CAR_Public/150831.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 31, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 173


                            Headlines


AARP SERVICES: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Austin-Spearman"
ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Brown" Suit for "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA
ALLIANTGROUP: Court Reverses Order Granting Motion to Stay
AMERICA BEST: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMERICA BEST: Faces "Touzout" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Gabriele" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Mazzio" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Price" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Riley" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Ware" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN EMPIRE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Zamansky LLC Files Class Action in N.Y.
AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Sued Over Mesh Product's Side-Effects
ARKANSAS: SC Affirms Dismissal of Claims in "Sanford"
BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Denies Motion to Compel in "Cardoza"

BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Motion to Remand Granted in Part
BROADWAY STAGES: "Neira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BUMBLE BEE: Faces Capitol Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing
BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Matthew" Suit Over Seafood-Price Fixing
CALIFORNIA QI: Recalls Duck Head, Neck Products Due to Soy Sauce

CAREER SOLUTIONS: CA Affirms Denial of Class Certification
CARMAX AUTO: Court Trims "Malone" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
CHARLEY'S STEAKHOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: CA Affirms Summary Judgment in Part
CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Rosen Law Firm Prepares Class Action Suit

COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Plotnick" ERISA Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
CLAMAR CORP: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Banegas"
CONAGRA FOODS: Court Rules in Suit Over Hunt's Tomato Products
DETROIT: Suit by LaSalle Town Houses Coop Assoc Goes to Trial
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Drama Therapy Institute's Suit Dismissed

EAST-LEX DINER: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ECHOSPHERE LLC: Tajonar Compelled to Arbitrate PAGA Claims
EMERY FEDERAL: Faces Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA, MWHL, MWPCL
ENVIROCLEAN: Wooster Residents' Class Suit Reaches Settlement
ESPESETH INC: Faces "Pope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FCA US LLC: Motion to Dismiss "Tomassini" Case Granted in Part
GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows, Stays Proceedings in "Backus" Case
IDAHO: Balla Case to Continue for at Least Another Two Years
JUD PROPERTIES: Sued Over Handicap Inaccessible Parking Spaces
KAPOWSIN MEATS: Recalls Pork Products Due to Salmonella

KENTUCKY: Court Dismisses Suit v. Housing Authority as Malicious
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Parties Directed to Conduct Discovery
KRAFT HEINZ: Recalls Turkey Bacon Products
LOUISIANA: Class Certification in Suit v. Sheriff et al. Affirmed
MANPOWERGROUP: "Enriquez" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California

MDC PARTNERS: Firefighters Pension Plan Files Securities Suit
MDC PARTNERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Illegally Terminates Benefit Claims, Suit Says
MEXICAN GASTRONOMY: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Workers Discharge
MIDLAND FUNDING: Motion to Remand "Murray" Case Granted in Part

MOBILEIRON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
MRM SUPERMARKETS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Olivares" Suit Says
MUSIC GROUP MACAO: Court Denies in Part Motions to Seal Docs
NATIONAL BEEF: Court Approves Settlement in "Barbosa"
NESTLE INDIA: Confident on Defending Class Suit

NEVADA: Health Dept. Sued Over Fees for Medical Marijuana Cards
NICKA & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Degrassi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NINE ENERGY: "Dooley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NTELOS HOLDINGS: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Shenandoah Merger
NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Nixed

OHNH EMP: Faces "Kovalchuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ON DECK: Faces "Malafsky" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
PERFORMANT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Simmons" Suit for TCPA "Breach"
PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Class Cert Bid for Erotic Dancers Okayed
PILOT CORP: Appeals Court Wants Evidentiary Hearing in Star Case

PLAQUEMINES: East Bank Residents Set to Get Katrina Levee Deal
PRECISIONS CASTPARTS: Sued Over Proposed Bershire Merger
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over Slack-Fill Deodorant Packaging
PROTECTIVE SERVICE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL: Court Rules in LongPath Suit Over Merger

REICHENBACH RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ROY'S PIZZA: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SHUCKS MAINE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS: Final Approval Hearing in February 2016
SJAC FULTON IND: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in "Lovett"

SO-CAL DOMINOIDS: CA Flips Order Denying Arbitration
SOLARWINDS INC: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Securities Laws "Breach"
SOUFUN HOLDINGS: Sued in Ohio Over False Business Advertisements
SOUTHEASTERN ARCHEOLOGICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Court Trims Claims in "Digiacomo" Action

