were widely known," Koh wrote. "None of the press
reports Adobe identifies discusses any specific security
deficiencies, and plaintiffs expressly allege that the extent of
Adobe's security shortcomings were revealed only after the 2013
data breach. Given that prior reports of Adobe's security problems
were highly generic, the court cannot say that Adobe did not have
exclusive knowledge of its failure to implement industry-standard
security measures."

On August 13, Koh granted a voluntary dismissal of the claims per
an undisclosed settlement between the parties.

Adobe also agreed to pay $1.1 million in attorneys' fees and
expenses. Class counsel worked an estimated 2,539 hours on the
litigation, according to the ruling.

Interim lead class counsel Eric Gibbs -- ehg@classlawgroup.com --
with Girard Gibbs LLP of San Francisco did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.

An Adobe representative said the company is "pleased to have this
matter resolved."


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Licht" Suit for Antitrust Law "Breach"
----------------------------------------------------------------
John-Gabriel Licht, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines,
Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United
Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case 0:15-
cv-03187 (D.Minn., July 31, 2015), accuses defendants of allegedly
conspiring to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of
domestic air travel services, or a combination of these effects,
in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
     Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
     David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
     June P. Hoidal, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
     1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th St.
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 341-0400
     E-mail: charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com
             david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com
             june.hoidal@zimmreed.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Swipe Fees Class Suit Settlement Rejected
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Ingram, writing for Reuters, reported that a U.S. judge
rejected a proposed class action settlement between American
Express Co (AXP.N) and merchants who sued the company over swipe
fees, ruling that a lawyer for the merchants compromised the
fairness of the agreement.

U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn, New York, ruled
that lawyer Gary Friedman acted improperly by talking about the
case and sharing confidential information with a friend who
represented MasterCard Inc (MA.N) in a parallel class action
against MasterCard and Visa Inc (V.N).

Garaufis wrote that Friedman repeatedly violated court rules meant
to protect confidential information and created a conflict of
interest.

The violations were so blatant that in at least two emails,
Friedman wrote to his friend, "burn after reading."

Garaufis ordered Friedman removed as co-lead counsel for the
merchants and ordered a new round of written briefs to be filed in
the case by Sept. 8.

Two lawyers who represent Friedman could not immediately be
reached for comment.

The proposed antitrust settlement would have allowed merchants to
impose a surcharge on American Express users, potentially treating
those cardholders differently from other customers. Such
settlements generally require court approval.

Merchants were not due to receive any money from the agreement,
although Friedman and two other law firms that served as co-lead
counsel were due to receive $75 million in fees.

American Express said in a statement it was disappointed in the
ruling because it considered the settlement agreement fair. It
added: "We believe we have strong defenses against the merchants'
claims, and will continue to fight our case in court."


APPLE INC: Judge Retained Wiretap Act Claims in "Backhaut"
----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Singh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge denied class certification in a lawsuit claiming
Apple intentionally blocked former iPhone users from receiving
text messages sent from other iPhones.

Lead plaintiff Adam Backhaut in May 2014 accused Apple of
violating the federal Stored Communications Act, the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act and California unfair competition and
consumer laws.   Backhaut claims that if an iPhone user using the
iMessage app switched to a non-Apple phone, text messages to that
user would disappear because Apple would divert the message to its
iMessage system. Since the user no longer had iMessage, he
wouldn't get the text.

In a 28-page order filed on August 13 denying the class
certification, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh agreed with Apple that
plaintiffs have not satisfied an additional standing requirement
under state unfair competition laws -- that they have "lost money
or property."  She also found the proposed class members and the
iOS users attempting to send text messages to proposed class
members had been adequately notified of the bug through Apple's
own disclosures, numerous online postings and websites, or third-
party news articles.

The judge noted that Backhaut testified at his deposition that
"'there's a whole host of information online regarding' the
iMessage issue and de-registering from iMessage,' and "these
'broad disclosures' may be sufficient to have put proposed class
members or senders on notice of the alleged interceptions."

Koh also denied injunctive relief for the class, noting that the
plaintiffs have conceded the bug has been fixed and they now
receive all their text messages.

Apple filed a motion to dismiss the claims this past August, which
Koh granted in part in November. Koh said that although the
plaintiffs' arguments did not support legal action under the
federal Stored Communications Act because the law protects stored
communications and not communications in transit from sender to
recipient, they had sufficiently pleaded under the Wiretap Act,
which prohibits the interception of communications.

The judge dismissed the plaintiffs' unfair competition claims
stemming from the Stored Communications Act, but allowed the
claims surrounding the Wiretap Act to stay.

Neither plaintiffs' attorney William Audet -- waudet@audetlaw.com
-- with Audet & Partners LLP,  nor Apple's attorney Kai Bartolomeo
-- kbartolomeo@mofo.com -- with Morrison Foerster could
immediately be reached for comment.


BALFOUR BEATTY: Faces "Slinkey" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Slinkey, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
v. Balfour Beatty Infrastructure, Inc., Case 4:15-cv-02201
(S.D.Tex., July 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Balfour Beatty Rail Services is a rail infrastructure contractor
specializing in construction and maintenance services for public
and private railroad markets. Balfour is itself part of Balfour
Beatty PLC, a multinational infrastructure conglomerate with
capabilities in professional services, construction services,
support services and infrastructure investments is traded on the
London Stock Exchange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark J. Oberti, Esq.
     OBERTI SULLIVAN LLP
     723 Main Street, Suite 340
     Houston, TX 77002
     Tel: (713) 401-3555
     Fax: (713) 401-3547
     E-mail: mark@osattorneys.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "King" Suit in Ill. Over Antibiotic Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Louise King v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-07175 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2015), is an action
for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result
of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/
sale of the pharmaceutical drug Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and
Avelox(R).

Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and Avelox(R) are broad-spectrum
fluoroquinolone antibiotics used to treat lung, sinus, skin, and
urinary tract infections caused by certain germs called bacteria.

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that has its principal place of business at 340 Changebridge Road,
P.O. Box 1000, Montville, New Jersey 07045. Bayer is a research-
centered pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randi Kassan, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, N.Y. 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Batten" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Batten v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04649-GAM (E.D. Pa., August 14, 2015), is an
action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/
sale of the pharmaceutical drug Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and
Avelox(R).

Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and Avelox(R) are broad-spectrum
fluoroquinolone antibiotics used to treat lung, sinus, skin, and
urinary tract infections caused by certain germs called bacteria.

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that has its principal place of business at 340 Changebridge Road,
P.O. Box 1000, Montville, New Jersey 07045. Bayer is a research-
centered pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marc Grossman, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, N.Y. 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Laplante" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terrence Laplante v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07173 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2015), is an
action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/
sale of the pharmaceutical drug Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and
Avelox(R).

Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and Avelox(R) are broad-spectrum
fluoroquinolone antibiotics used to treat lung, sinus, skin, and
urinary tract infections caused by certain germs called bacteria.

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that has its principal place of business at 340 Changebridge Road,
P.O. Box 1000, Montville, New Jersey 07045. Bayer is a research-
centered pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randi Kassan, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, N.Y. 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Baughman" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Baughman v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01341-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill., August 14, 2015), is an
action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/
sale of the pharmaceutical drug Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and
Avelox(R).

Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and Avelox(R) are broad-spectrum
fluoroquinolone antibiotics used to treat lung, sinus, skin, and
urinary tract infections caused by certain germs called bacteria.

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that has its principal place of business at 340 Changebridge Road,
P.O. Box 1000, Montville, New Jersey 07045. Bayer is a research-
centered pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randi Kassan, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, N.Y. 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Cartwright" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Cartwright v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-07174 (N.D. Ill., August 14, 2015), is an
action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/
sale of the pharmaceutical drug Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and
Avelox(R).

Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and Avelox(R) are broad-spectrum
fluoroquinolone antibiotics used to treat lung, sinus, skin, and
urinary tract infections caused by certain germs called bacteria.

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that has its principal place of business at 340 Changebridge Road,
P.O. Box 1000, Montville, New Jersey 07045. Bayer is a research-
centered pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randi Kassan, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, N.Y. 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Fagan" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fagan v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:15-cv-03231-SEM-TSH (C.D. Ill., August 14, 2015), is an
action for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate
result of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection
with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/
sale of the pharmaceutical drug Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and
Avelox(R).

Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and Avelox(R) are broad-spectrum
fluoroquinolone antibiotics used to treat lung, sinus, skin, and
urinary tract infections caused by certain germs called bacteria.

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that has its principal place of business at 340 Changebridge Road,
P.O. Box 1000, Montville, New Jersey 07045. Bayer is a research-
centered pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randi Kassan, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, N.Y. 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Faces "Annis" Suit Over Antibiotic Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------
Sasha Annis v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-06219 (C.D. Ill., August 14, 2015), is an action
for damages suffered by Plaintiff as a direct and proximate result
of Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct in connection with
the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging,
promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution, labeling, and/
sale of the pharmaceutical drug Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and
Avelox(R).

Cipro(R), Levaquin(R) and Avelox(R) are broad-spectrum
fluoroquinolone antibiotics used to treat lung, sinus, skin, and
urinary tract infections caused by certain germs called bacteria.

Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a Delaware corporation
that has its principal place of business at 340 Changebridge Road,
P.O. Box 1000, Montville, New Jersey 07045. Bayer is a research-
centered pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Randi Kassan, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, N.Y. 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: mgrossman@thesandersfirm.com


BRASKEM SA: Scott+Scott Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott") filed an
amended class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers
of Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or the "Company") American Depositary
Shares ("ADRs") between June 10, 2011 and March 11, 2015 (the
"Class Period"). The action seeks remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical company that is the largest
petrochemicals producer in Latin America. Braskem is also the
largest producer of thermoplastic resins in the Americas. Braskem
buys naphtha, which accounts for half of its production costs and
is the main ingredient for making petrochemicals in Brazil, from
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras ("Petrobras") under long-term
agreements. Petrobras provides approximately 70% of Braskem's
naphtha needs.

According to the complaint, the truth began to emerge on March 11,
2015, when a report from a Sao Paulo newspaper, Folha de S. Paolo,
implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding
Petrobras. According to testimony made by former Petrobras
executive Paulo Roberto Costa and self-confessed money launderer
Alberto Youssef, Braskem paid at least $5 million annually to
Petrobras between 2006 and 2012. The payments were made to acquire
crude derivative contracts like propylene and naphtha at cheaper
prices. On this news, Braskem ADRs fell over 20%, or $1.80 per
ADR, on March 11, 2015.

If you purchased Braskem ADRs during this time period and wish to
serve as a lead plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court
no later than August 31, 2015. Any member of the class may move
the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If
you wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-
scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (646) 582-0121) or visit the
Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-
scott.com.

Scott & Scott LLP
The Chysler Building 405 Lexington Ave. 40th
Flr New York, NY 10174-4099
Phone: (800) 404-7770
Fax: (646) 582-0121)
scottlaw@scott-scott.com
http://www.scott-scott.com


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Faces "Yassian" Suit Over Avago Merger Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Farshid Yassian and Farshid Yassian as Custodian for Remy Yassian
and Ryan Yassian, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., Case No. 8:15-
cv-01303 (C.D. Cal., August 14, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
the public stockholders of Broadcom Corporation, to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Broadcom
common stock by Avago Technologies Limited following an unfair
process, in exchange for inadequate consideration, and without
disclosing all material information concerning the Proposed
Transaction to Company shareholders.

Broadcom Corporation is one of the largest volume fabless
semiconductor companies in the world.

Avago Technologies Limited designs, develops and markets
semiconductor devices in four primary product categories: wireless
communications, enterprise storage, wired infrastructure and
industrial.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1516 South Bundy Drive, Suite 309
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 208-2800
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2348
      E-mail: lparker@weisslawllp.com


CANADA DRY: Recalls Unsweetened Strawberry Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Canada Dry Mott's Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9985

The food recall warning issued on August 7, 2015 has been updated
to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Canada Dry Mott's Inc. is recalling Mott's Fruitsations Fruit
Rockets - Unsweetened Strawberry from the marketplace due to
potential loss of seal, causing spoilage. Consumers should not
consume the recalled products described below.

The products have been sold nationally.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If an infant or child has been fed the products described above,
discontinue use and monitor for symptoms.  Consumption of spoiled
food may cause symptoms such as upset stomach, vomiting and
diarrhea.  If you have any concerns, please seek medical
attention.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other products are recalled, the CFIA
will notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.


  Brand    Common name        Size    Code(s) on  UPC
  name     -----------        ----    product     ----
  -----                               ----------
  Mott's   Fruitsations       90 g    NO2515 G5   0 65912 00019 7
           Fruit Rockets -            NO2715 G5
           Unsweetened                NO2815 G5
           Strawberry - Apple
           Strawberry Fruit
           Blend
  Mott's   Fruitsations       4 x 90  NO2515 G5   0 65912 00019 7
           Fruit Rockets -    g       NO2715 G5
           Unsweetened                NO2815 G5
           Strawberry - Apple
           Strawberry Fruit
           Blend

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/OXOMg7


CEDAR RAPIDS, IA: Faces New Class Suit Over Speed Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------
B.A. Morelli, writing for KCRG.com, reported that another version
of a class-action lawsuit has been filed against the city of Cedar
Rapids and GATSO USA, the Massachusetts-based vendor that runs the
city's automated traffic-camera enforcement program.

The lawsuit seeks refunds for tickets issued after March 17 at
four locations on Interstate 380 with automated traffic cameras.
The cameras use images of license plates to detect and fine
speeders.

The date reflects when the Iowa Department of Transportation
ordered two of the camera locations be moved and two locations be
shut down. The Iowa DOT said the cameras don't comply with state
rules enacted after the cameras went up.

Attorney Jim Larew filed the lawsuit in Linn County District Court
on Aug. 3 on behalf of six in-state and out-of-state plaintiffs.

A more expansive class-action lawsuit filed last September was
moved to federal court because the claims fell under the
jurisdiction of federal laws. A federal judge dismissed the case
in July, but Larew and his clients have appealed.

Meanwhile, the city of Cedar Rapids is suing the Iowa DOT to
prevent having to turn off or move the cameras, calling it a local
control issue.

The lawsuit filed on focuses on what it claims are violations
under Iowa law.

The city continues to enforce tickets issued by the cameras.


CENTRAIS ELETRICAS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------
City of Providence, Rhode Island, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA
- Eletrobras, Jose Costa Carvalho Neto, Armando Casado De Araujo,
and Jose Antonio Muniz Lopes, Case No. 1:15-cv-06434-UA (S.D.N.Y,
August 14, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA - Eletrobras is an energy
corporation headquartered in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and the
dominant utility company in Brazil.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
      Donald R. Hall, Esq.
      Hae Sung Nam, Esq.
      Pamela A. Mayer, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
              dhall@kaplanfox.com
              hnam@kaplanfox.com
              pmayer@kaplanfox.com


CHRYSLER GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------
Andy Greenberg, writing for WIRED, reported that Jeep hacking
scandal has already been followed by a 1.4 million vehicle recall
and a well-timed Senate bill. Now Chrysler faces that other
inevitable punishment: a potentially massive lawsuit.

On three Jeep Cherokee owners filed a complaint against both Fiat
Chrysler Automobiles and Harman International, the maker of the
Uconnect dashboard computer in millions of Chrysler vehicles. A
security flaw in that cellular-connected computer served as the
entry point for security researchers Chris Valasek and Charlie
Miller when they showed WIRED that they could wirelessly hack into
a 2014 Jeep over the internet to hijack its steering, brakes and
transmission. Now the small group of plaintiffs is hoping to
invite anyone with those vulnerable Uconnect systems in their car
or truck to join them in their litigation. If their complaint is
certified by a court as a class action, the broad spectrum of
affected Chrysler vehicles means it could snowball into a case
with more than a million potential plaintiffs.

In their complaint against the two companies, plaintiffs Brian
Flynn and George and Kelly Brown accuse Chrysler and Harman of
fraud, negligence, unjust enrichment and breach of warranty. They
point out that Valasek and Miller alerted Chrysler to their
findings of architectural vulnerabilities in Jeep Cherokees in a
paper in early 2014 that mentioned connections between the Jeep's
Internet-enabled entertainment system and its CAN Bus, the network
that controls critical driving features like steering and brakes.
Those connections, the plaintiffs argue, represent a serious
defect in vehicles Chrysler and Harman knowingly sold to
customers. "The [affected] Vehicles are defectively designed in
that essential engine and safety functionality is connected to the
unsecure uConnect system through the CAN bus," their complaint
reads. "uConnect should be segregated from these other critical
systems. There is no good reason for this current design. The
risks associated with coupling these systems far outweigh any
conceivable benefit."

In a followup email, the plaintiffs' attorney Michael Gras
emphasized that the suit also seeks an injunction against the
companies that would force Chrysler to stage another recall to
address those architectural security claims. "There is no good
reason for the same vehicle system that runs Pandora to have the
capability to talk to the brakes," Gras writes. "This is the real
defect with these vehicles. Our goal with this lawsuit is to force
Chrysler and Harman to conduct a proper recall where the actual
issue is addressed."

When Miller and Valasek demonstrated their full Jeep hack to
WIRED, their attack began by exploiting a different, distinct
security vulnerability in the Jeep's Uconnect, one that also
existed in 1.4 million other Chrysler vehicles ranging from Jeeps
to Dodge Rams to Vipers to Chargers. Since early 2015, Miller and
Valasek had worked with Chrysler to help it develop a software
patch for that Uconnect issue, and the company quietly released it
a week before WIRED's story. Following the public revelation of
their work, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration
pressured Chrysler to stage an official recall, mailing a USB
drive with a Uconnect security update to all affected vehicle
owners.

But filed lawsuit argues that neither Chrysler's patch nor its
recall solves the underlying problem: That Chrysler vehicles
remain defective due to their more fundamental architectural
vulnerabilities. "As long as the uConnect system is physically
connected to the vehicles' CAN bus, the potential for
vulnerability exists," the complaint reads. "The overarching
defect is a design and system architecture problem in that non-
secured systems are coupled with essential engine and safety
controls. This is not a software issue."

The lawsuit doesn't go so far as claiming that anyone has actually
suffered bodily or property harm as a result of Chrysler's and
Harman's alleged defect. Rather it argues that the plaintiffs
suffered from fraud based because their defective vehicles are
worth less than they believed. "A vehicle purchased, leased, or
retained under the reasonable assumption that it is safe is worth
more than a vehicle known to be subject to the unreasonable risk
of catastrophic accident because of defects," the complaint
states, adding that "plaintiffs and Class members are subjected to
a continuing increased risk of severe injury or death but for the
Defendants' failure to disclose or remedy the defect."

The plaintiffs' attorney Gras declined to estimate the total
damages the lawsuit might seek against the two corporate
defendants. "It's way too early to have any idea what kind of
damages the class has suffered," he wrote to WIRED in an email.
"Right now we're just focusing on trying to make these vehicles
safe."

Harman didn't respond to WIRED's request for comment either, and a
Chrysler spokesperson declined to comment on the complaint, saying
the company had not yet been legally served with the lawsuit.

The three Jeep owners in the Illinois complaint appear to be the
first to sue Chrysler and Harman over its Uconnect cybersecurity
scandal. But with so many potentially affected Chrysler customers,
there may yet be other, separate class actions launched against
the automaker.

Chrysler isn't the first car company to face such a class action
over alleged cybersecurity defects. GM, Ford, and Toyota were all
hit with a similar lawsuit in March of, based in part on earlier
car hacking research by Valasek and Miller. As more revelations of
connected cars' vulnerabilities appear, this car hacking class
action likely won't be the last, either.


CVS PHARMACY: Wellness Exam "Voluntary", Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a class of CVS employees is not entitled to wages for
completing a wellness exam as part of the company's medical
insurance program, a federal judge ruled.