TOWERS WATSON: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger
TOYODA GOSEI: Sued in Michigan Over Brake Hose-Price Fixing
TRICARE MANAGEMENT: Court Reopens "Flores" Class Suit
UNITED AIRLINES: Dismissal of Senior Discount Class Suit Upheld
UNITED STATES: DSHS Failures are Rarely Punished

USAA CASUALTY: 11th Cir. Tosses Appeal in Insurance Refund Case
VELOCITY EXPRESS: Court Grants Motion on Successor Liability
VISION HOMES: Sued Over Breach of Home Improvement Contracts
WHOLE FOODS: Faces "Markman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
WORLD EMBLEM: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims

YELP: Class Suit Over "Employment Status" Dismissed

* Employee Overtime Cases Could Wind Up Before Supreme Court


                            *********


AARP SERVICES: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Austin-Spearman"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ethel Austin-Spearman, Plaintiff, v. AARP and AARP Services Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-1288 (KBJ)(D.D.C.), alleges that
defendants AARP and AARP Services Inc. violated the privacy policy
because the AARP's website was configured to permit companies like
Facebook and Adobe to collect personally identifiable information
(PII) about the user. Austin-Spearman's class action complaint
contained five counts: (1) breach of contract, (2) unjust
enrichment, (3) intentional misrepresentation, (4) fraud by
omission, and (5) violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection
Procedures Act (DCCPPA)  She maintained that Defendants' breach of
the AARP's own privacy promises injured her economically because
she would not have tendered the fee to purchase an AARP membership
had she known that the organization would permit the collection of
her PII by Facebook and other third parties.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of Article III
standing and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia in the Memorandum Opinion dated
June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ohLmGYfrom Leagle.com,
granted the motion to dismiss, finding that the complaint's
allegations were insufficient to establish that Defendants'
practices regarding user data violate the AARP's internet Privacy
Policy and it was entirely implausible that Austin-Spearman
suffered the injury she relied upon for standing (an economic
injury) as a result of the AARP's purported violation of its
internet-usage Privacy Policy.

Plaintiff is represented by Alicia E. Hwang, Esq. --
ahwang@edelson.com -- Benjamin S. Thomassen, Esq. --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Jay Edelson, Esq. --
jedelson@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC, Maria Christina Simon, Esq.
-- msimon@thegellerlawgroup.com -- THE GELLER LAW GROUP, PLLC

Defendants are represented by Thomas E. Gilbertsen, Esq. --
tegilbertsen@Venable.com -- Michael P. Bracken, Esq. --
mpbracken@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP


ABM INDUSTRIES: Faces "Brown" Suit for "Unpaid" Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Brown and others similarly-situated v. Abm Industries,
Inc.; ABM Janitorial Services, Inc.; ABM Janitorial Services -
North Central, Inc., Diversco, Inc., ABM Janitorial Services -
Southeast, LLC,  Case: 1:15-cv-06729 (N.D. Ill. July 31, 2015)
seeks relief for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate and maintain a fleet of service
vehicles that support all operations, including janitorial
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

      - and -

     James X. Bormes, Esq.
     Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
     8 S. Michigan Ave., Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tell: (312) 201-0575

      - and -

     Glen J. Dunn, Jr., Esq.
     Angel Bakov, Esq.
     Haig A. Himidian, Esq.
     GLEN J. DUNN & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
     221 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1414
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tell: (312) 546-5056


ALLIANTGROUP: Court Reverses Order Granting Motion to Stay
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Verdugo appealed from an order granting a motion to stay
her lawsuit against AlliantGroup L.P.  Plaintiff filed a wage and
hour lawsuit against Alliantgroup alleging that her employer
failed to pay overtime and other forms of compensation, provide
meal and rest breaks, and provide accurate wage statements to all
California employees, but also establish specific remedies for an
employer's violation of these provisions, including recovery of
unpaid wages, interest, civil penalties, and attorney fees. The
trial court stayed the action based on the forum selection clause
of the employment agreement which designated Harris County, Texas,
as the exclusive forum and Texas law as governing all disputes.

In the motion, Verdugo contended that the trial court erred
because enforcing the forum selection clause and related choice-
of-law clause violates California's public policy on employee
compensation.