Lead plaintiff Roberta Watterson sued Garfield Beach CVS in March
2014, claiming the company owed her wages for the time she spent
completing the exam as part of the insurance plan's "WellRewards"
program.   Under the program, plan beneficiaries who do not
complete an annual health screening and online wellness review are
required to pay an additional premium of $50 per month, according
to the ruling.

Watterson's original complaint also included claims that the exam
contained inappropriate or invasive questions -- for example,
whether the participant was sexually active - but the ruling makes
no mention of those claims. Watterson's lawyers did not respond to
request for comment Friday as to the status of the Watterson's
other claims.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam ruled that time spent
completing the exam did not have to be paid because Watterson was
a voluntary participant in the program, and her participation in
the program was not a condition of her employment.

"A voluntary decision by plaintiff not to enroll in the plan would
not deprive her of any opportunities tied to her employment with
defendant," Gilliam wrote. "The plan is a purely optional benefit
provided by defendant to its employees."

Watterson's argument also fails here, he said, because she was not
under CVS control while taking the exam.  Gilliam also said that
Watterson's completion of the exam did not constitute "work" as
defined by California law, and her expenses for the health
screening and questionnaire were not tied to her job duties.

Neither side could be reached for comment on August 7.


DAVIDSON COUNTY, TN: Jail Officers Seek $7M From Metro Government
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Barchenger, writing for The Tennessean, reported that are
the hundreds of correctional officers who work in five Nashville
jail facilities supposed to be paid hourly or based on an annual
salary? -- That is a central question being posed to an eight-
member federal jury. How the jury rules could lead to Metro
government facing a more than $7 million payment of back wages.

The class-action case includes more than 850 current and past
Davidson County Sheriff's Office corrections officers who are
suing Metro government. The trial began with opening statements
and could extend into.

"The Metro government pays its correctional officers at lower
hourly rates than it's required to do," attorney David Garrison,
of Nashville firm Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, told the
jury. The firm represents the employees.

"The Metro government pays its correctional officers at lower
hourly rates than it tells them that they are getting paid. The
Metro government pays its correctional officers at lower hourly
rates than it tells the public it pays them. That's what the case
is about. It's very simple."

The case stems from the employees' actual time worked and how they
are told they will get paid (hourly or salary), according to
attorneys and court filings in the case. The case has been pending
since 2011.

The employees say they earn hourly wages. But they say Metro pays
them by dividing an annual salary by their hours worked. Because
that is over 40 hours each week, the employees say they are paid
less than the hourly wage listed in the city's pay plan. They say
underpayments have been ongoing since 2006.

Assistant Metro Attorney Chris Lackey said in his opening
statement there was "no effort to dupe the employees." He said new
hires were told early on about 8 1/2 and 12-hour shifts and pay
based on an annual salary. The city also says that this dispute
should be resolved internally, not in court.

Employees who previously raised concern about their wages were
routinely told by human resources supervisors they were salary
employees, Lackey said. He said Vonda Noel, who is named in the
case and represents the rest of the employees in the lawsuit, was
paid 185 times before making a complaint. Noel started working for
the sheriff's office in 2004, he said.

Court documents show the jury's job is to decide whether Metro
government benefited, or was "unjustly enriched," because of the
pay plan. If the jury rules in favor of the employees, a federal
judge will decide how much restitution the city should pay. U.S.
District Court Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp is overseeing the trial.

The employees are asking for up to $7.04 million, according to
court filings.


DONALD TRUMP: Judge Limits Discovery in RICO Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported 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.


E.I. DUPONT: Cristal Arabia Dropped From TiO2 Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal judge dismissed claims that a Saudi company helped
corner the market on titanium dioxide, the primary coloring agent
in white paint, but upheld most claims against DuPont and other
U.S. companies.

Hardware and home improvement stores, including two Ace Hardware
branded stores, filed a class action again E.I. DuPont De Nemours
and Co., Huntsman International, Kronos Worldwide, and Millennium
Inorganic Chemical, in March 2013.  The indirect purchasers added
Cristal Arabia in an October 2014 second amended complaint.

There is an enormous worldwide market for titanium dioxide, 80
percent of which is used in paints and varnishes. China controls
about half the worldwide market, according to industry reports. At
September 2014 prices of 14,350 renminbi per ton, when the
renminbi was trading at 6 to the dollar, China's share came to
about $7.5 billion a year.

"Titanium dioxide traps and reflects light better than almost any
known substance," the retailers say in their complaint. "(T)here
are no viable white pigment competitive substitutes."

The defendants sought dismissal in November 2014.  Cristal Arabia
claimed lack of jurisdiction and insufficient service of process.
The U.S. defendants made a joint motion to dismiss for lack of
Article III standing and failure to state a claim, and also filed
a motion to strike the class allegations.

U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman on August 11 granted
Cristal's motion based on lack of personal jurisdiction and
terminated at moot its motion based on insufficient service.  The
purchaser/retailers claimed that Cristal's contacts with its U.S.
subsidiary, Millennium, and its own contacts with the United
States are enough to assert jurisdiction, but Freeman disagreed.
She said the plaintiffs did not help themselves in their burden to
establish a prima facie case showing Millennium as Cristal's alter
ego by "blurring" the lines between the two companies.

"With respect to control of pricing, contracts and expenditures,
the court notes that much of the evidence proffered by plaintiffs
refers to pricing controls and other actions by 'Cristal Global'
rather than Cristal Arabia," the judge wrote in a 57-page order.

"However, even if the court were to accept the proffered documents
as evidence that Cristal Arabia set the titanium dioxide price
increases for all Cristal entities, and required approval for
certain contracts and business expenses, that evidence does not
suggest that Millennium 'functions as merely the incorporated
department of its parent.'

"This court . . . concludes that, even viewing the record as a
whole and giving plaintiffs the benefit of the doubt as to
conflicting evidence and inferences, plaintiffs have not made out
a prima facie case of alter ego or agency."

Freeman also rejected the claim of jurisdiction based on Cristal's
direct contacts in the United States. But she granted the U.S.
defendants' motion to dismiss based on lack of Article III
standing.

"Plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to make out a claim that
defendants conspired to and did artificially inflate the price of
titanium dioxide, but plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing
that the resulting overcharges to manufacturers of architectural
coatings were passed down the thousands of distribution chains at
issue to plaintiffs," Freeman wrote.

She granted the plaintiffs leave to amend, finding they may be
able to uncover a trail of overcharges.

"The court notes that based upon the allegations in the SAC, it is
likely that plaintiffs could successfully allege Article III
standing with respect to the market for architectural paint," she
said.

Freeman partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim. Specifically, she granted the motion in
relation to state antitrust claims with leave to amend the claims
brought under Iowa, Nebraska, New Mexico and New York law for lack
of antitrust standing.  She also granted the motion in relations
to state consumer protection law and the Sherman Act, with leave
to amend, and granted the motion relating to state unjust
enrichment laws, without leave to amend, for the claims under
Florida, Kansas and Kentucky law.

Freeman denied the motion to dismiss in all other regards, and
denied the defendants' motion to strike the class allegations.

She set a Sept. 15 deadline for any amended pleading.


ECOLAB: Dec. 9 Final Approval Hearing of $9.5 Million Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Singh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge on August 5 gave preliminary approval to a class-
action settlement of employment claims against Ecolab that
includes a $7.5 million settlement fund and over $2 million in
attorney fees and costs.

According to plaintiff Nick Cancilla's class action, which
consists of 580 people, the company hasn't been accurately paying
its pest-elimination service specialists for overtime.

In his 7-page order U.S. District Judge James Donato said "the
plaintiffs' claims meet the typicality requirement because they
are all current or former employees of Ecolab and 'their claims
arise from the same alleged events and course of conduct.'"

Donato approved the proposed settlement agreement, under which
Ecolab will pay $7.5 million into a settlement fund that will be
the source for attorney's fees and costs. Under the agreement the
company will also set aside a reserve of $25,000 from the
settlement to ensure that all participating class members will
receive at least $100.

According to the order, the settlement money will be distributed
based on the number of weeks each class member worked.

Donato set a final approval hearing for the settlement on Dec. 9.

Ecolab is a self-described international force in water, hygiene
and energy technologies and services. The company it provides
products and services to world businesses in food service, food
processing, hospitality, health care, industrial and oil and gas
markets to help keep their environment clean and safe, operate
efficiently and achieve sustainability goals.

Neither Ecolab attorney Dawn Fonseca -- dfonseca@littler.com --
with Littler nor Cancilla's attorney Molly Brooks --
mb@outtengolden.com -- with Outten & Golden LLP could immediately
be reached for comment.


EDISON INT'L: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC (www.Goldberglawpc.com) announces that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California against Edison
International ("Edison" or the "Company") (NYSE: EIX), for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased
or otherwise acquired shares between July 31, 2014 and June 24,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until September 4, 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.

Edison is the parent holding company of Southern California
Edison, a public utility that supplies electricity throughout
Southern California. The complaint focuses on whether the Company
made materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose: (i) Edison's ex parte contacts with CPUC decision makers
were more extensive than the Company had reported to CPUC; (ii)
that belated disclosure of Edison's ex parte contacts with CPUC
personnel would jeopardize the Company's $3.3 billion dollar SONGS
Settlement; and (iii) as a result of the above, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading. When
the truth was revealed, 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.

Michael Goldberg, Esq
Brian Schall, Esq
Goldberg Law PC
13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Phone 800-977-7401
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com
info@goldberglawpc.com.


EDISON INT'L: 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 all purchasers
of Edison International securities from July 31, 2014 through June
24, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to
recover investors' losses by asserting claims under the federal
securities laws.

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

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

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

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

Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm
204 Andover St, Andover, MA 01810, United States
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY  10016
Phone:+1 978-474-0100
toll-free: 866-767-3653
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com


FAIRWORTH LEGAL: Sent Unsolicited Ads, Urban Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Urban & Taylor S.C., individually and as the representatives of a
class of similarly situated persons or entities v. FairWorth Legal
Finance, Case No. 15-cv-00973 (E.D. Wis., August 14, 2014), seeks
to put an end on the Defendant's practice of sending facsimile
unsolicited advertisements.

Fair Worth Legal Finance owns and operates a law firm in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Wagner, Esq.
      1702 S. Robertson Blvd., Suite 169
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 858-3855
      Facsimile: (310) 270-4701
      E-mail: rwagnerlaw@gmail.com


FANEUIL INC: Faces "McNeil" Suit Seeking to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy McNeil, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Faneuil, Inc., Case 4:15-cv-00081-HCM-DEM (E.D.Va.,
July 31, 2015), seeks recovery of unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Faneuil operates a call center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christian L. Connell, Esq.
     CHRISTIAN L. CONNELL, P.C.
     555 East Main Street, Suite 1410
     Norfolk, Virginia 23510
     Tel: 757.533.6500
     Fax: 757.299.4770
     Email: christian.connell@verizon.net

        - and -

     David W. Garrison, Esq.
     Scott P. Tift, Esq.
     Joshua A. Frank, Esq.
     BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
     Bank of America Plaza
     414 Union Street, Suite 900
     Nashville, TN 37219
     Tel: (615)244-2202
     Fax: (615) 252-3798
     E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com
             stift@barrettjohnston.com
             jfrank@barrettjohnston.com

        - and -

     John L. Mays, Esq.
     MAYS & KERR LLC
     235 Peachtree Street NE
     North Tower, Suite 202
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Tel: (404) 410-7998
     Fax: (404) 855-4066
     E-mail: john@maysandkerr.com

     Charles P. Yezbak, Esq.
     YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
     2002 Richard Jones Rd. Suite B-200
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Tel: (615)250-2000
     E-mail: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com


FEDEX: Faces Class Suit Over "Misclassified" Drivers
----------------------------------------------------
Post & Parcel reported that Sanel Hodzic alleges that FedEx
drivers were intentionally "misclassified" as independent
contractors "for the purpose of avoiding fair compensation".

The case was filed in the Pennsylvania Western District court on
23 July. (The case number is 2:2015cv00956.).

The lawsuit cites previous cases supporting the claim that drivers
are employees and subject to Fair Labor Standards Act violations
(FLSA) regulations and protections.

The suit claims that drivers regularly work more than 40 hours
weekly but that FedEx does not pay them an overtime rate, in
"disregard of the FLSA".

The lawsuit defines the putative class members for the action as
"any employees who have worked for the defendant within the past
three years". Hodzic is seeking monetary damages of unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
court costs.


FINTEGRA HOLDINGS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Investments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen A. Dulhanty, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Fintegra Holdings, LLC, et al., Case No. 27-CV-15-
14487 (D. Minn., August 14, 2015), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendants' gross mismanagement, gross negligence,
breach of fiduciary duty, self-dealing, undisclosed conflicts, and
fraudulent concealment in connection with the MiaSole investments.

Fintegra Holdings, LLC is a business established for the
solicitation and sale of securities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward P. Sheu, Esq.
      Amy S. Conners, Esq.
      Bradley F. Williams, Esq.
      BEST & FLANAGAN LLP
      60 South Sixth Street, Suite 2700
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 339-7121
      Facsimile: (612) 339-5897
      E-mail: esheu@bestlaw.com
              aconners@bestlaw.com
              bwilliams@bestlaw.com


GALLUP: Settlement Reached Over TCPA Violation Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
ACA International reported that Gallup has reached a settlement
agreement in a class action Telephone Consumer Protection Act
lawsuit related to an alleged violation of the law through use of
an auto dialer to reportedly call consumers about political and
social issues.

The plaintiff in the case, Kurt Soto, alleged that Gallup
repeatedly called him and other consumers to conduct political
polls, according to a report on the settlement from the Marketing
Research Association. Gallup is paying $12 million toward a
settlement fund, but denies violating the law, The Huffington Post
reports.

Fred Bergen from the Marketing Research Association notes in his
report that the increasing rate of TCPA lawsuits is starting to
apply to research companies.

According to the Marketing Research Association report on the
settlement, the plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Gallup
made millions of automated calls for market research that violated
the TCPA.

Soto reported he started receiving the calls on his cell phone in
July 2013. "He claimed that, when returning the call, an automated
voice announced that the call had been made by Gallup for the
purposes of "polling" him on political and social issues; the
calls were made using an automated telephone dialing system; and
he never had any previous contact with Gallup," according to the
report.

The Federal Communications Commission's recent Declaratory Ruling
and Order on the TCPA could only cause more lawsuits to occur and
may impact political calls.

The FCC claims the ruling will reaffirm "the TCPA's protections
against unwanted robocalls, encouraging pro-consumer uses of
robocall technology and responding to a number of requests for
clarity from businesses and other callers," ACA International
reported after the FCC released the ruling on July 10.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Employee Files Class Suit Over Pay Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------
Tire Review reported that Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. faces a class
action lawsuit brought by an employee who alleges he was not
properly paid or reimbursed for mileage while working at one of
the tiremaker's Just Tires retail outlets.

The case was heard in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

The employee claims that while working at Just Tires locations in
California, Goodyear failed to pay him for "off-the-clock work,"
forced him to miss meal and rest periods, and failed to reimburse
him for mileage necessary to make bank runs. The plaintiff claimed
that the stores were "frequently understaffed," which forced
employees to have to work through breaks or after regular shift
hours as mandated under state law.

A Goodyear spokesperson said the company does not comment on
pending litigation.

The plaintiff claims that as many as 4,000 employees may be
affected by the lawsuit. He seeks back pay, damages, civil
penalties and attorney's costs.


HARPERSVILLE, AL: Faces Suit for Constitutional Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that an Alabama town's private court collections firm made threats
outside its authority and caused indigent citizens to be jailed, a
class action lawsuit claims.

Dana Carden sued the Town of Harpersville, Ala. on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated individuals. The complaint alleges
constitutional violations including due process denial,
unreasonable seizure, excessive fines and denial of equal
protection.

The town hired Judicial Correction Services to collect court fines
and fees for its municipal court, according to the complaint.
Under its contract with Harpersville, JCS allegedly placed people
on probation if they were unable to pay court fines or costs and
issued arrest warrants for those who could not keep up with
payments.

JCS employees dressed like state authority figures and wore
badges, the lawsuit states. The company is also accused of
arbitrarily setting fines and fees.

"This public ruse was maintained by Harpersville for purposes of
imposing and collecting fines and costs from citizens such as the
plaintiff, and was accomplished by allowing JCS to control the
money, determine how much each municipal court 'offender' must pay
each month, how much would be credited for each payment to the
collection 'services' of JCS each month, and how much it would
rebate to Harpersville toward the fines adjudged," the complaint
states.

Carden, a Sylacauga, Ala. resident, says she was given three
traffic citations in 2007 but the ticket did not have a court date
and she did not receive a letter advising her of a date.  Three
years later, she was riding in a car that was stopped by a
roadblock and an officer ran her name. Three outstanding warrants
for failure to appear in court showed up and Carden was arrested,
according to the complaint.

Carden was unable to post a $1,400 bond and was jailed for 19 days
despite being indigent and unable to pay, she claims.

"The plaintiff and some class members were imprisoned, and some
repeatedly, under these policies of Harpersville for their failure
to pay fines, costs and the added fees mandated by the illegal
contract between Harpersville and JCS," the complaint states. "The
plaintiff was not given a hearing or consideration of her
indigency before being jailed, nor was she provided notice of
charges, a hearing on charges levied that might result in
imprisonment, or provided assistance of counsel before being
imprisoned."

The lawsuit claims the delegation of administrative and judicial
functions to a private company is against the law.

"Despite the lack of authority to do so, Harpersville allowed JCS
to use threats of revoking probation, arrest, increased fines and
costs and jail time for purposes of collection," the complaint
states.

The Harpersville Municipal Court was dissolved through a 2012 city
council decision after an investigation. However, the town has not
reimbursed citizens for illegal fees or wrongful imprisonment, the
class action alleges.

The class seeks punitive damages and a court declaration that the
JCS contract is void. It is represented by G. Daniel Evans --
gdevans@evanslawpc.com -- with  the Evans Law Firm P.C. in
Birmingham, Ala.


HILLSIDE HOSPITAL: "Freeman" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Freeman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Hillside Hospital, LLC and Lifepoint Hospitals
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00889 (M.D. Tenn., August 14,
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 hospitals and medical centers in
Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      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
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (877) 561-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@tblawgroup.com
              nicholasconlon@tblawgroup.com


HUNG KEE: Recalls Wonton and Dumpling Products Due to Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 13, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Hung Kee Holdings Co. Ltd.
Distribution: Alberta
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9980

  Brand    Common name     Size     Code(s) on    UPC
  name     -----------     ----     product       ----
  -----                             ----------
  Hung's   Pork & Vegt.    650 g     None         7 76703 26486 4
           Wonton
  Hung's   Shrimp Dumpling 35 Count  None         0 58218 80220 6


IKEA CANADA: Recalls Patrull Nightlight Products
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 18, 2015
Posting date: August 18, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54658

This recall involves the PATRULL nightlights with sensor. The
nightlights come in orange, white and pink. The nightlights
automatically turn on in the dark and off in the light. Each
PATRULL nightlight has an IKEA logo on the back top near the
sensor. The nightlight has a dome-shaped plastic cover that gives
the light its colour and is attached to a white rectangular
plastic base.   The nightlights measure 40 millimetres in diameter
and 56 millimetres in length. The article number is printed on the
nightlight's packaging. The nightlights with sensor are ETL
certified.

The following nightlights are recalled:

  Model Name                                Article Number
  ----------                                --------------
  PATRULL nightlight with sensor orange     302.411.40
  PATRULL nightlight with sensor white      502.390.23
  PATRULL nightlight with sensor pink       702.411.38

The nightlight's plastic covering can detach and expose electrical
components, posing an electrical shock hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries in Canada related to the use of PATRULL nightlight
with sensor.

IKEA has received one report from Austria where a young child
tried to remove the light from the electrical outlet when the
coloured plastic cover detached. The child received an electric
shock and minor wounds on the hand.

Approximately 83,000 of the PATRULL nightlight were sold in Canada
and approximately 359,000 were distributed in the United States.

The recalled nightlights were sold in Canada and the United States
from August 2013 to July 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership
             Burlington
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using and unplug the nightlight
and return it to an IKEA store for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact IKEA Canada at 1-800-
661-9807 or visit IKEA's website for the IKEA Canada release.

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

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/GExZ1m


INDIANA: Child-Services Caseworkers Hired Amid "Abuse" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Wells, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that on
the heels of a class action, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence announced the
hiring of 113 additional child-services caseworkers to battle
record-breaking reports of child abuse.

Pence's announcement comes one day before the Department of Child
Services was to present its annual report to the state budget
committee, a report that last year claimed 216 additional
caseworkers were needed to achieve the state-mandated children-to-
worker ratio of 17-to-1.

"This authorization for 113 more DCS caseworkers is all about
putting kids first," Pence said in a statement.

Represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the July
lawsuit claims that current caseworkers are given a workload far
above the desired ratio, and that children in need of protection
from abuse and neglect are being denied such services.

The staffing levels are allegedly so bad that lead plaintiff Mary
Price, a case manager herself, said she was in charge of
approximately 43 children.

DCS director Mary Beth Bonaventura, who is listed by title as a
defendant in the lawsuit, has also publically stated the needs of
the department.

"Children are being abused and neglected at an unprecedented rate
in Indiana. In fact, from July 2014 to July 2015 the number of
children entering into the DCS system has increased by 26
percent," said Bonaventura. "There is nothing more important than
keeping the children and families we serve safe, and providing the
necessary support to our front-line staff is paramount to
accomplishing our mission."

This is not the state's or Pence's first attempt at fixing a
growing problem in Indiana.  In the past three fiscal years the
state has added 346 caseworker positions and 92 supervisor
positions. But with previous efforts failing, and mounting public
and legal pressures, Pence authorized further action.

"We want to make sure that we're not only meeting our statutory
obligations, but also that we're doing right by our kids," Pence
said. "There is simply no higher priority than the safety of the
children in this state, and I am confident that by hiring these
additional caseworkers, we can help ensure that our dedicated
personnel at DCS are able to provide children in difficult
circumstances with the time and attention they deserve."

Unclear on how the news affects the pending lawsuit, ACLU of
Indiana legal director Ken Falk released a statement saying, "It
appears that the state is attempting to address the fact that DCS
is currently failing to comply with the mandatory caseload
standards that the Legislature established to protect Hoosier
children. We will have to evaluate the effect of these additional
positions to determine if the agency is finally able to meet its
statutory mandate.


INTEGRITY STAFFING: 9th Circuit Reversed Decision on Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that the
Ninth Circuit reversed itself on August 13 for the second time in
the same case, tossing its dismissal of a class action over unpaid
security checks at an Amazon.com fulfillment center.

In 2010, workers employed to fill Amazon.com orders from a Las
Vegas warehouse owned by Integrity Staffing Solutions sued their
employer over its practice of making them wait, without pay, at
lunch time and at the end of their shifts while they waited to go
through a security check.

Lead plaintiffs Jesse Busk and Laurie Castro said because they had
to wait as long as a half hour to complete the security check
after work, and about 10 minutes during their lunch breaks, not
paying them for their time was a violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt dismissed the case, but was later
reversed by the Ninth Circuit.

The case ultimately made its way all the way to the U.S. Supreme
Court, which in December 2014 ruled against the workers and
remanded the matter for further consideration. Seven months later,
in light of that ruling, a Ninth Circuit panel vacated its earlier
ruling and affirmed a lower court's dismissal of the case.

But on August 13, explaining that it had been unaware of recent
developments in the multi-district litigation when it revisited
the case, and that its latest ruling may confuse the ongoing
process, a three-judge appellate panel reversed itself again.

"We recognize that there is a possibility that our July 7, 2015,
order could be misconstrued as bearing on the merits of the
pending litigation. Therefore, we vacate and withdraw our order,"
the unsigned opinion said.

Representatives of Integrity Staffing Solutions were not
immediately available for comment.

The appellate case is, JESSE BUSK and LAURIE CASTRO, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. INTEGRITY STAFFING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant-
Appellee, No. 11-16892 (9th Cir.).

The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Sidney R. Thomas, Chief Judge,
and Jerome Farris, and N. Randy Smith, Circuit Judges.


IVOX SOLUTIONS: Faces "Kie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Kie, Jonathon Russo, and Sinae Cruz, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. iVox Solutions, LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-14296-RLR (S.D. Fla., August 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

iVox Solutions, LLC is a Florida corporation which employs over
500 customer service representatives to perform services which
include call center functionalities, order fulfillment, and
overall logistics solutions for its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradley W. Butcher, Esq.
      BUTCHER & ASSOCIATES, P.L.
      6830 Porto Fino Circle, Suite 2
      Fort Myers, FL 33912
      Telephone: (239) 332-1650
      Facsimile: (239) 322-1663
      E-mail: ecf@b-a-law.com
              bwb@b-a-law.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      E-mail: tbecker@johnsonbecker.com
              jrusch@johnsonbecker.com


JAG INDUSTRIAL: "Bradley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Bradley, Willie Cannon, Marcel Hardy, Timmie Hughes, Lai Van
Nguyen, Eliezer Ortiz, Quincy Phillips, Melvin Rowe, Daniel
Williams, Walter Williams, and Chazz Young v. Jag Industrial
Services, Inc., Douglas Huff, and Tim Jacielski, Case No. 3:15-cv-
02657-N (N.D. Tex., August 14, 2015), seeks to recover overtime
wages, liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief,
and a reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Jag Industrial Services, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is in
the business of providing skilled labor and quality assurance for
marine repair, shipbuilding and a wide range of industrial
manufacturing projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      E-mail: Charles@rosslawgroup.com
              Daniel@rosslawgroup.com

         - and -

      Christine A. Hopkins, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      5956 Sherry Lane
      Suite 1000, PMB 106
      Dallas, TX 75225
      Telephone: (214) 716-4597
      Facsimile: (855) 867-4455
      E-mail: christine@rosslawgroup.com


JC GALAXY: Faces "Granados" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edwardo Granados and Gilberto Haylock, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. JC Galaxy Security, Jonathan
Son d/b/a JC Galaxy Security, and Does 1 through 10, Case No.
BC591753 (D. Cal., August 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a security guard services company
in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Ricasa, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA
      2341 Westwood Boulevard, Suite 7
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (424) 248-0510
      Facsimile: (424) 204-0652
      E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com

         - and -

      Briana M. Kim, Esq.
      BRIANA KIM, PC
      249 East Ocean, Boulevard, Suite 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (714) 482-6301
      Facsimile: (714) 482-6302
      E-mail: briana@brianakim.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Levaquin(R)
--------------------------------------------------------
Gina Johnson v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06221
(C.D. Cal., August 14, 2015), is an action for damages as a
proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and sale of the pharmaceutical drug Levaquin(R) (also
known as levofloxacin).

Levaquin is a broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone antibiotic used to
treat lung, sinus, skin, and urinary tract infections caused by
bacteria.

Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation that has its
principal place of business at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New
Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey 08933. Johnson & Johnson
operates a consumer health and pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lauren Welling, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, N.Y. 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: lwelling@thesandersfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces "Stommes" Suit Over Levaquin(R)
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Stommes v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06222
(C.D. Cal., August 14, 2015), is an action for damages as a
proximate result of the Defendants' negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing,
packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distribution,
labeling, and sale of the pharmaceutical drug Levaquin(R) (also
known as levofloxacin).

Levaquin is a broad-spectrum fluoroquinolone antibiotic used to
treat lung, sinus, skin, and urinary tract infections caused by
bacteria.

Johnson & Johnson is a New Jersey corporation that has its
principal place of business at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New
Brunswick, Middlesex County, New Jersey 08933. Johnson & Johnson
operates a consumer health and pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lauren Welling, Esq.
      SANDERS PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
      100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
      Garden City, N.Y. 11501
      Telephone: (516) 741-5600
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0128
      E-mail: lwelling@thesandersfirm.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Falsely Advertised Benecol, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Johnson & Johnson and McNeil
Nutritionals falsely advertise their Benecol spreads as free of
trans fats and fatty acids, a class action claims in Federal Court
in Sacramento, California.


JRP GROUP: Faces "Montoya" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
David Montoya, on behalf of himself and all those similarly
situated v. JRP Group Investments, LLC, Joao Ramon Perez, and
Jayme R. Perez, Case No. 0:15-cv-61722-WJZ (S.D. Fla., August 17,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate shoe stores in Broward County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roderick V. Hannah, Esq.
      RODERICK V. HANNAH, ESQ., P.A.
      1250 South Pine Island Rd., Suite 375
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 362-3800
      Facsimile: (954) 362-3779
      E-mail: rhannah@rhannahlaw.com


KEURIG GREEN: Faces "Patel" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kamlesh Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Brian P. Kelley, and
Frances G. Rathke, Case No. 3:15-cv-03715-WHO (N.D. Cal., August
14, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. develops and sells a variety of
coffeemakers, and produces and sells specialty coffee and other
specialty beverages in pods for use with its Keurig hot brewing
systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIDDE CANADA: Expands Residential Smoke Alarms Recall
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 19, 2015
Posting date: August 19, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54652

The September 11, 2014 recall involves Kidde branded AC/DC powered
residential smoke alarms and combination smoke/CO alarms, models
KN-COSM-IBACA, i12010S-CO-CA and i12010S-CA. This recall has been
expanded to include one additional date code of model i12010S-CO-
CA alarm.

Products affected by this recall:

  Description        Model    Kidde Part  UPC Code    Manufacture
  -----------        Number   Number      --------    Date
                     ------   ----------              -----------
  AC/DC Combination  KN-COSM- 900-0119    0-47871-    November
  Alarm 120v with    IBACA                00119-4     19, 2013-
  front load                                          May 13,
  battery backup                                      2014
  AC/DC combination  i12010S- i12010S-    0-47871-    March 14,
  alarm 120v with    CO-CA    CO-CA       10607-3     2014-
  10 year sealed                                      May 13,
  battery backup                                      2014 and
                                                      June 6,
                                                      2014
  AC/DC smoke alarm  i12010S- i12010S-    0-47871-    March 11,
  120v with 10 year  CA       CA          10608-0     2014-
  sealed battery                                      May 13,
  backup                                              2014

These alarms are white, round, and approximately 5 to 6 inches in
diameter, with an engraved Kidde logo on the front. They are
capable of hardwired interconnect.

Labels indicating the model number and date code are located on
the back of the device. The date code consists of the year of
manufacture, the month of manufacture and the day of manufacture
in the YYYY Month DD format.

Should a power outage occur at the same second that the device is
performing a once-per-minute sensor health check, the device may
go into a "latched" mode, causing it not to alarm in the presence
of smoke and/or carbon monoxide. An affected device will sound if
it receives a signal from an alarm in the same interconnected
system. Once power is restored, a latched device will sound an
alarm regardless of the presence of smoke and/or carbon monoxide.

Health Canada and Kidde received one report of a consumer incident
related to the use of this product. Neither Kidde nor Health
Canada have received any reports of consumer injuries related to
the use of these products.

Approximately 148,000 units were sold in Canada at various
retailers and 670,000 units were sold in the United States.

Model KN-COSM-IBACA was sold between January 2, 2014 and May 13,
2014. Model i12010SCA alarms with date codes from March 11, 2014
to May 13, 2014 were sold between April 17, 2014 and May 13, 2014.
Model i12010S-CO-CA alarms with date codes from March 14, 2014 to
May 13, 2014 were sold from April 17, 2014 through May 13, 2014.
Model i12010S-CO-CA alarms with date code June 6, 2014 were sold
since June 22, 2014.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Fyrnetics Limited
              Hong Kong
              CHINA

Distributor: Kidde Canada Inc.
             Vaughan
             Ontario
             CANADA

Customers should immediately check the model number and date code
on their smoke alarms or combination smoke and carbon monoxide
alarms to determine if any of their devices are included in the
recall. If so, they should contact Kidde Canada toll-free at 1-
888-784-2323 between 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. EST Monday through
Friday regarding a free replacement smoke or combination smoke and
carbon monoxide alarm. Consumers should not take the alarm out of
service until they receive a replacement.

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

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

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

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


KMART CORP: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Materials, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that  Kmart sends unsolicited
marketing materials to customers whose personal information it
acquires during credit card transactions, a class claims.

The case is, Michael Pietrantonio v. Kmart Corp., filed in
Middlesex County Superior Court.


LAKIN TIRE: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorio Ruiz, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lakin Tire West, Incorporated and Does 1 through 100,
Case No. BC591762 (D. Cal., August 17, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

Lakin Tire West, Incorporated owns and operates a tire recycling
company in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Hines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Kristina R, Sherry, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN, LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com
              ksherry@bollaw.com


LOGITECH INC: Home-Security Systems "Unreliable", Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Logitech's home security
systems are "rife with bugs and glitches" that make them
"unreliable and inoperable," a class action claims in Alameda
County Court.

The case is CHRISTOPHER PARKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOGITECH INC, Defendant.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Elson" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------
Liz Elson and Michelle Lewis, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Case No.
5:15-cv-00107-JPB (N.D. W.Va., August 17, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business at 3000 John Deere Road, Toano,
Virginia 23168. Lumber is a retailer of hardwood flooring.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin L. Bailey, Esq.
      Gregory Y. Porter, Esq.
      James L. Kauffman, Esq.
      BAILEY &GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: bbailey@baileyglasser.com
              gporter@baileyglasser.com
              jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


LUZERNE, PA: Settlement in "Kids for Cash" Case Has Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a Pennsylvania federal judge approved a $4.75 million
settlement for at least 2,400 juveniles wrongly convicted and sent
to detention centers in the so-called Kids for Cash scandal.

U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo approved the settlement
agreement in Wilkes-Barre, Pa.  It covers juveniles who appeared
before then-Luzerne County President Judge Mark Ciavarella Jr.
between January 2003 and May 2008.

Judges Ciavarella and Michael Conahan pleaded guilty in February
2009, to taking $2.6 million in kickbacks for sending juveniles to
profit-making detention centers during those years.  Hundreds of
children and parents who say they were victimized by the
corruption soon filed two federal RICO class actions against the
judges.  The next month, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated
all juvenile adjudications entered by Ciavarella between Jan. 1,
2003 and May 31, 2008.

Robert Powell, a former co-owner of the detention centers PA Child
Care and Western PA Child Care, testified he was forced to pay
hundreds of thousands of dollars to Ciavarella and Conahan in
return for their support of his facilities.

In November 2011, U.S. District Judge Edwin Kosik sentenced Powell
to 18 months in federal prison and ordered him to pay $60,200 in
fines.  That year, Robert Mericle, who owns a major construction
firm that built the prisons and paid the judges more than $2
million, agreed to pay more than $17 million to the families.  The
next year, Caputo upheld certain claims filed against Ciavarella
and Western PA.

Meanwhile, former a state judge, Ann, Lokuta sued Ciavarella,
Conahan, and five others in federal court in February 2013,
claiming that they defamed and fired her because she was an FBI
informant in the "Kids for Cash" scandal.  Months later, Caputo
certified classes of thousands of affected parents and children.

That October, Caputo approved a $2.5 million settlement between
the victims and PA Child Care, Western PA Child Care and Mid-
Atlantic Youth Services Corp.   But Caputo refused that month to
let Lokuto sue a court administrator, chief court reporter,
prothonotary, and the Judicial Conduct Board for allegedly
conspiring against her.

Caputo preliminarily approved a $4.75 million settlement between
the juveniles and their families and the Powell defendants.  One
approved settlement class includes all juveniles who appeared
before Ciavarella between Jan. 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008 and were
adjudicated delinquent or placed by the judge.  The other class
includes all those juveniles' parents and/or guardians who made
payments or had wages, social security or other entitlements
garnished in connection with their children's appearance: (i); had
costs, fees, interest and/or penalties assessed against them or
their juvenile; or suffered any loss of companionship and/or
family integrity.

Caputo held that the classes meet all numerosity, commonality,
typicality requirements.

"A class action is superior to other available methods for the
fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy, considering
(i) the interests of the members of the settlement classes in
individually controlling the prosecution of the separate actions;
(ii) the extent and nature of any litigation concerning the
controversy already commenced by members of the settlement
classes, (iii) the desirability or undesirability of continuing
the litigation of these claims in this particular forum, and (iv)
the difficulties likely to be encountered in the management of the
class action," Caputo wrote.

The judge also approved the notice forms, which the claims
committee must mail out no later than Aug. 24, and held that class
members have until Oct. 5 to submit a claim.

The final approval hearing is slated for Dec. 16.

Steve Stallings -- attorney@stevestallingslaw.com -- representing
Powell and his law firm, said they had no comment.

Courthouse News is awaiting comment from the other parties.


MACY'S WEST: Fails to Refund Electronic Services Cost, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nazanin Tehrano, individual, appearing on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Macy's West Stores, Inc. and Does
1-10, inclusive, Case No. BC591480 (D. Cal., August 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to reimburse its
California Sales Managers for the cost of electronic equipment and
services the employees were required to purchase to perform their
job duties.

Macy's West Stores, Inc. is an Ohio corporation that operates
retail establishments throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Graves, Esq.
      Jacqueline Treu, Esq.
      THE GRAVES FIRM
      122 N. Baldwin Ave., Main Floor
      Seirra Madre, CA 91024
      Telephone: (626) 240-0575
      Facsimile: (626) 737-7013
      E-mail: allen@gravesfirm.com
              jacqueline@gravesfirm.com


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Judge Dismisses Volunteer Wage Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
volunteers for Major League Baseball's All-Star FanFest two years
ago struck out again in their bid to be paif for the unpaid labor
they said made "the largest interactive baseball theme park in the
world" possible, the Second Circuit ruled on August 7.

In 2013, plaintiff John Chen led a team of 2,000 volunteers to
Federal Court to complain that they received free tsotchkes,
admission and a raffle in exchange for helping run an event touted
as "baseball heaven on earth."

With an annual revenue of $7 billion, the "lucrative, for-profit"
league could afford to be more generous, Chen said.

His class action lawsuit demanded the federal minimum wage for all
volunteers who provided hospitality, event logistics, community
events and transportation services at the four-day event at the
Jacob Javits Center.

Cramming 40 attractions into 450,000 square-foot space, FanFest
included a green-carpeted replica baseball diamond, the world's
largest baseball, baseball-themed video games, photo booths, a
simulated baseball dugout and fields, baseball clinics, batting
cages, music offerings, and autograph signing.

Sports lovers and historians could also browse the memorabilia
collections and a presentation on the Negro Leagues.

Volunteers received in-kind benefits such as T-shirts, caps,
drawstring backpacks, fanny packs, water bottles, baseballs,
lanyards, free admission to FanFest for each volunteer and a
guest, and a chance to win a pair of tickets to the main event of
the four-day festival: the All-Star Game at Citi Field.

Chen sued for compensation beyond his t-shirt, cap, drawstring
backpack, water bottle, and baseball under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Last year, however, U.S. District Judge John Koeltl found that the
law contains an exemption for minimum wage requirements at an
"amusement or recreational establishment."

In affirming Koeltl's ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge Rosemary Pooler
said that Chen's appeal came down to the meaning of the word
"establishment."

For Chen, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, FanFest
could not be a separate establishment because Major League
Baseball planned its operations and were the employers of the
volunteers, and it was more of a "convention" than an "amusement
or recreation" center.

The court disagreed because the Javits Center operated away from
the league's Park Avenue office or any other All-Star Week event.

"This physical separation is determinative in deciding whether
these business units constitute a single establishment or multiple
ones," the opinion states.