Judge Richard M. Aronson of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division Three, in the Opinion dated June 25,
2015 available at http://is.gd/cseRpefrom Leagle.com, reversed
the order granting the motion to stay, holding that Verdugo's
claims would not make Texas an unsuitable forum, and would not
necessarily allow the trial court to resume proceedings on
Verdugo's claims. The possibility the trial court could resume
proceedings on Verdugo's claims fails to establish enforcing the
forum selection clause would not diminish Verdugo's unwaivable
statutory rights under the Labor Code.

The appellate case is, RACHEL VERDUGO, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
ALLIANTGROUP, L.P., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. G049139
(Cal. App. Ct.).

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James M. Gilbert, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JAMES M. GILBERT
     23 Corporate Plz, Ste #150
     Newport Beach, CA 92660

          - and -

     Darren D. Daniels, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DARREN D. DANIELS
     8001 Irvine Center Dr # 1575
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Tel: (949)387-0011

Defendant is represented by Julie A. Dunne, Esq. --
jdunne@littler.com -- Khatereh S. Fahimi, Esq. --
sfahimi@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON


AMERICA BEST: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Sanchez and other similarly situated individuals v. America
Best Car Rental KF Corp. d/b/a America Best Crkf Corp d/b/a
Sunshine Rent-A Car, Fort Lauderdale Auto Leasing Corp., Kamal
Fereg, Omar Fajardo, and Roberto Hiptyn, Case No. 1:15-cv-23162-
CMA (S.D. Fla., August 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a car rental shop in Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


AMERICA BEST: Faces "Touzout" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Touzout, and other similarly situated individuals v. America
Best Car Rental KF Corp. d/b/a America Best Crkf Corp d/b/a
Sunshine Rent-A Car, Fort Lauderdale Auto Leasing Corp., Kamal
Fereg, Omar Fajardo, and Roberto Hiptyn, Case No. 0:15-cv-61767-
DMM (S.D. Fla., August 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a car rental shop in Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Gabriele" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemarie Gabriele v. Southwest Airlines Co., American Airlines
Group Inc., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and Delta Air
Lines, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01975-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla., August 24,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
prices of airline tickets through a number of means, including
colluding to limit seat capacity and signaling other airlines on
how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra seats in
order to limit the capacity of passenger airline travel in the
United States.

The Defendants own and operate the largest commercial airline
company in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LO 70130
      Telephone: (504) 524-5777
      Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
      E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
              c.stamant@kanner-law.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Mazzio" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Mazzio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental
Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07422
(N.D. Ill., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise and
maintain the price of domestic air travel services in the United
States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Price" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Price, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.
Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Continental Holdings, Inc., United
Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 0:15-cv-03358-
PJS-BRT (D. Minn., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise
and maintain the price of domestic air travel services in the
United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Riley" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
James J. Riley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.
Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Continental
Holdings, Inc., United Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-03225-MJD-TNL (D. Minn., August 6, 2015), arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and
conspiracy to raise and maintain the price of domestic air travel
services in the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      David S. Corwin, Esq.
      Vicki L. Little, Esq.
      Bridget L. Halquist, Esq.
      SHER CORWIN WINTERS LLC
      190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 721-5200
      Facsimile: (314) 721-5201
      E-mail: dcorwin@scwstl.com
              vlittle@scwstl.com
              bhalquist@scwstl.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Ware" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Ware, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.
Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Continental Holdings, Inc., United
Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 1:15-cv-07424
(N.D. Ill., August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise and
maintain the price of domestic air travel services in the United
States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


AMERICAN EMPIRE: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company lost on its bid to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case, JEFFREY J.
VIENS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICA EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES INS.
CO., Defendant, Case No. 3:14CV952(JBA)(D. Conn.).

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Viens, Pamela Viens, Karen Wellikoff, Finney
Lane Realty Associates, LLC, and the Connecticut Fair Housing
Center filed a putative class action against Defendant Defendant
American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company  for alleged
discrimination in violation of the Fair Housing Act, (FHA) and the
Connecticut Fair Housing Act, (CFHA) by Defendant's insurance
underwriting criteria that charged higher premiums or denied
coverage to landlords who rented apartments to tenants receiving
Section 8 housing assistance. Plaintiffs contended that such
practice had a disparate impact on racial minorities and was
impermissible discrimination under state law against those
receiving housing assistance.

In the motion to dismiss, Defendant contended that both the FHA
and CFHA were limited to the initial acquisition of housing, and
did not apply where, as here, the alleged wrongdoing occured after
the dwelling already been sold.

District Judge Janet Bond Arterton of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut in the Ruling dated June 23,
2015 available at http://is.gd/RrCfXIfrom Leagle.com, denied
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
concluding that the FHA and CFHA applied to post-acquisition
claims, because (1) the words "privileges" and "services or
facilities" in the statutes connote continuing rights beyond the
acquisition of housing; (2) HUD regulations, which the Supreme
Court has recognized as holding "great weight," recognized such
claims, and (3) such claims were consistent with the "broad and
liberal construction" given to the FHA and CFHA.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jean Zachariasiewicz, Esq. --
jzachariasiewicz@relmanlaw.com -- RELMAN, & Stephen M. Dane, Esq.
-- sdane@relmanlaw.com -- RELMAN, DANE & COLFAX, PLLC-DC,

          - and -

     Greg J. Kirschner, Esq.
     CONNECTICUT FAIR HOUSING CENTER
     221 Main St
     Hartford, CT 06106
     Tel: (860)-247-4400

Defendants are represented by Diane Curran Polletta, Esq. --
dpolletta@goodwin.com -- Jill M. O'Toole, Esq. --
jotoole@goodwin.com -- SHIPMAN & GOODWIN


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Zamansky LLC Files Class Action in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
Zamansky LLC announces its investigation of the American Express
Co. AXP, -0.36% ("Amex") Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") for
possible violations of the federal Employment Retirement
Securities Act ("ERISA"). ERISA imposes fiduciary duties to
prudently manage and invest the assets of the Plan. These duties
were potentially violated by AmEx's continued offering of its
company stock while it allegedly knew that the stock price was
artificially inflated.

On July 30, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against Amex in
the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 15-CV-
5999, alleging securities fraud. The complaint alleges that from
Oct. 16, 2014 and Feb. 11, 2015, Amex made material
misrepresentations to investors about the status of the company's
negotiations with Costco over the renewal or lapse of their co-
branding agreement. Amex failed to disclose or warn investors that
a loss of their partnership -- which was imminent, would have
significant financial impact to investors.

When Amex announced that it lost the deal with Costo and its
partnership would expire, the company's stock price suffered a
nine-percent drop. According to the complaint, Wall Street
analysts lowered future price targets acknowledging the long-term
impact to Amex's future profits.

According to employee stock fraud attorney, Jake Zamansky, Amex's
existing and former employees who purchased and held company stock
through the Plan since at least October 16, 2014, have suffered
damage and losses to their retirement savings. The allegations
about securities fraud by Amex in its public disclosures raise
serious issues for Amex Plan participants over the prudent
monitoring and oversight of the Plan under ERISA for artificial
inflation of the stock price, he states.

What Amex Employees or Former Employees Can Do

If you are an existing or former Amex employee who purchased or
held Amex stock through the Retirement Savings Plan, please
contact our firm for an evaluation of your rights. You can contact
Jake Zamansky by telephone at (212) 742-1414 or by email at
jake@zamansky.com.


Jake Zamansky, Esq.
Zamansky LLC
50 Broadway, New York, NY 10004
Phone:+1 212-742-1414
jake@zamansky.com
www.zamansky.com


AMERICAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS: Sued Over Mesh Product's Side-Effects
---------------------------------------------------------------
9News reports that a large group of Australian women are taking on
a major US medical company after suffering devastating side-
effects from products used to support weak pelvic floor muscles,
with the products still available in Australia.

Prolapse occurs when the connecting muscle and tissue which
supports the bladder, uterus and bowel are weakened, causing
organs to drop. It affects one in four Australian women.

Patricia Stiles first suffered the traumatic but common condition
after the birth of her third child more than 30 years ago.

"Sometimes I'm in so much pain my legs swell, my hands swell, I
can't even get out of bed with the pain," she said.

Ms. Stiles' prolapse was allegedly made worse by the very thing
that was meant to fix it, a mesh product used to help lift the
organs back in place.

She is now one of hundreds of Australians preparing to sue medical
manufacturer American Medical Systems (AMS).

It is claimed the mesh -- made of plastic called polypropylene  --
can perforate organs and erode tissue, causing severe pain,
bleeding and infection.

Two warnings were issued by the Food and Drugs Administration in
the United States in 2008 and 2011.

However the 64-year-old grandmother said she was never told there
was any risk of using the mesh product.

A class action in the US has seen 30,000 claims settled, with the
company paying out almost US$1 billion.