Rejecting the description of FanFest as a "convention," Pooler
said that its "mix of offerings was quite similar to that of an
amusement park or carnival, both of which fall within the meaning
of an amusement or recreational establishment."

A spokesman with Major League Baseball said the league was
"pleased" with the decision.

JOHN CHEN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PROPERTIES, INC.,
THE OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, dba Major League
Baseball, Defendants-Appellees, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL, MAJOR
LEAGUE BASEBALL ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendants, 14-1315-cv (2nd
Cir.).


MANITOBA LIQUOR: Recalls Sweetwater Blood Orange Radler Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Other
Hazard classification:--
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries
Distribution: Manitoba
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Manitoba Liquor & Lotteries is recalling Amsterdam Brewery brand
Sweetwater Squeeze Blood Orange Radler from the marketplace due to
swelling and bursting cans. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have the recalled product in your home.
Recalled products should be thrown out or returned to the store
where they were purchased.

There have been no reported injuries or illnesses associated with
the consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the public
through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand      Common name   Size     Code(s) on    UPC
  name       -----------   ----     product       ----
  -----                             ----------
  Amsterdam  Sweetwater    473 ml   F2215, F2415  6 26824 00015 8
  Brewery    queeze Blood
             Orange Radler
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/OVnd8v


MARICOPA, AZ: DOJ May Intervene in Civil Rights Case
----------------------------------------------------
Jamie Ross, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge on August 13 allowed the Department of Justice to
intervene in a civil rights lawsuit in which he ruled that
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his officers racially
profiled Latinos.

The 2007 class action accused "America's Toughest Sheriff" and his
office of racially profiling and arresting Latino drivers during
traffic stops and in what Arpaio called crime-suppression sweeps.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow in Phoenix, found that Arpaio's
deputies violated the Fourth Amendment, and ordered the department
to take a number of steps to prevent racial profiling.

"(T)he interests in ensuring the effective enforcement of civil
rights laws, conserving the resources of the judiciary and
defendants, and mitigating the risk of duplicative or inconsistent
injunctive decrees all favor permitting intervention in this
case," Snow wrote in his Aug. 13 order allowing the Justice
Department to intervene.

The Justice Department and Arpaio settled a different racial-
profiling case in July. That case stemmed from a 2012 lawsuit in
which the United States said Arpaio and his deputies targeted
Latinos for traffic stops, discriminated against Spanish-speaking
inmates in jails and retaliated against critics.

The judge assigned to that case, U.S. District Judge Roslyn
Silver, found Snow's judgment should largely stand for the Justice
Department's racial-profiling claims. Silver issued a stay in
those proceedings while the Justice Department sought to intervene
in the class action.

"As a party in the Melendres case, the Department of Justice can
now work together with the court, the plaintiffs and the
independent monitor to ensure that the Maricopa County Sheriff's
Office meaningfully implements the court-ordered reforms so that
the constitutional rights of all people of Maricopa County are
protected," U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Kappelhoff
said in a statement. "The Constitution guarantees that all people
receive the equal protection of the law, and the department is now
positioned to ensure that this important right is upheld."
Arpaio did not oppose the Justice Department's request to
intervene -- somewhat grudgingly.

"Although defendant Arpaio does not object to the intervention
sought by the United States as set forth above, he does object and
expressly denies the unnecessary and inflammatory language and
other unsupported allegations set forth in the United States'
memorandum including, but not limited to, unsupported assertions
as to 'defendant Arpaio's hostility to the remedial order in this
case' and completely speculative and unfounded allegations that
the 'consequences of his defiance of the order will be closely
followed by not only the general public, but by law enforcement
agencies through the country,'" Arpaio said in his response.

Arpaio and four of his current and former aides also face civil
contempt charges in the case, of failing to comply with Snow's
order. Contempt hearings resume in September.

The case is, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; et al. Plaintiffs, v.
Joseph M. Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa
County, Arizona; et al. Defendants, No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS (D.
Ariz.).


MARKWEST ENERGY: Faces "Kleinfeldt" Suit Over MPLX Merger Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Kleinfeldt, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Markwest Energy GP, L.L.C., et al., Case No. 11394 (D.
Del., August 14, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
unit-holders of units of MarkWest Energy, L.P. to enjoin the the
Defendants' attempt to sell the partnership units of MarkWest to
MPLX LP by means of an unfair process and for an unfair price.

Markwest Energy GP, L.L.C. is one of the top natural gas processor
sin the United States, and the number one natural gas processor in
the Marcellus/Utica shale plays.

MPLX LP is one of the largest petroleum companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Banko, Esq.
      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      20 Montchanin Road, Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
      E-mail: jbanko@faruqilaw.com
              dfarrell@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
      New York, NY10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


MDC PARTNERS: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP alerts investors that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers (the
"Class") of common stock of MDC Partners, Inc. ("MDC" or the
"Company") during the period of September 23, 2013 and April 27,
2015 (the "Class Period") alleging violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
materially adverse information regarding MDC's business, executive
compensation, related-party transactions, goodwill, prospects and
operations.  The Complaint alleges that as a result of these
material misstatements and omissions MDC common stock traded at
artificially inflated prices and the investing public suffered
damages.

On April 27, 2015, along with its first quarter financial results,
the Company announced that (1) on October 5, 2014, it had received
a subpoena from the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC")
related to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by CEO Miles
Nadal, the Company's goodwill, and certain other accounting
practices; (2) as a result of an investigation by Special
Committee of independent directors formed in response to the
subpoena Mr. Nadal had agreed to reimburse the Company $8.6
million; and (3) during the fiscal quarter the Company incurred
approximately $5.8 million in legal fees and other related
expenses related to the SEC inquiry.

Following this news, the price of MDC common stock fell 27.8%, or
$7.78 per share, from $27.98 per share on April 27, 2015 to close
at $20.20 per share on April 28, 2015.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in MDC common stock during the Class Period.  If you
invested in MDC common stock as described above, and either lost
money on the transaction or still hold the security, you may wish
to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff.  In order to do
so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable
law and file appropriate papers no later than September 29, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

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

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

Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Esq
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016
Tel. 212.779.1414
Fax 212.779.3218
Toll Free 877.779.1414
www.bernlieb.com


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan G. Jones, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00215 (N.D. Ind., August 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and protection
for its computer systems containing patient's personally
identifiable information and personal health information from data
breach.

Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is a software developer that
provides technical solutions targeted to the healthcare industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Vess A. Miller, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

         - and -

      E. Adam Webb, Esq.
      G. Franklin Lemond Jr., Esq.
      WEBB, KLASE & LEMOND, LLC
      1900 The Exchange, SE, Suite 480
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (770) 444-9325
      Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
      E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
              Franklin@WebbLLC.com


MERCEDES-BENZ US: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Ledbetter" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Ledbetter, Richard Curtis, Forrest Scott Fikes, Dennis
Finnen, Kenneth Gamble, Richard E. Gonzalez, Clinton M. Johnson,
Jeffrey L. McAllister, Timothy A. Nichols, Maurice E. Phillips,
Danny R. Simmons, Brad Walker, Marty J. Weaver, Clyde T. Whitley,
and Donald R. Williams v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.,
Case No. 7:10-cv-0467-SLB (N.D. Ala., August 17, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all
hours worked over 40 per week in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc. is an Alabama Corporation
that manufactures and sells luxury passenger vehicles to customers
in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      THIERMAN LAW FIRM, APC
      7287 Lakeside Drive
      Reno, NV 89511
      Telephone: (775) 284-1500
      E-mail: laborlawyer@pacbell.net

         - and -

      Thomas F. Campbell, Esq.
      D. Keiron McGowin, Esq.
      CAMPBELL LAW
      A Professional Corporation
      100 Concourse Parkway, Suite 115
      Binningham, AL 35244
      Telephone: (205) 397-0307
      Facsimile: (205) 278-6654
      E-mail: tcampbell@campbelllitigation.com
              kmcgowin@campbelllitigation.com


MERCEDES-BENZ: Arbitration Ruling in "Kaghazchi" Case Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David A. Thompson of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed a court ruling that
granted Defendant's motion to compel arbitration in the case
captioned, MEHRAN KAGHAZCHI, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MERCEDES-
BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA LLC, Defendant and Respondent, Case
No. G049981 (Cal. App. Ct.).

In April 2012, Mehran Kaghazchi filed a putative class action
against defendant and Mission for declaratory relief and violation
of the Vehicle Licensing Act and several theories of liability,
including violation of the California's Consumers Legal Remedies
Act. He alleged Mission submitted to him a separate document
providing for liquidated damages in violation of the Act, which
requires all charges must be contained in one document. The
complaint alleged defendant was liable for Mission's conduct as an
assignee. A year later, plaintiff filed the first amended
complaint, adding nine putative class action causes of action
against defendant, four of which were based on alleged violation
of the CLRA by misrepresenting amounts due in the notice of
disposition.

The complaint stemmed in March 2008 when plaintiff leased a
Mercedes-Benz from Mission Imports and respondent Mercedes-Benz
Financial Services USA LLC acted as the servicing agent.  The
lease contained an arbitration provision that included a waiver of
class actions. It also stated that if that waiver was found to be
illegal or unenforceable, the entire arbitration provision would
be severed. After the Lease was signed, Mission assigned it to
Daimler Trust; defendant is Daimler Trust's servicing agent. In
2011, after plaintiff defaulted on his payments, defendant
repossessed the car. Defendant sent plaintiff a notice of
disposition stating its intent to sell the car at auction and
thereafter did sell the car. Defendant then sought to collect the
deficiency alleged owed by plaintiff.

When defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, plaintiff
opposed it, arguing the arbitration provision should be severed
pursuant to the poison pill clause. The court granted the motion
which the plaintiff appealed arguing that section 1751 must
control because the state police power gives California the right
to enact a statute prohibiting a waiver of provisions of the CLRA.

In the Opinion dated August 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xbRFXzfrom Leagle.com, Judge Thompson concluded that
plaintiff's interpretation of the arbitration provision and the
poison pill clause is erroneous because it would improperly allow
state law to control over and against the plain language of the
arbitration section that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) is to
govern thus, the court properly applied the FAA to the arbitration
provision when it ordered individual bilateral arbitration.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Michael R. Vachon, Esq.
VACHON LAW FIRM
Rancho Bernardo Courtyard,
17150 Via Del Campo #204,
San Diego, CA 92127,
Tel: (858)674-4100

Defendant is represented by Jan T. Chilton, Esq. --
jtc@severson.com -- Donald J. Querio, Esq. -- djq@severson.com --
Erik Kemp, Esq. -- ek@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON


MILLY'S COMER: Faces "Lantigua" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Loicy Lantigua, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Milly's Comer Restaurant and Bar Inc. d/b/a Milly's
Comer, Milagros De La Cruz, Viannig De La Cruz and Jorge Sanchez
Palucha, Case No. 1:15-cv-06418 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 1129
Longwood Avenue, Bronx, New York 10474.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212)317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC: 3rd Circ. Rules Against Recorder of Deeds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Rothstein, Esq. -- wrothstein@foxrothschild.com -- at Fox
Rothschild LLP, in an article for PA Trial Practice, wrote that
the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued a major
ruling against Montgomery County Recorder of Deeds Nancy Becker.

Becker filed a class action on behalf of all Recorder of Deeds in
Pennsylvania against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems,
Inc. ("MERS") seeking to recover millions in "so called" unpaid
recording fees and an order to compel MERS to record and pay fees
for recording mortgage assignments. Becker was successful before
the United States District Court and the United States third
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed Becker's case.

As background information, MERS is a national electronic loan
registry system. It permits its members to freely transfer
promissory notes associated with mortgages while MERS remains the
mortgagee or mortgage holder of record as nominee for the actual
note holder. This system was created, in part, to reduce costs
associated with the transfer of promissory notes. Becker was
seeking to require that those assignments be recorded and that a
fee be paid to the Recorder of Deeds.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pennsylvania
Recording statute found at 21 Pa.C.S. A. section 351 does not
mandate that the assignments be recorded.  According to the 3rd
Circuit Court of Appeals, Becker's class action lawsuit was based
upon a flawed premise that the recording statute required the
assignments to be recorded. As a result, Becker's class action
should have been dismissed by the United States District Court.


NAT'L HOCKEY: Ordered to Turn Over Injury, Concussion Data
----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Hille, writing for Omnisport, reported that the judge
overseeing a class-action lawsuit by former NHL players over head
trauma has ordered the league to turn over "reams of data about
injuries and concussions," TSN reported.

In her ruling, U.S. Federal Court Judge Susan Nelson wrote:

"The Court finds that the (NHL's) blanket application of the
physician-patient privilege -- protecting all medical data from
disclosure -- is inapplicable here.

"The clubs are ordered to produce any internal reports, studies,
analyses and databases in their possession (whether initiated by
the U.S. clubs, NHL, or retained researchers) for the purpose of
studying concussions in de-identified form. The U.S. clubs shall
produce any responsive correspondence and/or emails between
themselves, themselves and the NHL, or with any research or other
professional about the study of concussions."

Players' names will be redacted in the process.

The NHL has maintained since 2006 a so-called "video-analysis
spreadsheet" that includes video footage of particular players
sustaining hits to their heads. The league argued that the video
clips are privileged and shouldn't be included in the data it will
have to turn over.

"The Court disagrees that the video clips are privileged," Nelson
wrote. "They are several steps removed from the physician-patient
privilege and statutory privileges."

The NHL reportedly estimates that producing the data could cost
more than $13 million. Commissioner Gary Bettman was deposed for
eight hours regarding the lawsuit, although his testimony is
"under seal for now," TSN reported.

Some 80 former NHL players -- including lead plaintiffs Dan
LaCouture, Michael Peluso, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls, David
Christian and Reed Larson -- sued the league in November 2013,
claiming the NHL not only avoided its responsibility to forewarn
players of the risks they faced with concussions and brain
injuries, but also both "intentionally concealed material
information" from and "recklessly endangered" the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' class-action suit covers approximately 5,000
living former players who seek unspecified damages and court-
approved, NHL-sponsored medical monitoring for neurological
disorders and other concussion-related health problems.

The NHL players' lawsuit came months after 4,500 former NFL
players reached a $765 million settlement with the NFL over the
same type of concussion-related complaints.


NETFLIX INC: 9th Circ. Affirms Dismissal of Video Privacy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger, Esq. -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- at Benesch, in
an article for JD Supra, wrote that in Mollett, et al. v. Netflix,
Inc., No. 12-17045 (9th Cir. July 31, 2015), the Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a putative class
action filed against Netflix, Inc. for alleged violations of the
Video Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C. Section  2710 ("VPPA").
Netflix offers an online streaming service through which its
customers may log on to a password protected site, view movies,
and also develop an online queue of movies.  Based upon the
customer's viewing habits, Netflix offers recommendations for
similar titles, where suggested movies are placed in a list titled
"Because You Like [Name of Recently-Watched Film]."

The VPPA prohibits video tape service providers from knowingly
disclosing personally identifiable information and viewing history
regarding its customers.  The named plaintiffs argued that Netflix
violated the VPPA by disclosing its customers' viewing history via
the suggested titles -- which customers could not delete or hide -
- to customers' family, friend, and guests who used or viewed the
customers' online account.  The named plaintiffs sought to
represent a class of similarly situated individuals.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action and
concluded that Netflix's disclosure was properly limited to the
password-protected account of the subscriber, and that Netflix did
not knowingly provide viewing information to any third-parties.

We now hold, the disclosure alleged by Plaintiffs is a disclosure
"to the consumer" that is permitted by the Act. The complaint
alleges that upon setting up a Netflix account, personally
identifiable information, by default, is only disclosed to a
Netflix subscriber through her password protected account. Under
those circumstances, a subscriber's queue or recommendation lists
are only viewable by the subscriber. Netflix subscribers can then
elect to display on their televisions what would otherwise be
password-protected information by registering Netflix-ready
devices in their accounts. Thereafter, Netflix automatically
displays on a television what it displays on a subscriber's
computer: streamed instant videos, the subscriber's queue, and
video recommendations. This is plainly a disclosure "to the
consumer" as contemplated by the VPPA. When Netflix displays a
subscriber's queue, viewing history, or recommendation lists in
her online account, that is a disclosure directly to the consumer.
The nature of that disclosure does not change when subscribers
choose to display the same content on their television screens.
The subscriber's choice to do so does not trigger some new
statutory duty on the part of Netflix.

Accordingly, the Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the
complaint.


NEVADA: Won't Issue License for Marijuana Dispensaries, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
Nevada defrauds patients by charging annual fees for medical
marijuana prescription cards, but refusing to license dispensaries
in and around Las Vegas, a cardholder claims in a federal class
action.

John Doe sued the state, the governor and the Department of Health
and Human Services, which has the power to issue licenses for
marijuana dispensaries but has not done so in Clark County.  The 2
million resident of Clark County, home to Las Vegas and Henderson,
account for more than two-thirds of the population of Nevada.

Doe claims that forcing Nevadans to get prescription cards but
forcing them to buy the drug on the street constitutes fraud,
unjust enrichment, unequal taxation and violation of equal
protections.

(On August 14, the state's first medical marijuana dispensary
opened in Sparks, Reno's sister city, 444 miles from Las Vegas.
Doe filed his class action on August 12.)

Nevada amended its constitution in 2001 to allow medical use of
marijuana and distinguished medical marijuana from street
varieties by establishing testing, purity and labeling standards
for it.  But aside from growing one's own, Doe says, the state
provided no way for patients to get pot other than "from the local
street corner drug dealer" until 2013, when it enacted laws to
license and regulate medical marijuana dispensaries.

Patients must get a prescription from a doctor and pay a fee to
the state to get a medical marijuana card. The cards expire in a
year, requiring another trip to the doctor and another fee to the
state, Doe says.

The state "engaged in fraud by collecting fees and issuing
registration cards when they had not licensed nor had they planned
on licensing dispensaries during the time covered by the cards,"
Doe says.

Ninety companies applied for medical marijuana business in Clark
County in 2014, Doe says, and the county issued several business
licenses, but the Nevada Department of Health and Human Services
did not issue any licenses to dispensaries.

Doe says there is nowhere in Clark County to test the contents of
medical marijuana to determine therapeutic benefits or dosage
levels, no place to get objective data about medical marijuana,
and no place to buy it or buy seeds.  In short, Doe says, the
state sells medical marijuana cards that expire in a year,
"knowing that no dispensary would be licensed during that time."

After paying money to comply with the law, Doe says, he and others
continue to experience "prolonged pain and suffering." Doe says he
has had migraine headaches since he was 15, and that, at his
doctor's suggestion, he used marijuana to treat it, successfully.

He seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, refunds of the
fraudulently obtained fees, nominal damages and costs of suit.

He is represented by Jacob Hafter -- jhafter@jhafterlaw.com -- who
was not immediately available for comment. Nevada officials did
not reply to requests for comment.

There are no licensed medical marijuana dispensaries operating in
Clark County, but several online sites promote delivery services
and Nevada voters in 2016 will vote on a measure that would
legalize recreational marijuana.

Silver State Relief, the state's first dispensary, expected a big
crowd Friday. Nevada has about 9,000 medical marijuana
cardholders, and the state has reciprocity agreements with other
states that issue medical marijuana cards, according to Marijuana
Business Daily, an online source of marijuana news.

Silver State Relief is limiting customers to 1/2 oz. due to
limited supply. It planned to open August 11 -- the day before Doe
filed the lawsuit -- but had to wait for test results. The four
types of marijuana on its online menu list THC contents of 15.3
percent to 22.7 percent, all at $195 per 1/2 0z. -- taxes
included.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement Hearing Set for Dec. 4
--------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Las
Vegas' enormous Cosmopolitan Casino will pay $9.75 million to
settle employees' federal class action on overtime pay.

U.S. District Judge Richard F. Boulware II on August 12 granted
preliminary approval to lead plaintiff Darlene Lewis's complaint
of unpaid overtime and work done off the clock.

The Cosmopolitan, a resort casino that opened in December 2010, is
one of the world's largest hotels, with 2,995 rooms.  Attorney
Mark R. Thierman, who took the case pro bono, seeks $3.25 million
in fees and costs.

A settlement hearing is scheduled Dec. 4. Lewis and Thierman will
file a second amended complaint upon the settlement's final
approval .

Lewis worked in customer service from November to May 2012 and,
like her coworkers, had to obtain her daily bank, pick up a
communications radio and change into and out of her work uniform
before and after each shift, with no pay for the time it took.
Lewis claimed it took her at least a half hour each day to
accomplish her work tasks off the clock.

Thierman, who filed the complaint in August 2012, was not
immediately available for comment. Nor were Cosmopolitan
officials.

Attorneys for Plaintiff:

     Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
     Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
     Leah L. Jones, Esq.
     THIERMAN BUCK LLP
     7287 Lakeside Drive
     Reno, NV 89511
     Tel: (775) 284-1500
     Fax: (775) 703-5027

The case is, DARLENE LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. NEVADA PROPERTY 1, LLC, d/b/a
The Cosmopolitan of Las Vegas; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No.: 2:12-cv-01564-RFB-GWF (D. Nev.).


NEW YORK: Teacher-Certification Exam Not Biased, Judge Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Santi Suthinithet, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that New York City's retooled teacher-certification exam does not
discriminate against black and Latino applicants, a federal judge
ruled, the latest in a class action that has dragged on for 19
years.

The Academic Literacy Skills Test is the most recent version of
the Liberal Arts and Sciences Test, previously abbreviated as LAST
-- which has been the center of a lawsuit filed in 1996 by Elsa
Gulino and other black or Latino individuals who applied for
teaching positions.

The proceedings eventually led a federal judge to find that two
different versions of LAST violated Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act because the exams "had a disparate impact on African American
and Latino test takers and did not qualify as job related."

After the ALST replaced the LAST in 2014, the applicants claimed
that this exam discriminated against black and Latino test takers
for the same reasons.

"The court disagrees," U.S. District Judge Kimba Wood wrote on
August 7, issuing her findings after a June hearing. "Unlike the
LAST, the ALST qualifies as a job related exam under Title VII."

New York state adopted the new teaching standards as part of its
application for federal funding through the U.S. Department of
Education's Race to the Top educational reform initiative, the
judge found.

"The ALST was derived from those standards, and thus was
appropriately designed to ensure that only those applicants who
possess the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to teach
successfully may be hired to do so in New York's public schools.
That conclusion relieves New York City of Title VII liability in
this case," she wrote.

In finding the ALST job related, Wood looked at whether the exam
was properly validated demonstrating "by professionally acceptable
methods, [that the exam is] 'predictive of or significantly
correlated with important elements of work behavior which comprise
or are relevant to the job or jobs for which candidates are being
evaluated.'"

This assessment appears in the ruling's meticulous recitation of
the New York state Education Department's extensive process of
developing the ALST.

Wood considered whether the ALST is scored to select the best
candidates for the job, whether the content of the exam is an
accurate representation of the job's content, and whether the exam
was constructed properly relying on New York Teaching Standards
and Common Core Standards.  Ultimately, she found that the SED
complied with all of these factors in developing the ALST.

"Accordingly, the court holds that the ALST is job related," Wood
wrote. "Defendants have therefore rebutted any prima facie case of
discrimination made by plaintiffs. It follows that the ALST is not
discriminatory under Title VII."

Wood did find that the exam's development process was flawed for
relying on insufficient participation by public school teachers in
the process.

Also the state Department of Education and its contractors
neglected to connect job functions to the actual required skills
tested by the ALST, according to the ruling.

Despite these flaws, however, the state's reliance on the required
standards was "sufficient to save the ALST in this instance," Wood
wrote.

In the case at hand, the New York City Board of Education was the
principal defendant.

The state Department of Education had been an early defendant, but
the Second Circuit dismissed it from this case last year, holding
that it is not an employer of public school teachers under Title
VII.

"Even though the SED is no longer a party to this suit, it was the
SED, and not the BOE, which sought to defend the ALST as validly
designed and implemented," Wood wrote in a footnote. "Thus, this
ppinion discusses the arguments put forward by the SED in depth,
despite the fact that it is not currently a party to the suit."


NGK SPARK: Faces WAL Inc. Suit Over Oxygen Sensor-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
WAL, Inc. d/b/a Tri-State Automotive Warehouse, and KMB/CT, Inc.
d/b/a KMB Warehouse Distributors, Inc., individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated v. NGK Spark Plug Co., Ltd., NGK
Spark Plugs (U.S.A.), Inc., Denso Corporation, Denso International
America, Inc., Denso Products & Services Americas f/k/a Denso
Sales California, Inc., Robert Bosch GmbH, and Robert Bosch LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-12918-SFC-MKM (E.D. Mich., August 17, 2015),
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to rig bids and fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize prices of Oxygen Sensors sold in the United States and
elsewhere at supra-competitive levels.

The Defendants are global automotive components manufacturers
doing business throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David H. Fink, Esq.
      Darryl Bressack, Esq.
      FINK + ASSOCIATES LAW
      100 West Long Lake Road, Ste. 111
      Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
      Telephone: (248) 971-2500
      E-mail: dfink@finkandassociateslaw.com
              dbressack@finkandassociateslaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph C. Kohn, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      Douglas A. Abrahams, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
              whoese@kohnswift.com
              dabrahams@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Gregory P. Hansel, Esq.
      Randall B. Weill, Esq.
      Michael S. Smith, Esq.
      PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS LLP
      One City Center
      P.O. Box 9546
      Portland, ME 04112-9546
      Telephone: (207) 791-3000
      E-mail: ghansel@preti.com
              rweill@preti.com
              msmith@preti.com

         - and -

      Steven A. Kanner, Esq.
      William H. London, Esq.
      Michael E. Moskovitz, Esq.
      FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
      2201 Waukegan Road, Suite 130
      Bannockburn, IL 60015
      Telephone: (224) 632-4500
      E-mail: skanner@fklmlaw.com
              wlondon@fklmlaw.com
              mmoskovitz@fklmlaw.com

         - and -

      Eugene A. Spector, Esq.
      William G. Caldes, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
      Jeffrey L. Spector, Esq.
      SPECTOR ROSEMAN KODROFF & WILLIS, P.C.
      1818 Market Street, Suite 2500
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 496-0300
      E-mail: espector@srkw-law.com
              bcaldes@srkw-law.com
              jjagher@srkw-law.com
              jspector@srkw-law.com

         - and -

      Carl E. Person, Esq.
      225 E. 36th Street - Suite 3A
      New York, N.Y. 10016-3664
      Telephone: (212) 307- 4444
      E-mail: carlpers2@gmail.com

         - and -

      M. John Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 204
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 515-1400
      E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

       Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
       CERA LLP
       595 Market Street, Suite 2300
       San Francisco, CA 94105
       Telephone: (415) 777-2230
       E-mail: scera@cerallp.com

          - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 702-7053
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

         - and -

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD, LLP
      One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com


OLYMPUS AMERICA: Recalls VG-170 Digital Point-and-Shoot Cameras
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 13, 2015
Posting date: August 13, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54650

The recall involves the Olympus VG-170 Digital Point-and-Shoot
Cameras. The VG-170 measures about 10 x 6.3 x 2.5 cm, weighs 145 g
and comes in white, black or red. "VG 170" is printed on the top
of the camera, on the side opposite the shutter button. "Olympus"
is printed on the upper right hand corner of the front of the
camera,"5 X Wide" is printed on lower left hand corner of the
front of the camera. The camera has a 7.6 cm digital LCD screen on
the back.

An improperly installed part can touch the camera's circuit board,
posing an electric shock to the user.

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

Olympus has received 3 reports of electric shock from consumers in
Japan and Europe.

Approximately 177 units were sold in Canada and 1,200 units were
sold in the United States.

The recalled product was sold from February 2012 to April 2015
through club member awards and incentive catalogues.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Olympus America Inc.
             Center Valley
             Pennsylvania
             UNITED STATES

Manufacturer: Olympus Corporation
              JAPAN

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled digital
camera and contact Olympus for a free inspection and repair.

Consumers may contact Olympus at (800) 622-6372 from 9 a.m. to
5:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or online and click on "Support
by Product" under "Support" and information is listed on the right
hand side.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/MIfwW7


ON DECK CAPITAL: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against On Deck Capital, Inc. ("On Deck" or the "Company")
(NYSE:ONDK) and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed
in United States District Court Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 15-cv-06126, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities other than defendants who purchased or
otherwise acquired On Deck securities pursuant and/or traceable to
On Deck's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's December 16, 2014 initial public
offering ("IPO").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 (the
"1933 Act").

A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

On Deck provides financing products to small businesses in the
United States. It offers fixed term loans and revolving lines of
credit. The Company processes and services its loans through its
online platform.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the true rate of default for
the Company's loan portfolio was steadily increasing; (2) the true
value of the Company's loan portfolio was in material decline; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, On Deck's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On December 15, 2014, On Deck filed its amended Registration
Statement for the IPO, which became effective on December 17,
2014.  Pursuant to the IPO, 11,500,000 shares of On Deck common
stock were sold -- including 1,500,000 shares purchased by the
Underwriter Defendants (as defined infra at Par. 30) pursuant to
exercise of their over-allotment option -- at the price to the
public of $20.00 per share.  The gross proceeds of the IPO were
$230 million.  On Deck's common stock began trading on the NYSE
under the symbol "ONDK" on December 17, 2014.

On February 11, 2015, less than two months after the IPO,
SeekingAlpha.com published an article entitled "On-Deck Capital:
Bad Loans, Bad Interest Rates, Bad Business Plan."  The article
described, in part, how the Company's Registration Statement
significantly understated the default rate for the Company's loan
portfolio.

On March 18, 2015, Compass Point Research & Trading, LLC ("Compass
Point") published a research report (the "Compass Point Report")
that detailed concerns with On Deck's business model, including
inherent risks surrounding an untested credit model, growing
competition, uncertainty with regard to interest rates, and
anticipated regulatory threats, all of which created a risky
environment for On Deck investors.  On Deck's unsustainable
business model, according to the Compass Point Report, could
ultimately lead to slower growth and higher expenses.
Accordingly, Compass Point assigned a "Sell" rating to On Deck
stock.

On July 1, 2015, barely six months after the IPO, On Deck common
stock dropped to a low of $11.15 per share, a decline of over 40%
from the IPO price and of over 60% from its almost $29 per share
high on December 18, 2014.  The significant drop in share price
came after news reports of rising default rates in On Deck's loan
portfolios and declining value of its business model.  The Company
is now reportedly losing tens of millions of dollars through
defaults on its loans, likely due to the company's reliance on
stated income and data from third-party sources, which may contain
inaccuracies.

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

Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212.661.1100 or 1.888.4.POMLAW
Fax: 212.661.8665
http://pomerantzlawfirm.com/


ONE LUCKY: "Shubmehl" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Shubmehl and Kevin Woods, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Sarma Melngailis, One Lucky Duck
Holdings, LLC, Pure Food and Wine, LLC, CGM 54 Irving, LLC, d/b/a
Pure Food and Wine, and One Lucky Duck Ecommerce, LLC, jointly and
severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-06432 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a takeout restaurant and juice bar
located at 125 East 17th Street, New York, New York, 10003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin N. Dictor, Esq.
      EISNER & ASSOCIATES, PC
      113 University Place
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 473-8700
      E-mail: ben@eisnerassociates.com



PASON SYSTEMS: "Ratliff" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donny Ratliff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pason Systems USA Corp., Case No. 4:15-cv-02376 (S.D.
Tex., August 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Headquartered in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, Pason Systems USA
Corp., is in the business of providing the oil and gas industry
real time data on the operations in the field, remotely.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, Texas 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


PAZCON AMOR: "Campos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daisy Campos and other similarly situated individuals v. Pazcon
Amor, Inc. and Daymi M. Linares, Case No. 1:15-cv-23073-FAM (S.D.
Fla., August 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a living assisted facility in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

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
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


PEPSICO BEVERAGES: Recalls Pureleaf Lemon Iced Tea Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Labelling
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Pepsico Beverages Canada
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick,
Nova Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9984

  Brand     Common name     Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  name      -----------     ----     product      ----
  -----                              ----------
  Pureleaf  Lemon Iced Tea  1.75 L   15SE17       0 48500 02096 8


PLAZA SEAFOOD: "Fernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Castellano Fernandez, and others similarly-situated v.
Plaza Seafood Market, Inc. and Jose Garcia, Case No. 1:15-cv-
23076-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a seafood market in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      MAMANE LAW LLC
      1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone (305)773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


POWELL TRADING: Recalls Fried Seaweed Cookie Due to Peanut
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Peanut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Powell Trading Co.
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Powell Trading Co. is recalling Nice Choice brand Fried Cookie -
Seaweed flavour from the marketplace because it contains peanut
which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to
peanut should not consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to peanut, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name    Size     Code(s) on    UPC
  name     -----------    ----     product       ----
  -----                            ----------
  Nice     Fried Cookie-  114 g    26.05.2016    4 711202 222089
  Choice   Seaweed

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/VxT7nK


PROVIDENT FUNDING: Faces "Steinberg" Suit Over Late Fee Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Provident Funding Associates, L.P., Case No.
3:15-cv-03743-EDL (N.D. Cal. August 17, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's policy of assessing exorbitant and fraudulent late
fees on its customers, even when those customers submit their
payment on time and in full accordance with Provident's payment
schedule.

Provident Funding Associates, L.P. is a California limited
partnership that operates a non-bank wholesale mortgage company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George H. Kim, Esq.
      KARST & VON OISTE LLP
      9766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212-1820
      Telephone: (310) 746-4099
      E-mail: george@gkimlaw.com

         - and -

      Douglas D. von Oiste, Esq.
      David A. Chandler, Esq.
      KARST & VON OISTE LLP
      576 5th Avenue, Suite 401
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 764-3900
      Facsimile: (212) 764-3901
      E-mail: douglas@vonoiste.com
              dac@karstvonoiste.com

         - and -

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60613
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com


PRYM CONSUMER: Recalls Cheesecloth Products Due to Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 17, 2015
Posting date: August 17, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54656

This recall involves cheesecloth sold under the brand name "Prym
Sewing" by Prym Consumer Canada, Inc. The product is a white
cheesecloth fabric sold in 3 yard cuts, in clear poly bag packages
and can be identified by the item #13004 and the UPC 072879096385.

Testing has identified that the cheesecloth does not meet the
requirements for textile flammability under Canadian law.

This cheesecloth could catch fire if exposed to a flame or other
ignition source such as a lighter, match, candle, stove element or
spark from a fireplace, posing a burn risk and fire hazard to
consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor Prym Consumer Canada, Inc. has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

Approximately 2448 units of the recalled packages of cheesecloth
were sold exclusively at Walmart stores across Canada.

The recalled cheesecloth was sold from February 2013 to August
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Prym Consumer Canada, Inc.
             St. Laurent
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cheesecloth
and return it to Walmart for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Prym Consumer Canada,
Inc. by email. Consumers may also visit Prym Consumer Canada's
website.

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

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

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

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


RIDDELL INC: Football Club's Misleading Ad Suit Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. of the United States
District Court for Southern District of West Virginia granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss, without prejudice with leave to
amend, in the case captioned, MIDWESTERN MIDGET FOOTBALL CLUB
INC., Plaintiff, v. RIDDELL, INC., Defendant, Case Nos. 2:15-00244
(S.D. W.Va.).

On December 2, 2014, Midwestern filed an action in the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County against Riddell, a company that that
designs, manufactures, markets, and sells a cranial protection
device for football players known as the Revolution Helmet, on its
own behalf, and that of a class of similarly situated consumers,
via a single-count claim under the West Virginia Consumer Credit
and Protection Act (WVCCPA). Riddell supplies the helmets to the
participants of the Plaintiff's program every year specifically
participants who are aged 14 years or younger. In the complaint,
Midwestern asserts that Riddell's marketing claims were knowingly
false. Among other things, Midwestern contends that Riddell's
assertions were based upon a statistically unsound study paid for
by Riddell and co-authored by a Riddell employee. The study was
publically criticized by third-party scientists. Indeed,
Midwestern alleges that scientific studies and other data of which
Riddell was aware indicated that the Revolution Helmets made no
material difference to concussion risk as compared to traditional
helmets. Midwestern seeks, inter alia, class certification,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and actual damages or a
statutory penalty, whichever is greater.

Midwestern seeks to certify a class composed of "Any person who
purchases goods and thereby suffers any ascertainable loss of
money as a result of the use or employment by another person of a
method, act or practice prohibited or declared to be unlawful by
the provisions of this article may bring an action in the circuit
court."

The Defendants moved to dismiss asserts dismissal is warranted due
to Midwestern's status as an incorporated non-profit youth
organization. Specifically, Riddell contends that Midwestern does
not qualify as a "consumer" and is thus not entitled to avail
itself of the claim it pleads. The court denied the motion on June
18, 2015. The next day, the court of appeals handed down In re GNC
Corp., 789 F.3d 505. In response, the court on June 22, 2015,
vacated the June 18, 2015, memorandum opinion and order. The
parties were directed to "brief the extent to which, if at all,
the decision in In re GNC" impacted disposition of the motion to
dismiss.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 10, 2015
available at http://is.gd/zGibE1from Leagle.com, Judge
Copenhaver, Jr. held that the legislative history supports
Midwestern's position. Inasmuch as Midwestern plainly qualifies as
a "person" for purposes of section 46A-6-106(a), it satisfies the
standing requirement. The difficulty with Midwestern's assertion
of a misleading advertising claim, as pointed out at length in
Riddell's briefing, is that the central allegations of the
operative pleading are focused on a claim of literal falsity and
not misleading advertising. To the extent Midwestern desires to
pursue a claim of misleading advertising, it is incumbent upon it
to plead allegations in satisfaction of the plausibility standard
attached to Rule 12(b)(6).

Miswestern is represented by Marc R. Weintraub, Esq. --
mweintraub@baileyglasser.com -- Michael L. Murphy, Esq. --
mmurphy@baileyglasser.com -- Ryan McCune Donovan, Esq. --
rdonovan@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER

Riddell, Inc. is represented by Joseph A. Boyle, Esq. --
jboyle@kelleydrye.com -- Michael C. Lynch, Esq. --
mlynch@kelleydrye.com -- Sung W. Kim, Esq. -- sukim@kelleydrye.com
-- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN


ROMANZI CORPORATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Lopez, and other similarly situated v. Romanzi Corporation,
d/b/a Aries Supermarket 2, and Rosaida Pino, Case No. 30963309 (D.
Fla., August 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a supermarket in Miami Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAFEWAY: Recalls Cooked Chicken Wings Product Due to Bacteria
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 15, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Staphylococcus aureus
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Safeway
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9988

Safeway is recalling various store-packaged, cooked Chicken Wings
from the marketplace because they may contain the toxin produced
by Staphylococcus bacteria. Consumers should not consume the
recalled products described below.

The following cooked products have been sold in Safeway locations
in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased
affected products should check with their retailer.