Australian legal firm Shine Lawyers has been working on more than
100 claims.

AMS told 9NEWS it cannot comment on the Australian cases while
there is ongoing litigation.


ARKANSAS: SC Affirms Dismissal of Claims in "Sanford"
-----------------------------------------------------
Gary Sanford, Linda Yeager, Wayne Lilley, Lilley Paint Co., Inc.,
and Airmotive, Inc., appealed an order of the Pulaski County
Circuit Court dismissing their complaint brought against Richard
Weiss, in his official capacity as Director, Arkansas Department
of Finance & Administration (DF&A),  in which they alleged
illegal-exaction claims and due-process violations in the case
captioned, GARY SANFORD; LINDA YEAGER; WAYNE LILLEY; LILLEY PAINT
CO., INC., AN ARKANSAS CORPORATION; AND AIRMOTIVE, INC., AN
ARKANSAS CORPORATION, APPELLANTS, v. LARRY WALTHER, DIRECTOR,
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION, APPELLEE, Case
No. CV-14-1056 (Ark.).

On November 1, 2013, appellants filed a Second Amended & Restated
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Against Illegal
Exactions Imposed by DF&A. Appellants alleged that DF&A's method
of imposing, levying, and collecting interest on certain state
tax-delinquencies is unlawful, unconstitutional, and usurious and
constitutes an illegal exaction in violation of article 16,
section 13, of the Arkansas Constitution. DF&A filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint pursuant to Arkansas Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), alleging that appellants had
failed to plead facts necessary to establish subject-matter
jurisdiction and that appellants had failed to plead facts on
which relief may be granted. The circuit court entered an order
dismissing with prejudice appellants' second amended complaint.

Chief Justice Jim Hannah of the Supreme Court of Arkansas in the
Memorandum Order dated June 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Gmf9cyfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the dismissal of the
claims finding that the circuit court correctly ruled that
appellants failed to plead facts to support their due-process-
violation claims.

Appellants are represented by:

     Neil Deininger, Esq.
     Reba M. Wingfield, Esq.
     DEININGER & WINGFIELD, P.A.
     920 W. 2nd Street
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Tel: (501)372-3843

          - and -

     Eugene G. Sayre, Esq.
     Stephen L. Curry, Esq.
     HATFIELD & SAYRE
     401 W Capitol Ave # 502
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Tel: (501)374-9010

Appellees are represented by Joel DiPippa, Esq.,  ATTORNEY
SUPERVISOR, REVENUE LEGAL COUNSEL


BLOOMIN' BRANDS: Court Denies Motion to Compel in "Cardoza"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants filed a motion to compel in the case captioned, BROOKE
CARDOZA, et al., Plaintiff(s) v. BLOOMIN' BRANDS, INC., et al.,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:13-CV-01820-JAD-NJK.

Outback Steakhouse Restaurant employees filed a collective action
and putative multi-state class action alleging that their employer
failed to pay overtime and minimum wage to thousands of minimum-
wage employees, violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
various state employment laws.

In the motion, Defendants sought more detailed responses from
Plaintiffs regarding various contention interrogatories and
detailed damages calculations from Plaintiff's initial
disclosures.

District Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada in the Order dated June 22, 2015
available at http://is.gd/PkhA3Jfrom Leagle.com, denied
Defendants' motion to compel finding that an order compelling
supplementation of Plaintiffs' initial disclosures unnecessary
given the current stage of the case.

Plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Scott Schrager, Esq. --
bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Eric Levinrad, Esq. --
elevinrad@wrslawyers.com -- WOLF, RIFKIN, SHAPIRO, SCHULMAN &
RABKIN, LLP, Jason J. Thompson, Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com --
Jesse L. Young, Esq. -- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ,
P.C., Timothy J. Becker, Esq. -- tbecker@johnsonbecker.com --
Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. -- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- JOHNSON
BECKER, PLLC

Defendants are represented by Catherine A. Conway, Esq. --
cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Jesse A. Cripps, Jr, Esq. --
jcripps@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP, Kevin
David Johnson, Esq. -- kjohnson@tsghlaw.com --  Marquis William
Heilig, Esq. -- mheilig@tsghlaw.com -- THOMPSON, SIZEMORE,
GONZALEZ & HEARING, PA


BRINDERSON CONSTRUCTORS: Motion to Remand Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted, in part,
Plaintiff's motion to remand in the case captioned, KIERRE
TOWNSEND, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BRINDERSON CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV-14-5320 FMO (RZX)(C.D. Cal.).