Food contaminated with Staphylococcus toxin may not look or smell
spoiled. The toxin produced by Staphylococcus bacteria is not
easily destroyed at normal cooking temperatures.  Common symptoms
of Staphylococcus poisoning are nausea, vomiting, abdominal
cramping and fever. In severe cases of illness, headache, muscle
cramping and changes in blood pressure and pulse rate may occur.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the manufacturer. The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name     Size       Code(s) on       UPC
  name     -----------     ----       product          ----
  -----                               ----------
  Safeway  Party Pack      Variable   All codes sold   begins
           Chicken Wings              up to and        with
           Hot Salt N                 including        236500
           Pepper                     August 14, 2015

  Safeway  PPK Wings Mix   Variable   All codes sold   begins
           flavors Hot                up to and        with
                                      including        256870
                                      August 14, 2015
  Safeway  Pinty's Wings   Variable   All codes sold   begins
           Salt and Pepper            up to and        with
           Hot                        including        236524
                                      August 14, 2015
  Safeway  Pinty's Wings   Variable   All codes sold   begins
           Salt and Pepper            up to and        with
           Cold                       including        236523
                                      August 14, 2015

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


SAMSUNG: "Dang" Suit Over Infringement Can't Proceed as Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Singh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
federal judge upheld Samsung's contract provision that prevents
consumers' sales disputes -- in this case, the value of
smartphones that infringe Apple patents -- from proceeding as
class actions.

According to plaintiff Hoai Dang's class action, Samsung has
"repeatedly infringed the patents of its chief competitor, Apple,"
and he contends had he known the phone he purchased for $199
"infringed" on patents he would not have bought it.

Dang also claimed that because of Samsung's infringements, the
South Korean giant's cellular products are worth far less than
what consumers paid and that the resale value of the smartphones
has "dropped dramatically" following patent-infringement verdicts
in favor of Apple.

However, included with Dang's Galaxy SIII purchase contract is an
arbitration provision that says any dispute arising from customer
sales cannot proceed as part of a class action.

According to the 19-page order by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh,
although Dang "may have been 'completely unaware' of the
arbitration provision, this fact is of little help to him. It is
well established under California law that 'a party cannot avoid
the terms of a contract by failing to read them.'"

Koh ruled Samsung adequately showed the arbitration provision was
not "inconspicuous," and that because Dang had not used the "opt-
out procedure," within the contract his consent to the provision
is implied.

In four other cases, three federal judges in two different
judicial districts enforced arbitration provisions nearly
identical to this one against Samsung Galaxy smartphone
purchasers, Koh said.

Neither Samsung attorney Mark Dosker -- mark.dosker@squirepb.com
-- with Squire Patton Boggs nor Dang's attorney Karla Gilbride --
kgilbride@publicjustice.net -- with Mehri & Skalet could
immediately be reached for comment.


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
purchasers of SandRidge Mississippian Trust II common units from
April 17, 2012 through November 8, 2012, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), of the important August 10, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline in the class action lawsuit filed by the firm. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for SandRidge Mississippian Trust
II investors under the federal securities laws.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose that: (1) the underlying
properties from which the royalty interests were conveyed to
SandRidge Mississippian Trust II consisted of far more low-margin
natural gas deposits and far fewer high-margin oil deposits, and
(2) the reserves of oil in the underlying properties associated
with Trust II were vastly overstated. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 10, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-632.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.

Phillip Kim, Esq.
Kevin Chan, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm
204 Andover St, Andover, MA 01810, United States
275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY  10016
Phone:+1 978-474-0100
toll-free: 866-767-3653
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com


SANDY FORD: Faces "Barber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Barber, on his own behalf and all similarly situated
individuals v. Sandy Ford, Inc. and Peter Donaghay, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00489-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., August 17, 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 new and used Ford
and Lincoln cars, trucks and SUVs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      600 N. Pine Island Rd., Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
      E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


SCOTTRADE INC: Illegally Routes Costumers Investment, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Lewis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Scottrade, Inc., Case No. 14CV2926 JLS BLM (S.D. Cal.,
August 17, 2015), seeks redress for the Defendant's breach of its
duty of best execution when routing a specific type of investment
trade for execution on behalf of its customers.

Scottrade, Inc. is a discount brokerage firm that provides
investment products and services, online trading platforms, and
market research tools through over 500 branches in the United
States

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
      Ashley R. Palmer, Esq.
      Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
              apalmer@robbinsarroyo.com
              lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com

         - and -

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              toreardon@bholaw.com


SG TWO: Sued Over Failure to Provide Handicap-Accessible Parking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leland Foster v. SG Two, Inc., a Michigan Corporation, d/b/a
Captain Joe's Grill and SG One, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-12884-VAR-
EAS (E.D. Mich., August 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide access to its handicap ramp due
to piles of removed snow, failure to provide any properly marked
access to handicap accessible parking spaces in front of
establishment and failure to provide any van accessible parking
with access aisles to property and facility.

The Defendants operate and own a restaurant and bar located at
9901 N. Main Street, Whitmore Lake, MI 48189.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Owen B. Dunn Jr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF OWEN B. DUNN, JR.
      The Ottawa Hills Shopping Center
      4334 W. Central Ave., Suite 222
      Toledo, OH 43615
      Telephone: (419) 241-9661
      Facsimile: (419) 241-9737
      E-mail: dunnlawoffice@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

      Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
      BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
      6600 W. Sylvania Ave., Suite 260
      Sylvania, OH 43560
      Telephone: (419) 340-3883
      E-mail: mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


SOLARWINDS INC: Federman Firm Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Sys-com Media reported that a class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
against SolarWinds, Inc. (NYSE: SWI). 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 28, 2015 through July 16, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all SolarWinds,
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 29, 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.

Federman & Sherwood
10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120
Telephone: 405.235.1560
Facsimile: 405.239.2112
http://www.federmanlaw.com/


SOLARWINDS 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 Western District of Texas Austin Division.
The complaint alleges that officers and directors of SolarWinds,
Inc. violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between April
28, 2015 and July 16, 2015, by making materially false and
misleading statements about SolarWinds' business prospects.
SolarWinds, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
markets, sells, and supports enterprise-class information
technology ("IT") and infrastructure management software to IT
professionals in various organizations worldwide.

SolarWinds Misrepresents its Financial Condition

According to the complaint, SolarWinds officials failed to
disclose that the company's domestic business was struggling
against the company's expectations, and its license sales growth
of core license products and resulting revenue was also lower than
expectations and guidance.  Further, the complaint alleges that
company officials did not reveal that the company's online
marketing campaign tool was not performing as expected, which led
to an unrealistically positive assessment of the company's
financial well-being, and caused its securities to be artificially
inflated.

On April 28, 2015, SolarWinds issued a press release stating that
the company was pleased with its first quarter revenue growth and
emphasized the strength of its hybrid financial model.  Then, on
July 16, 2015, SolarWinds disclosed its revenues for the second
quarter of 2014 were below analyst expectations and lowered
revenue guidance for the next few quarters.  The company
attributed the slowdown to the underperformance of its marketing
campaign tool, which failed to convert prospective customers.  On
this news, SolarWinds shares declined $11.51 per share, or over
24%, to close at $35.54 per share on July 17, 2015.

SolarWinds Shareholders Have Legal Options

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.

Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
Robbins Arroyo LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
(619) 525-3990 or Toll Free (800) 350-6003
www.robbinsarroyo.com


SOUL CIRCUS: Support for Animal Rights "Sham", Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
Washington mother says a circus' apparent support of animal rights
made her purchase tickets to a July show, even though she normally
avoids circuses.  Now Melanie Sloan claims statements Soul Circus
-- which operates UniverSoul Circus -- made in support of animal
rights are a sham, and has teamed with PETA to file a class action
complaint against the circus for violations of consumer protection
laws.

"As a result of defendant's deception, conscientious consumers
like Ms. Sloan are deceived into doing precisely that which they
intend to avoid: supporting and perpetuating the abuse of animals
through their purchasing choices," Sloan says in a complaint filed
in Superior Court of the District of Columbia.

Sloan bought four tickets to the UniverSoul Circus when the show
came to Washington on July 11. She normally is opposed to such
events and does not go to "circuses, zoos, amusement parks,
aquariums or other businesses that do not have a record of
properly caring for animals," she claims in the complaint.

However, after reviewing the animal-rights statement on the
circus' website, Sloan believed she could attend with her
conscience intact, according to the complaint.

"The UniverSoul Circus is committed to the proper treatment of
animals," the statement on the company's website says in part. "We
strongly oppose any form of cruelty or mistreatment of animals,
wild or domestic -- and will not tolerate any mistreatment on our
circus site. In over 19 years and more than 10,000 performances,
none of our animal vendors have ever been cited for animal abuse
while performing at the UniverSoul Circus."

The circus also made limited use of animals in its advertisements
for the show, Sloan claims. Instead it showed human performers
like magicians, trapeze artists and motorcycle stunts in an
attempt to hide the use of animals from potential customers.

The circus allegedly does not have a license from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture that would allow it to keep and exhibit
animals at its shows, Sloan claims.  Instead, it borrows animals
from licensed vendors, several of whom have violated the Animal
Welfare Act, according to the complaint.

Sloan lists 13 vendors she says the circus leased animals from and
that the USDA allegedly cited for violations of the Animal Welfare
Act. These violations, the list of which makes up 7 pages of the
22-page complaint, range from failing to provide shelter and
medical care to improperly training staff.

The circus exhibited elephants "who tested reactive" for
tuberculosis and kept tigers in small spaces during magic tricks
performed at the show, Sloan claims.

This alleged arrangement with outside vendors allows the circus to
maintain its outward commitment to animal rights and "exploit
growing consumer concern about the treatment of captive animals
used for entertainment," Sloan says in the complaint.

After a friend forwarded Sloan an email exposing the alleged
violation by the circus' vendors, Sloan decided she could not
bring her family to the show, according to the complaint.

"UniverSoul knows that kind people like Ms. Sloan will not buy
tickets to circuses that mistreat animals, so it deliberately
promotes itself as something it is not: a champion of animal
rights," Martina Bernstein, PETA Foundation's director of
litigation, said in a statement. "PETA is calling for UniverSoul
to make good on its empty animal-welfare claims and end the use of
tormented wild animals in its shows."

The class action seeks $1,500 per violation of Washington's
Consumer Protection Procedures Act as well as punitive damages and
injunctive relief. Anyone in Washington who bought tickets to a
Soul Circus show in the past three years is eligible to join the
class.

PETA Foundation attorney Jeffrey Kerr -- jkerr@bordercitylaw.com--
of Politeski Strilchuk Milen Lawyers represents the class.

A representative for Soul Circus did not respond to request for
comment.


SPRINT/UNITED: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nora Salamanca, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Sprint/United Management Company and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case
No. 15782081 (D. Cal., August 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide employees with accurate written
wage statements.

Sprint/United Management Company is a Kansas corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shaun Sctarch, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 888-7771
      Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
              tuvia@setarehlaw.com


SSA CONTAINERS: Faces "Conner" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Conner v. SSA Containers, Inc., Case 2:15-cv-00543-BSJ
(D.Utah, July 31, 2015), alleges unlawful failure of the Defendant
to pay overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

SSA Containers, Inc. is a subsidiary of Carix Enterprises. SSA and
their affiliates operate cargo terminals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Trey Dayes, Esq.
     PHILLIPS DAYES
     3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Tel: 1-800-JOB-LAWS
          (602) 288-1610 ext. 301
     E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com


ST. JOSEPH COUNTY, MI: Pays $270K for "Over-Detaining" People
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Parrott, writing for South Bend Tribune, reported that St.
Joseph County has agreed to pay $270,000 to settle a class action
lawsuit alleging it failed to give people probable cause hearings
within 48 hours of their arrests.

U.S. District Judge Theresa Springmann gave preliminary approval
for the settlement earlier and conducted a "fairness hearing" in
the case, filed in 2011 by John P. Donovan. She said she
anticipates giving the agreement final approval by Nov. 9.

Donovan's Fort Wayne attorney, Christopher Meyers, would receive
about $108,000 of the $270,000. After other costs are paid, about
$146,500 would be paid out to a settlement class of 49 people who
were jailed for more than 48 hours without a probable cause
hearing over a nearly 19-month period from March 30, 2009 through
Oct. 22, 2010. Class members will receive payments based on how
long they were "over-detained," at a rate of $51 per hour,
according to court records.

Twelve of those class members could receive larger payments
because they have alleged they suffered "emotional distress,
mental anguish, loss of income or other special damage in addition
to loss of liberty."

County attorney James Groves in November told The Tribune that the
county has changed its policy, correcting what was essentially a
weekend detainment issue, and now ensures that probable cause
hearings occur within 48 hours for people who are arrested without
warrants. St. Joseph County is one of numerous Indiana counties
that have faced such lawsuits in recent years.

Donovan was arrested by Indiana State Police in October 2009 and
held for longer than 48 hours without a probable cause hearing
before ultimately being charged with a license plate infraction.

Fairness hearing was required to give class members the
opportunity to make any objections to the settlement, but none did
so, and Donovan testified that it was fair and reasonable.


SUNOCO INC: Faces "White" Suit Over False Cardholders Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Donald White, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sunoco Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04595-PD (E.D. Penn.,
August 14, 2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged false and
deceptive representations about the benefits of being a Sunoco
Rewards Credit Card cardholder, that the Sunoco Rewards Credit
Card guarantees cardholders a 5 cents per gallon discount on every
fuel transaction at any Sunoco location.

Sunoco Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation that markets motor fuels
through more than 4,900 Sunoco-branded locations throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
      Ruben Honik, Esq.
      Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
      David J. Stanoch, Esq.
      GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C.
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 985-9177
      Facsimile: (215) 985-4169
      E-mail: rgolomb@golombhonik.com
              rhonik@golombhonik.com
              kgrunfeld@golombhonik.com
              dstanoch@golombhonik.com


TAMKO BUILDING: Judge Trims Class Suit Over Defective Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sindhu Sundar, writing for Law 360, reported that an Illinois
federal court has trimmed a proposed class action against Tamko
Building Products Inc. over fiberglass roofing shingles that
allegedly contain design problems that causes them to crack and
fall apart well before the products' 30-year warranty period ends.

U.S. District Judge Staci M. Yandle on granted in part and denied
in part Tamko's motion to dismiss the suit, dismissing breach of
the implied warranty of merchantability claims, among others, of
three named plaintiffs Richard Disher, John O'Malley and Eric
Kline but allowing the rest of the claims to survive.

"We were gratified that the court dismissed many of plaintiffs'
claims and feel confident that we will ultimately prevail across
the board in this litigation," a Tamko representative said in a
statement.

Disher, who had purchased the shingles for his home in Illinois in
2005, filed a warranty claim in 2014 at the advice of a friend who
had allegedly told him that the shingles were defective. He
rejected Tamko's settlement certificate for the shingles he needed
to replace and filed claims for strict liability and negligence,
breach of implied warranty, fraudulent concealment, unjust
enrichment and consumer fraud, among others.

Judge Yandle rejected Tamko's argument that Disher's strict
liability claims are barred by the Illinois economic loss
doctrine, finding that the claim survives because he had alleged
both economic loss and damage of personal property. The doctrine's
basic intent is to prevent plaintiffs from turning contract claims
into tort claims. But in this case, Disher and the class had
alleged that the defective shingles had also damaged structures
below them, according to the opinion.

However, the judge also found that Disher had filed his suit well
past the four-year statute of limitations for breach of the
implied warranties of merchantability, which could have played a
significant role in the class certification stage.

O'Malley, who in 2003 had installed the shingles at his home in
Kentucky, alleged that Tamko had rejected his warranty claim in
2014. Judge Yandle similarly ruled that his strict liability
claims survive the company's motion to dismiss but that his
implied warranty claims are time-barred. O'Malley had brought his
warranty claim in 2013, according to the opinion.

The judge also allowed him to pursue his fraudulent concealment
claim, finding that he sufficiently argued that Tamko knew but did
not disclose that its shingles wouldn't last 30 years.

"O'Malley alleges that he decided to install Tamko's shingles, in
part, based on Tamko's 30-year warranty," Judge Yandle said in her
order. "These allegations indicate that Tamko omitted its
knowledge that the shingles would not last for 30 years and that
Tamko obtained income from the sale of the shingles as a result of
the omission."

Another named plaintiff in the suit, Dimitri Mishurov, recently
dropped his claims, according to the case docket.

The plaintiffs are represented by Theodore H. Chase of Audet &
Partners LLP.

Tamko is represented by John H. Beisner and Jessica Davidson
Miller of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP and David P.
Stoeberl of Carmody MacDonald PC.

The case is Disher et al v. Tamko Building Products, Inc. et al.,
case number 3:14-cv-00740, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois.


TENNESSEE: State Legislators Must Give Depositions, Judge Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that one former and three current Tennessee state legislators must
give depositions in a student voting rights case, a federal judge
ruled.

A group of college students sued Tennessee election officials in
March, claiming the state's exclusion of student IDs and out-of-
state IDs at the polls is unconstitutional.  The class action
lawsuit, filed by the Nashville Student Organizing Committee and
nine college students, said out-of-state students must either
forgo voting, vote absentee in their home state, or apply for a
new ID. "The voter ID law clearly favors in-state student voters
over out-of-state student voters," according to the March
complaint.

The Nashville Student Organizing Committee and student-plaintiffs
served deposition subpoenas on Tennessee Sen. Bill Ketron, Reps.
Susan Lynn and Curry Todd, and former state legislator Joe Carr.
They want to depose the four lawmakers on topics related to the
state voter ID law, including legislative deliberation over the
policy and their understanding of it, the ruling states.

U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger denied the former and current
legislators' motion to quash the subpoenas on August 12, ruling
that their depositions are allowable.

"This litigation involves a serious constitutional issue: whether
Tennessee passed a law intended to suppress the voting rights of
Tennessee college students," she wrote. "The issues presented also
implicate -- as do redistricting cases -- the potential that a
majority political party has attempted to entrench its own power
by limiting the ability of certain voters to influence (or, here,
participate in) the election process. The government's conduct is
squarely at issue, and, at least at this point, it does not appear
that conducting the depositions would have a chilling effect on
frank deliberations on public policy matters."

The judge ordered that the student group can proceed with
depositions but the transcripts must be filed under seal for court
review. The plaintiffs themselves cannot attend the depositions
and the transcripts shall be treated as "attorneys eyes only"
documents, according to the ruling.

"Although the depositions will proceed, the court specifically
reserves decision as to which, if any, of the topics covered in
the deposition will result in admissible testimony," Trauger
wrote. "The plaintiffs' attorneys are specifically advised that
the deposition testimony shall not be disseminated to the
plaintiffs, the press, or anyone else. The subject matter of the
testimony is highly sensitive and potentially privileged, at least
in part."


TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that a complaint was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
securities of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited ("Teva" or
the "Company") (NYSE: TEVA) between August 1, 2013 and October 29,
2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against certain of the Company's
officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of Teva during the Class Period and sold
those shares before January 7, 2014, 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., 825 East Gate Boulevard, Suite
300, Garden City, NY at (888) 969-4242, by e-mail to info@rl-
legal.com, or at:
http://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/teva-pharmaceutical-
industries-limited-teva.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business operations, financial condition and prospects.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to
disclose that there was significant internal discord between the
Board of Directors ("Board") and Teva's senior management during
the Class Period (and in particular, significant differences
between the Chairman of the Board and the Chief Executive Officer
("CEO")) concerning execution of the Company's strategies,
including implementation of the critical Cost Cutting Program. As
a result of the foregoing, the Company's stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, during a conference call on August 1,
2013, when asked by an analyst about the progress of the Cost
Cutting Program, CEO Dr. Jeremy Levin ("Levin") reassured
listeners that the Cost Cutting Program was "completely on track,"
and did not disclose the existence of any discord or disagreements
between management and the Board concerning the implementation of
the Cost Cutting Program, or any aspect of the Strategic Plan.
When asked by another analyst whether the Board fully supported
Levin's business development strategy, Levin responded, "the board
is behind what we are doing."

On October 28, 2013, the Channel 2 Broadcast quoted unnamed
sources within the Company as indicating that Levin was
considering resigning due to strong differences of opinion between
himself and Phillip Frost, Chairman of Teva's Board of Directors
("Board"), concerning execution of Teva's strategy, including how
to handle the planned layoffs in Israel. As noted, during its
broadcast, Channel 2 displayed and read from the October 2013
Letter, which (i) bemoaned the "lack of unity" between the Board
and the CEO; (ii) demanded that the Board cease the interference
that had "become prevalent in recent months and hindered
management's ability to effectively manage Teva and implement the
approved strategy;" and (iii) accused the Board of imperiling the
whole Company with its persistent interference with the management
of the Company.

In response to the Channel 2 Broadcast, the Company itself
publicly stated that the reports of internal discord and
infighting were "baseless." This statement was false, and only two
days later, on October 30, 2013, Teva shocked analysts and the
market when it announced that Levin would, in fact, be resigning
as CEO and President.

Upon the news of Levin's departure, Teva shares declined 8% from a
close of $41.02 per share on October 29, 2013, to a close of
$37.70 per share on October 30, 2013, erasing over $2.8 billion in
market capitalization.

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.

Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Peter Allocco, Esq.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
825 E Gate Blvd #300 Garden City, NY, United States
(888) 969-4242
(516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com


TEXAS A&M: Faces Class Suit Filed by Law Graduates
--------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that Texas
A&M University disavowed graduates of the Texas Wesleyan
University School of Law as alumni after buying the school in
2013, 32 law graduates claim in a federal class action in Forth
Worth, Texas.

Kristin Brown et al. sued Texas A&M University School of Law, Dean
Andrew P. Morriss, Texas Wesleyan University and its President
Frederick G. Slabach.

Texas A&M, in College Station, agreed to purchase Texas Wesleyan's
private downtown Fort Worth law school in June 2012, making it the
first public law school in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Since the
purchase closed in 2013, the law school's new graduates have been
accepted as alumni, have the updated Texas A&M school name on
their diplomas and are eligible to receive Aggie rings.

Five hundred pre-acquisition law graduates of TWU asked Texas A&M
in July 2014 to reconsider its refusal to reissue them law
diplomas with the updated school name. When the school rejected
them, a dozen of them filed a complaint against Texas A&M with the
American Bar Association. The ABA responded that it has no role in
student-school disputes.

In the new lawsuit, the graduates say: "This decision has damaged
the disavowed graduates, who have lost the ability to easily show
that their juris doctor degrees are valid to potential employers
and clients, as their law school is no longer easily located on
many lists of accredited law schools.

"This suit seeks to require TAMU School of Law to recognize the
disavowed graduates based on estoppel. TAMU could have started its
own law school, but having chosen to purchase one and backdate its
accreditation to 1994, capitalizing on the bar results, hours of
pro bono service, and other accomplishments of its pre-acquisition
graduates, TAMU School of Law cannot now treat pre- and post-
acquisition graduates differently. TAMU School of Law must
complete the name change process it began by recognizing all its
graduates in the same way, and reissue diplomas to those graduates
whose work TAMU School of Law uses for recruitment daily."

Texas A&M Provost Karan Watson said the university has worked to
welcome the TWU alumni "into the Aggie family."

"But there are limits on our ability to accommodate some of their
requests," she said in a statement. "We have strived to ensure the
continuity of networking, professional development, mentoring and
leadership opportunities at the law school. We regret that a small
group of alumni have decided to file suit, but we know that we
have been fair in our dealings with the Texas Wesleyan law school
alumni."

The law school was founded in 1989 as the Dallas/Fort Worth School
of Law; it joined TWU in 1992.

The plaintiffs say that despite not being recognized as alumni,
Texas A&M asks them for money as if they were.

"Plaintiffs have received emails from the TAMU Association of
Former Students and TAMU School of Law asking plaintiffs to add
their names to the directory of former students," the complaint
states. "Plaintiffs have received emails from the Office of Gift
Planning soliciting donations from plaintiffs."

They also claim that they believed they would be able to use
after-hours law library cards at the law school, but the "promise
continues to be unfulfilled" two years after the purchase.

"To create their own cards, plaintiffs would have to violate
defendant TAMU School of Law's marks," the complaint states.

To top it off, they say, they cannot prove to potential employers
that their law school still exists.

"For example, in one faculty recruiting service, users can select
TWU School of Law from the drop-down menu of law schools, but then
the potential employer is given the information without a means of
explaining that the school still exists and that it has merely
been acquired and renamed," the complaint states.

"At the time that plaintiffs accepted TWU's offer of enrollment
and began paying tuition, plaintiffs reasonably expected that the
law degrees they were to receive from TWU would come with all of
the rights and privileges as any other ABA-accredited degree."

Texas A&M did not respond to a request for comment on Agust 11.

The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment of non-infringement of
trademark for use of the law school's marks, breach of implied
contract, breach of faith, negligence and tortious interference.
They are represented by TWU graduate Warren V. Norred in
Arlington.

Norred told Courthouse News the pre-acquisition graduates want to
complete the name change on the students' side, since Texas A&M
claims accreditation since 1994.

"When my wife changed her name, she did not become a new person
and have a new birthday, though she did have to obtain a new
drivers' license and update other documents," Norred said after
filing the July 2014 ABA grievance. "This is no different.

"The school has changed its name, but it is the same school. It
has not changed its accreditation date. TAMU has changed many of
the documents, and needs to complete the job."


TIME WARNER: Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mejia" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Raquel S. Mejia, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Time Warner Cable Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
06445 (S.D.N.Y., August 14, 2015), seeks to stop Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited telemarketing calls to the
telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress for all
persons injured by the conduct.

Time Warner Cable Inc. is a Delaware corporation that is in the
business of providing cable network.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Siri, Esq.
      SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
      136 Madison Avenue 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 532-1091
      Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
      E-mail: aaron@sirillp.com

         - and -

      W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Galleria Tower I
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
              jarrett@hughesellzey.com


TOYODA GOSEI: Sued Over Alleged Automotive Hoses-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Halley Ascher, et al. v. Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., Toyoda Gosei
North America Corporation, TG Kentucky, LLC, TG Fluid Systems USA
Corporation, Sumitomo Riko Company Limited, DTR Industries, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-12893-DPH-MKM (E.D. Mich., August 14, 2015),
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and
customers in the United States for Automotive Hoses.

The Defendants are Japanese corporations that manufacture, market
and sell Automotive Hoses that were purchased throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Devon P. Allard, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 W. University Dr., Ste. 300
      Rochester, Michigan 48307
      Telephone: (248) 841-2200
      Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
      E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
              dpa@millerlawpc.com

         - and -

      Hollis Salzman, Esq.
      Bernard Persky, Esq.
      William V. Reiss, Esq.
      ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
      601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 980-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
      E-mail: HSalzman@RobinsKaplan.com
              BPersky@RobinsKaplan.com
              WReiss@RobinsKaplan.com

         - and -

      Marc M. Seltzer, Esq.
      Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 950
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
      Telephone: (310) 789-3100
      Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
      E-mail: mseltzer@susmangodfrey.com
              ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com

          - and -

      Terrell W. Oxford, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
      901 Main Street, Suite 5100
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 754-1900
      Facsimile: (214)754-1933
      E-mail: toxford@susmangodfrey.com

         - and -

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Adam J. Zapala, Esq.
      Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com
              azapala@cpmlegal.com
              etran@cpmlegal.com


TRI-TECH HOLDING: Oct. 16 Class Settlement Fairness Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of common stock of Tri-Tech Holding Inc.
(OTCMKTS:TRITF):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED TRI-TECH HOLDING INC. COMMON STOCK
BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 10, 2009 AND DECEMBER 12, 2013, INCLUSIVE

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on October 16, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Kimba M. Wood, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, New York, New
York, 10007-1312 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement consisting of the
sum of $975,000 should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed plan to
distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of attorneys'
fees of $325,000 or one-third of the settlement amount and
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $45,000 and a case
contribution award payment of no more than $9,100 collectively to
all Lead Plaintiffs, should be approved; and (4) whether the
Litigation should be dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased Tri-Tech common stock between September 10, 2009
and December 12, 2013, inclusive (the "Class Period"), your rights
may be affected by the Settlement of this action. If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action and a copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may
obtain copies by writing to the Claims Administrator at: Tri-Tech
Holding Inc. Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box
230, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063, Telephone: (866)
274-4004, Facsimile: (610) 565-7985, info@strategicclaims.net, or
going to the website www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member
of the Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release
postmarked no later than September 15, 2015 to the Claims
Administrator, establishing that you are entitled to recovery.
Unless you submit a written exclusion request, you will be bound
by any judgment rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make
a claim. If you desire to be excluded from the Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion postmarked no later than September
16, 2015, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
to the Claims Administrator.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Notice and received no later than September 26,
2015, to each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
District Court
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007-1312

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

Stephen L. Saxl
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
200 Park Avenue, 39th Floor New York, NY 10166
Tel: (212) 801-2184
Fax: (212) 801-6400

Thomas J. McKenna
GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 983-1300
Fax: (212) 983 -0383


TRUECAR: Misrepresented Growth Outlook, Class Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
TrueCar misrepresented the automotive-pricing website's growth
outlook in going public last year, shareholders claim in court,
noting that share prices have fallen 76 percent from a January
high.

Ning Shen and William Fitzpatrick are the lead plaintiffs in the
class action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court against
TrueCar, CEO Scott Painter, 10 of the company's directors, and its
IPO underwriters.

An auto-pricing and information website for new and used cars,
TrueCar lets buyers see what others paid for a certain make and
model of car. It also connects buyers to auto dealers within its
network.  The Santa Monica-based company made its highly
anticipated initial public offering in May 2014, pricing shares at
$9 per share, which was below analysts' expected price. The IPO
raised approximately $70 million.

Though TrueCar shares reached a high of $25 per share in early
2015, they quickly lost value as the company became embroiled in
litigation with auto traders over alleged noncompliance with
California and New York laws.

The company's shares have fallen 76 percent this year, and 46
percent in the last four weeks on an abysmal second-quarter
earnings report.  It traded on August 6 at $5.64 per share, and
Painter announced on August 10 that he will be stepping down as
CEO.

The class action filed on August 11 accuses the defendants of
having "negligently issued false and misleading statements and
omitted material facts from the [IPO] registration statements and
incorporated offering materials that the company filed with the
SEC in support of the offering."

Specifically, TrueCar failed to tell investors that its "business
practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice
laws because TrueCar acts as a dealer and broker in car sales
transactions without proper licensing, in violation of the laws of
a number of states," according to the complaint.

Saying TrueCar knew at the time of its IPO that its outstanding
growth in prior years was based on "unsustainable and, in effect,
unprofitable levels of sales and marketing expenses," the
shareholders claim that the company failed to disclose this fact
in its offering statements.

The shareholders seek damages for violations of the Securities
Act.  They are represented by Lion Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com
-- with Glancy, Prongay & Murray.

TrueCar spokeswoman Carly Schaffner said the company has no
comment at this time.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexios Kafatos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Uber, Technologies Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
03727-JCS (N.D. Cal., August 14, 2015), seeks to put an end of the
Defendant's practice of sending spam advertisements and
promotional offers, via text message to consumers nationwide.

Uber, Technologies Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides
transportation services.

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


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Secure Workers Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Zine, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC, Laju
Choudhury, Doe Assailant, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case
No. BC591351 (D. Cal., August 14, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to secure workers' compensation insurance
on behalf of its California drivers.

The Defendants own and operate a transportation and logistics
business in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Kristensen, Esq.
      David Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Gansen, Esq.
      GANSEN LAW GROUP
      1111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 201-7676
      Facsimile: (310) 744-0111
      E-mail: chris@gansenlawgroup.com

                           *     *     *

Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
an LA-based Uber driver who says he was beaten up by a customer
filed a class action accusing the ride-hailing upstart of refusing
to buy workers' compensation insurance.

Uber driver and lead plaintiff Omar Zine sued Uber Technologies,
Rasier LLC, Rasier-CA, Laju Choudhury, and a person identified
only as Doe Assailant, in LA County Superior Court.

"Our client was bodily assaulted, which was not an unforeseeable
harm," attorney John Kristensen told Courthouse News. "Ratepayers
have been assaulting cabbies since the dawn of rickshaw
transportation some 2,000 ago, so Uber should have known it was a
possibility."

Uber refuses to get workers' compensation insurance for drivers
because it wants to "get rid of all employment protections that
have come about in the last 200 years," he added.

The California Labor Commission in June rejected Uber's arguments
that it is a "neutral technological platform," finding that the
company is "involved in every aspect of the operation." Given that
involvement, the commission determined that drivers are properly
classified as employees and ordered Uber to pay driver Barbara
Berwick $4,152 in reimbursable business expenses.

Nevertheless, Zine says, Uber still classifies drivers as
independent contractors so it can avoid covering them under
workers' compensation insurance.  This lack of coverage meant Zine
could not drive and earn income for weeks after a customer's
friend beat him up, according to the complaint.

Zine says he was driving Choudhury and Doe in December 2014 when
he and Doe got into an argument: "A verbal dispute occurred and
Doe assailant escalated this situation by repeatedly, and
viciously, punching and hitting plaintiff in the face and head.
This heinous attack was intended to and did cause severe injury to
plaintiff, including but not limited do knocking teeth out of
plaintiff's head and breaking his jaw. Plaintiff required medical
attention and surgeries to treat the injuries inflicted by Doe
assailant," the complaint states.

Kristensen said Doe used a metal pipe or similar object during the
assault on Zine.

"He is driving again, but is not able to go back to full-time
work," Kristensen added.

Zine says he is now permanently disabled and has struggled with
depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, and humiliation after the
"heinous beating" he suffered at the hands of Doe.   He also
claims there are thousands of current and former drivers who are
entitled to workers' compensation benefits they never received
because Uber misclassified them as independent contractors.

Not covering its drivers allows Uber to do business at lower costs
than if it had properly classified drivers as employees and
purchased the insurance, according to the complaint.

Uber tried to force Zine to arbitrate the matter, but he would not
do it, Kristensen said.

"The pervasiveness of arbitration agreements has gone past the
tipping point," he said. "This case exemplifies that."

Uber did not immediately return requests for comment.

Zine wants a declaration that Uber must classify all drivers as
employees, restitution for himself and all class members for all
the profits Uber made by failing to protect them with workers'
compensation coverage, and special, punitive and exemplary damages
for unfair business practices, assault and battery.

John Kristensen -- klg@kristensenlaw.com -- is with Kristensen
Weisberg of Santa Monica, California.

Uber has been the target of several similar lawsuits since the
2013 suit brought by former drivers claiming they were
misclassified as contractors.

In June this year, Uber drivers Lori Kellett and David Cotoi of
Los Angeles sued Uber for allegedly failing to pay overtime and
regular wages and not providing them with meal and rest breaks.

An administrative law judge in mid July recommended that Uber be
fined $7.3 million for breaking several California laws, such as
failing to report on disabled accessibility requirements and
problems with drivers. Uber stated that it would appeal the
ruling.

Another Los Angeles class action accuses Uber of advertising,
falsely, that it is cheaper than traditional cab companies, while
California cabbies claim Uber lied about offering the "safest
rides on the road" via advertisements and media statements.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: No Wheelchair-Accessible Vehicles, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that the ridesharing service Uber
does not provide wheelchair-accessible vehicles for users with
disabilities, a class claims in federal court in Manhattan, New
York.


UNITED STATES: Sued Over Failure to Pay VCS Workers Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
John Mordoff, on his own behalf and for all others similarly
situated v. United States of America, Case No. 2:15-cv-02542 (W.D.
Ten., August 14, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay employees who worked for the Department of Veterans
Affairs in one of its Veterans Canteen Service (VCS) restaurants
and retail stores, overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Veterans Canteen Service operates more than 172 retail stores
nationwide. These stores offer health and beauty care products,
beverages, snacks, entertainment, electronics, gifts, stationary,
clothing, and other products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David W. Garrison, Esq.
      BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, LLC
      Bank of America Plaza
      414 Union Street, Suite 900
      Nashville, TN 37219
      Telephone: (615) 244-2202
      Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
      E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com

         - and -

      David H. Grounds, Esq.
      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      JOHNSONBECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: dgrounds@johnsonbecker.com
              tatwal@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com


UNITED STATES: Aviation Analysts/Agents Seek Back Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory D. Beatley, Jason Woody V. Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection, Department of Homeland Security, and The United States
of America, U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Case 1:15-
cv-01234-CRC (D.D.C., July 31, 2015), seeks to recover back pay,
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs state they were employed by Defendants as Aviation
Operations Analysts and/or Aviation Enforcement Agents.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edgar James, Esq.
     Darin M. Dalmat, Esq.
     Alice C. Hwang, Esq.
     JAMES & HOFFMAN, P.C.
     1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 950
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Tel: (202) 496-0500
     E-mail: ejames@jamhoff.com
             dmdalmat@jamhoff.com
             achwang@jamhoff.com

        - and -

     Linda Lipsett, Esq.
     BERNSTEIN & LIPSETT
     1130 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 950
     Washington, D.C. 20036
     Tel: (202) 296-1798
     E-mail: chouse@bernstein-lipsett.com


UWT INC: Court Trims Claims in "Labaty" RICO Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Xavier Rodriguez of the United States District
Court for Western District of Texas dismissed all of Deborah
Labaty's claims against Jeffrey Kelley, Paul Maxwell, Michael Dea,
Jeffrey Desich, and Richard Desich and dismissed the claims
against Equity Trust and Sterling Administrative Services except
in their potential capacity as successor in interest to Sterling
Trust Company's liabilities.

The case is captioned, DEBORAH (FIORE) LABATY, Plaintiff, v. UWT,
INC., ET. AL., Defendants, Case No. SA-13-CV-389-XR (W.D. Tex.).

Deborah Labaty brought a putative class action on February 22,
2013, against several defendants after she lost much of her life
savings when she attempted to invest in earth metals and the earth
metals were never delivered. She claims violations of civil
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) 18
U.S.C. Sections 1962(c) and (d) based upon predicate acts of mail
and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1341 and 1343, as well as a
Texas causes of action for fraud, conversion, negligence,
negligent misrepresentation, violations of the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, and violations of Texas Penal Code Sec.
32.46. The Defendants moving for summary judgment are companies
that act as individual retirement account (IRA) custodians and
their officers.

In April 2009, Deborah Labaty heard one of many radio
advertisements by Superior and discussion of it on a talk radio
show encouraging individuals to reinvest their retirement accounts
in gold and other precious metals. Labaty contacted Superior about
investing in precious metals and signed an investment contract
with the company on April 15, 2009. Labaty signed an application
to Sterling Trust established an SDIRA with the company. Sterling
was to act as a custodian, holding the money and permitting Labaty
to access her retirement funds, without incurring tax liabilities,
in exchange for minimal fees, like the $100 annual fee.

All Defendants argue (1) they had no knowledge of any problem with
Superior at any time relevant to this lawsuit, especially before
Labaty's transaction, (2) Labaty only provides evidence that
employees lower in the chain of command knew there might have been
an issue with Superior, and (3) even that evidence does not show
the employees knew the gold would not be delivered to customers
before Labaty decided to invest with Superior.

In his Order dated August 7, 2015 available at http://is.gd/LGhv8X
from Leagle.com, Judge Rodriguez held that Labaty failed to
establish the prerequisite elements for RICO claims under Sections
1962(c) and (d). Her RICO claims against Kelley, Maxwell, Dea,
Jeffrey Desich, Richard Desich, Equity Trust, and Sterling
Administrative Services therefore fail and that Kelley, Maxwell,
Dea, Jeffrey Desich, Richard Desich, Equity Trust, and Sterling
Administrative Services did not commit acts of mail or wire fraud
thus, these Defendants did not participate in a continuous, long-
term pattern of racketeering activity that would support the RICO
claims based on these arguments or allegations.

Deborah Labaty is represented by:

Carl Pipoly, Esq.
PIPOLY & CO.
14100 San Pedro, Suite 308,
San Antonio, TX 78232
Tel: (210)824-8000

     - and -

Jonathan E. Rawlins, Esq.
HODGES RAWLINS, LLC
508 Twilight Tr., Ste. 99
Richardson, TX 75080

Defendants are represented by Robert L. Soza, Jr., Esq.  --
rsoza@jw.com & Matthew Eric Vandenberg, Esq.  --
mvanderberg@jw.com -- JACKSON WALKER, L.L.P.


VISA INC: Court Reverses Dismissal of ATM Pricing Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman attorneys representing a class of consumers who paid
inflated ATM (automated teller machine) "access fees" announced
that the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit reversed and remanded a District Court ruling
dismissing a class action brought against Visa and MasterCard,
together with Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Wells Fargo,
for entering into agreements that set the level of those fees. The
decision revives two previously-dismissed class actions brought by
consumers as well as a class action brought by independent ATM
operators.

In February 2013, the District Court dismissed the complaints and,
in December 2013, denied Plaintiffs' motions to file amended
complaints. The D.C. Circuit's decision remands the case back to
the District Court. The decision rejects both of the District
Court's grounds for not allowing the plaintiffs to file amended
complaints, finding both that Plaintiffs had alleged the essential
components of standing and had alleged an agreement in restraint
of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

"This is a big win for consumers, who now can seek not only
damages caused by the Defendants but can now also pursue an
injunction that will spark competition in the ATM market," said
Steve Berman, managing partner of Hagens Berman who argued the
appeal before the D.C. Circuit. "The decision affirms that our
claims should be heard on their merits."

The decision concluded that the ATM operator plaintiffs had
sufficiently alleged that the Defendants' agreements injured ATM
operators by preventing operators from setting ATM fees to
encourage consumers to use lower cost cards. The court observed
that preventing competition in setting ATM access fees insulated
Visa and MasterCard from competition with other networks and
allowed them to charge inflated network service fees to ATM
operators. The Court similarly found that consumers had
sufficiently alleged that, because ATM operators could not charge
lower ATM access fees for transactions conducted over lower cost
networks, consumers had paid inflated ATM access fees. It held
that Plaintiffs' theories were susceptible to proof at trial
because they "allege a system in which Visa and MasterCard
insulate their networks from price competition from other networks
[which] yields higher profits for Visa and MasterCard . . . at the
cost of consumers and independent ATM operators." Slip Op. at 12.

The Court also held that Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged an
anti-competitive agreement under the Sherman Antitrust Act. It
determined that, even though the challenged agreements were
reached at a time when Visa and MasterCard were owned and operated
as joint ventures by a large group of retail banks -- and those
banks had since relinquished direct control over Visa and
MasterCard -- Plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged that "the member
banks used the bankcard associations to adopt and enforce a supra-
competitive pricing regime for ATM access fees." Slip Op. at 16.
The Court also found that the Defendants had not shown they had
withdrawn from any previously-established conspiracy because each
member bank continued to benefit from the challenged agreements.

Hagens Berman's lawsuit asks the court to issue an injunction
preventing Visa and MasterCard from enforcing fee restrictions on
ATMs. The suit also seeks damages for the allegedly higher prices
consumers were forced to pay to use ATMs across the country.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
Cambridge, MA 02142
Tel. (617) 482-3700
Fax. (617) 482-3003
www.hbsslaw.com.


VASCO DATA: Briscoe Law Firm Files Securitites 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 against VASCO Data
Security International, Inc. ("VASCO" or "Company") (NasdaqCM:
VDSI) and several officers and directors for acts taken during the
period of February 18, 2014 to July 21, 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 VASCO. If you are an affected VASCO
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.

In 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
defendants' misrepresented and/or failed to disclose that its
products were illegally sold to parties in Iran in violation of
federal laws prohibiting such sales. The complaint also alleges
that VASCO lacked adequate internal controls. VASCO announced in
an 8-K filed with the SEC that certain products sold by a VASCO
European subsidiary to a third-party distributor may have been
resold to parties in Iran. When the truth emerged the Company's
stock fell over 3%.

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.

Willie Briscoe , Esq.
The Briscoe Law Firm
8150 N Central Expy, Dallas, TX 75206, United States
Phone:+1 214-239-4568
www.thebriscoelawfirm.com/


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Brake System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bryan Burra, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. and
Does 1 to 50, Case No. BC590842 (C.D. Cal., August 17, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all the persons in California who purchased
or leased model year 2013 Volkswagen Jetta Hybrid vehicles, with
defective braking system.

Volkswagen of America, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that
designs, manufactures, constructs, assembles, markets,
distributes, and sells automobiles and other motor vehicles and
motor vehicle components throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert L. Starr, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. STARR, APC
      23277 Ventura Boulevard
      Woodland Hills, CA 91364-1002
      Telephone: (818) 225-9040
      Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
      E-mail: robert@starrlawmail.com

         - and -

      Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, APC
      6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 924-3103
      Facsimile: (818) 924-3079
      E-mail: stephen@smh-legal.com


YAHOO! INC: 9th Cir. Rejects Appeal on Class Cert. Order
--------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
the Ninth Circuit refused to intervene in an advancing class
action that says Yahoo scans emails to target nonsubscribers with
advertisements.

Judge Andrew Hurtwitz and Senior Judge Michael Hawkins issued a
one-page order, rejecting Yahoo's motion to appeal the grant of
class certification.

Four people who do not use Yahoo but sent emails to people who do
brought the lawsuit at issue in 2013, accusing Yahoo of violating
state and federal wiretap and privacy laws by scanning their
emails and using the information to send targeted advertising.

Yahoo argued that consent to email scanning is part of its
crystal-clear terms of service, and that subscribers are the ones
who must warn nonsubscribers that emails will be scanned,
collected and analyzed for advertising purposes.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh previously sheared off most of the
class's initial claims, allowing only a single alleged violation
of the federal Stored Communications Act and a claim under the
California Invasion of Privacy Act to advance.  She certified a
nationwide class on the federal claim this May, designating the
class as including all nonsubscribers living in the United States
who have sent at least one email to a Yahoo subscriber since Oct.
2, 2011.

Though Koh declined nationwide class certification on the
California privacy claim, citing differences among the other 49
states' privacy laws, she did certify a subclass consisting of
only California residents.

Counsel for both parties could not immediately be reached for
comment.

The case is, CODY BAKER; et al., Plaintiffs - Respondents, v.
YAHOO! INC., Defendant - Petitioner, No. 15-80101 (9th Cir.).


YELP INC: Reviewers Do Not Need to be Paid, Judge Says
------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that Yelp reviewers are volunteers, not employees, and therefore
don't need to be paid, a federal judge for the Northern District
of California ruled.

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the putative class
action brought by a class of reviewers who claimed their
contributions to the website constituted a employer-employee
relationship.

Lead plaintiff Lily Jeung complained she was "hired" by Yelp, that
Yelp controls reviewers' "work schedule and conditions" and that
two of the three named plaintiffs were "fired" with "no warning
and a flimsy explanation."

Seeborg found the plaintiffs "use the term 'hired' to refer to a
process by which any member of the public can sign up for an
account on the Yelp website and submit reviews, and the term
'fired' to refer to having their accounts involuntarily closed,
presumably for conduct that Yelp contends breached its terms of
service agreement."

But the reviewers' contributions to the site "at most would
constitute acts of volunteerism," he wrote.

Based on the plaintiffs' "mere conclusory allegations" and their
"rambling and invective-filled papers," Seeborg dismissed the
suit.  He also denied their request for sanctions against Yelp.

Adrianos Facchetti, Esq., Yelp's attorney, said in an email that
the action was a "frivolous lawsuit that should never have been
filed."  He may be reached at:

     Adrianos Facchetti, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ADRIANOS FACCHETTI
     301 E Colorado Blvd
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Tel: 626-793-8607

"The argument that voluntarily using a free service equates to an
employment relationship is absurd on its face, unsupported by law
and contradicted by the existence of dozens of websites like Yelp
that consumers use to help one another," he said.

The plaintiffs could not be reached for comment. They are
represented by Daniel Bernath, whose office is in Fort Myers,
Florida.

The case is, LILY JEUNG, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YELP, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-02228-RS (N.D. Cal.).


* Canada Food Recalls Raw Oysters from BC Coastal Due to Vibrio
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 18, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Other
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: --
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Industry is recalling oysters harvested from BC coastal waters on
or before August 18, 2015 and intended for raw consumption from
the marketplace due to possible Vibrio parahaemolyticus
contamination. Consumers should not consume and distributors,
retailers and food service establishments such as hotels and
restaurants should not sell or use the recalled product described
below.

This recall applies to oysters sold for raw consumption which may
have unacceptable levels of Vibrio parahaemolyticus. Consumers who
are unsure if they have affected oysters should check with their
place of purchase.

Check to see if you have recalled product in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased. Consumers, retailers and distributors who are
unsure if they have purchased affected oysters should contact the
location where they were purchased.

Vibrio is a naturally-occurring bacterium that can be present at
high levels in coastal waters during periods of increased water
temperatures. Most people come in contact with Vibrio by eating
raw or undercooked shellfish, especially oysters.

Illnesses can be avoided if shellfish are cooked before being
eaten. People with weakened immune systems, young children,
pregnant women and older adults are at increased risk for
developing complications if they get sick.

There have been reported illnesses associated with the consumption
of this product.

This recall was triggered by an investigation into a foodborne
illness outbreak. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand     Common name     Size     Code(s) on             UPC
  name      -----------     ----     product                ----
  -----                              ----------
  Various   Oysters for     Various  All product harvested  None
            raw consumption          from BC coastal waters
                                     on or before August 18,
                                     2015 which may have
                                     unacceptable levels of
                                     Vibrio parahaemolyticus
                                     contamination.


* Davis Wright Adds Employment Class Action Pro In Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------
Christine Powell, writing for Law 360, reported that Davis Wright
Tremaine LLP bolstered its labor and employment practice with a
San Francisco-based partner from Miller Law Group LLC who has more
than three decades of experience representing employers in class
actions and single-plaintiff litigation, the firm said.

Tracy Thompson, who has defended clients such as Foot Locker
Retail Inc. and United Air Lines Inc., brings to the firm her
experience across a wide range of labor and employment law, which
in recent years has focused primarily on wage and hour class
actions in both state and federal court. M. Michael Cole, who
worked alongside Thompson at Miller Law Group, is also joining
Davis Wright as of counsel. The pair started working at the firm
in early June.

"A significant part of my practice involves class actions, so part
of my impetus for coming to Davis Wright was to have a larger
platform to expand my class action practice," Thompson told
Law360. "I've worked at smaller firms for the past nine years and
I felt that it made sense for me to go back to a larger practice
with a national presence."

Thompson has defended employers against claims for meal and rest
breaks, misclassification, off the clock work, security bag
checks, vacation pay, forced patronage, uniforms, claims for
indemnity and claims under the California Private Attorneys
General Act, according to Davis Wright.

Thompson said she enjoys her employment practice largely because
the issues typically arise from a "very human level," which she
said presents interesting and challenging work.

For example, she successfully defended Foot Locker in a putative
class action that alleged the retailer failed to reimburse
employees for purchasing uniforms. Foot Locker's $2 million
settlement was upheld by a California appeals court in 2012,
although the appeals court initially overturned the trial court's
approval of the settlement, asking for more evidence to support
its finding that the settlement was fair.

"In doing that, the court for the first time really in class
action history delineated what the role of the court is in
approving the settlement," Thompson said. "In that sense [the
case] is fairly important in the canon of approving the
settlements."

Thompson said that she and Cole, who she recruited to work with
her at Miller Law Group after they met at Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP, wanted to make the move to Davis Wright as a team.

"We spent many years working together, working very closely
together," Thompson said. "I have tremendous confidence in his
abilities. He worked on many if not all of the class actions we
handled. It was important for both of us to find a forum where we
could stay together and develop and expand our practice."

Thompson worked as a shareholder at Miller Law Group LLP for six
and a half years. Before that, she worked at Brobeck Phleger &
Harrison LLP, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Lewis
& Bockius LLP, and her own firm Cook Roos Wilbur Thompson LLP,
according to Davis Wright. She received a law degree from the
University of Virginia School of Law in 1979, a Master of Public
Administration from Harvard University in 1990 and a bachelor's
degree in political science from Mount Holyoke College in 1974.

Cole worked as senior counsel at Miller Law Group for four years,
according to Davis Wright. Prior to that, he worked at Sheppard
Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP and
clerked for Judge Peter W. Hall at the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit. Cole received a law degree from
Northwestern University in 2003 and a Bachelor of Science in
industrial and labor relations from Cornell University in 2000.



* Healthcare Employers Continue to Defend OT Suits
--------------------------------------------------
William P. Schurgin, Esq. -- wschurgin@seyfarth.com -- and Jason
J. Englund, Esq. -- jenglund@seyfarth.com -- at Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
in an article for Lexology, wrote that over the past decade,
healthcare employers have faced a wave of wage and hour lawsuits
challenging common industry pay practices for nurses and other
workers.  Many healthcare providers continue to defend against a
variety of overtime suits.  Over the same time period, the United
States Department of Labor ("DOL") has worked to expand the
overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
has been increasingly active in conducting enforcement
investigations targeting the overtime pay practices of healthcare
providers.  Recent settlements resulting from DOL investigations
include a $4 million settlement on behalf of over 4,500 nurses and
hospital technicians who claimed they were not paid the proper
amount of overtime.  Similarly large settlements have been struck
in state and federal class action litigation across the country.

The surge of wage and hour litigation and regulatory activity has
hit healthcare providers at a time when the industry's efforts to
control costs, improve efficiencies, respond and adjust to
healthcare reform legislation, and retain employees are being
tested more than ever before.  Long-term care and home healthcare
providers, in particular, have been a target of increased DOL
scrutiny.  As the wave of overtime litigation continues, it is
critical that employers monitor these developments and ensure that
nurses and related employees are classified and paid correctly.

Focus on "Automatic" Meal Break Deductions

The vast majority of these overtime lawsuits filed allege that
hourly paid nurses and other employees routinely perform work
"off-the-clock" for which they are not properly compensated. The
complaints most often focus on healthcare employers' use of a so-
called "automatic" meal break deduction, which assumes that the
employee received an entire uninterrupted unpaid meal period. The
DOL takes the position that an employee does not need to be
compensated for a "bona fide" meal period, but an employee must be
completely relieved from duty during a meal period which
ordinarily should be at least 30 minutes in duration.  The
lawsuits allege that when timekeeping systems are structured to
build in an assumption that full meal breaks will be taken, they
result in a deduction from employees' pay when the employee has,
in fact, not received an uninterrupted meal break, allegedly
resulting in failure to pay for work in excess of forty hours per
week.

Plaintiffs also frequently allege that healthcare employees are
not compensated for work performed before and after scheduled
shifts and for mandatory training time. See, e.g., Giles v. St.
Charles Health Sys., Inc., No. 13-cv-00019 (D. Or. Oct. 22, 2013).
State law claims are another mainstay of this type of lawsuit, as
many states require meal breaks for certain employees by statute
or regulation.

The class and collective action complaints filed against
healthcare providers in these actions are often recycled from one
healthcare employer and jurisdiction to the next, and are devoid
of allegations specific to the named plaintiff or the defendants
being sued. Recently, federal courts have increasingly rejected
such vague allegations and have required plaintiffs to plead
specifically that they worked more than 40 hours in a given
workweek without being compensated. See, e.g., Davis v. Abington
Memorial Hospital, 765 F.3d 236 (3rd Cir. 2014); Lundy v. Catholic
Health System of Long Island, Inc., 711 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2013).
The case law is not consistent among the Circuits, however, and
the Supreme Court has not addressed the degree of specificity
required to state an FLSA claim. Accordingly, while some baseless
overtime claims on behalf of nurses and other healthcare
professionals may be weeded out at the pleadings stage,
plaintiffs' lawyers continue to file these suits.

Misclassification Claims

While the majority of overtime suits on behalf of nurses and other
healthcare workers have targeted pay practices for hourly workers,
healthcare providers may also face suits challenging the
classification of nurses who are treated as exempt under the FLSA.
Under the relevant DOL regulations, registered nurses generally
meet the learned professional exemption to the FLSA if they are
licensed with the appropriate state examining board and are paid
on a salary or fee basis, but the regulations specifically exclude
licensed practical nurses from the exemption. 29 C.F.R. Section
541.301(e).

Professional certification is not by itself sufficient to support
classification as exempt, however, because exempt status also
depends on the duties actually performed by the nurse and whether
the nurse is paid on a salary basis. In recent years, even
registered nurses have challenged their exempt status by arguing
that they do not spend the majority of their time on patient care.
See, e.g., Rieve v. Coventry Health Care, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 58603 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2012). Other suits have challenged
whether exempt healthcare workers meet the salary basis test if
they are paid a fee that varies according to the time it takes to
complete the work. See Rindfleisch v. Gentiva Health Servs., 2013
WL 4494375 (N.D. Ga. July 26, 2013). Healthcare employers should
thus carefully consider the duties and payment arrangements of
nursing professionals who are classified as exempt, even if the
title has traditionally been deemed exempt under the regulations.

Proposed Changes to Overtime Rules

In addition to the threat of class action suits, healthcare
employers should closely monitor the proposed revisions to the
FLSA's "white collar" exemptions to the FLSA, which could have a
profound impact on healthcare providers. On July 6, 2015, the DOL
issued proposed changes that would raise the threshold salary for
the white collar exemptions from its current level of $455 per
week ($23,660 annually) to $970 per week ($50,440 annually), with
additional increases each year thereafter. Exempt healthcare
professionals who currently earn less than $50,000 per year will
be directly impacted if the proposed regulations are adopted. In
addition, while the DOL has not proposed changes to the "duties
tests" of the exemptions, the DOL has invited comment on a series
of questions, including whether to adopt a bright-line test
requiring employers to pay overtime to employees who devote more
than 50% of their time to nonexempt work. Healthcare providers
should act now to evaluate the impact these potential changes may
have on exempt nurses and other healthcare professionals.

The Companionship Services Exemption

Another FLSA exemption impacting certain healthcare providers is
the companionship services exemption. This exemption generally
applies to employees who provide care and protection to
individuals who, due to age or infirmity, are unable to care for
themselves. The regulations exclude work performed by a registered
or practical nurse from the exemption, but home healthcare
providers have long relied on the exemption to exclude other home
healthcare workers from coverage of the FLSA. In October 2013, the
DOL issued a final rule eliminating third-party providers of home
care services from the exemption and narrowing the definition of
services qualifying as "companionship services." These changes
would in effect eliminate the ability of most employers to use the
exemption. However, before the regulations were set to take effect
in January 2015, a district court vacated the DOL's final rule,
finding that the regulations contravened the language of the
exemption in the text of the FLSA. See Home Care Ass'n of Am. v.
Weil, No. 14-cv-00967, 2014 WL 7272406 (D.D.C. Dec. 22, 2014.) The
DOL has appealed the ruling, leaving the future scope of the
companionship services exemption in doubt.

Preparing For Potential Litigation

While the legal landscape governing overtime pay remains in a
state of flux, the wave of overtime litigation and DOL scrutiny
continues. It is recommended that every employer review its wage
payment practices. Long-term care providers should periodically
review wage and hour policies and pay practices in all areas,
including employee classification, meal periods, and work
performed before and after a scheduled shift. Healthcare providers
also should actively open lines of communication with employees
about meal break policies, including the importance of taking full
meal breaks, the means by which interrupted or missed breaks must
be reported so that they can be compensated, and the critical
responsibility employees have for following complaint procedures
to bring any perceived problems promptly to the attention of the
employer. Regular training of employees and managers on topics
such as certification of time worked and receipt of meal breaks,
accurate time recording, exception reporting, and deduction
overrides are another important element of any compliance program.

Finally, long-term care providers should stay on top of the
continually evolving regulatory environment and make sure that
they have appropriate compliance mechanisms in place to manage
changes to the existing rules.


                            *********

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  * * *