On June 3, 2014, plaintiff Kierre Townsend filed a class action
complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants
Brinderson Constructors, Inc. (Brinderson), BP America, Inc. (BP
America), and BP Corporation North America, Inc. (BP NA).  The
Complaint asserted five claims for relief under California law:
(1) failure to provide meal periods; (2) failure to provide rest
periods; (3) failure to pay hourly and overtime wages; (4) failure
to timely pay final wages; and (5) unfair competition. Plaintiff
sought to represent several subclasses of persons employed by
Brinderson in hourly or non-exempt positions in California during
the relevant time period, which was defined as the "time period
beginning four years prior to the filing of this action until
judgment is entered. The Complaint alleged that the individual
claims of the purported class members are under $75,000 and that
the aggregate claims were under $5,000,000.

On July 8, 2014, Brinderson removed the case to the Federal
district court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction and
the Class Action Fairness Act.

Distrcit Judge Fernando M. Olguin of the United States District
Court for the Central District of Claifornia in the Order dated
June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ZBIVz7from Leagle.com,
granted in part, Plaintiff's motion to remand, sending the action
back to the Superior Court of the State of California and denied
as to Plaintiff's request Plaintiff's request for fees and costs
finding that Birnderson did not lack an objectively reasonable
basis for removal.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     C. Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     Neil Michael Larsen, Esq.
     Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     9454 Wilshire Blvd
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: (310)888-7771

Defendants are represented by Kevin Dennis Sullivan, Esq. --
ksullivan@ebglaw.com -- Michael S. Kun, Esq. -- mkun@ebglaw.com --
EPSTEIN BECKER AND GREEN PC


BROADWAY STAGES: "Neira" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Neira and Efrain Calle, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated v. Broadway Stages Ltd., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-04616 (E.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Broadway Stages Ltd. is in the film, television and music
production facilities business with 27 studios in Brooklyn and
Queens and operations in Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bradford D. Conover, Esq.
      CONOVER LAW OFFICES
      75 Rockefeller Plaza, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 588-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 763-5001
      E-mail: brad@conoverlaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces Capitol Suit Over Seafood Product-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Hill Supermarket, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Triunion Seafoods LLC,
and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01867-AJB-WVG (S.D. Cal.,
August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize prices for shelf-stable packaged seafood products within
the United States.

The Defendants are the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1675
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 226-1015
      Facsimile: (202) 789-1819
      E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
      Joel Davidow, Esq.
      Daniel M. Cohen, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      507 C Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20002
      Telephone: (202)789-3960
      Facsimile: (202)589-1813
      E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
              joel@cuneolaw.com
              danielc@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Taylor Asen
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      16 Court Street, Suite 1012
      Brooklyn, NY 11241
      Telephone: (202)789-3960
      Facsimile: (202)589-1813
      E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces "Matthew" Suit Over Seafood-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Louise Ann Davis Mathews, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Triunion Seafoods LLC,
and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01878-L-JLB (S.D. Cal.,
August 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and
stabilize prices for shelf-stable packaged seafood products within
the United States.

The Defendants are the three largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kimberly A. Kralowec, Esq.
      Kathleen Styles Rogers, Esq.
      Chad A. Saunders, Esq.
      THE KRALOWEC LAW GROUP
      44 Montgomery St., Suite 1210
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 546-6800
      Facsimile: (415) 546-6801
      Email: kkralowec@kraloweclaw.com
             krogers@kraloweclaw.com
             csaunders@kraloweclaw.com


CALIFORNIA QI: Recalls Duck Head, Neck Products Due to Soy Sauce
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Qi Li's Braised Chicken, a Fremont, Calif.,
establishment, is recalling approximately 6,644 pounds of duck
head and duck neck products due to misbranding and undeclared
allergens, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products contain soy
sauce which is not declared on the product labels and has known
allergens of soy and wheat.

The duck products were produced on various dates between Feb. 11,
2015 and Aug. 13, 2015. The following products are subject to
recall:

  --- 10" x 8" vacuum sealed packages of "Chinese Brand Spicy
      Duck Heads"
  --- 10" x 8" vacuum sealed packages of "Chinese Brand Spicy
      Duck Necks"

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-40286"
inside the USDA Mark of Inspection. These items were shipped to
retail locations in California.

The problem was discovered when an FSIS inspector reviewed product
labels and noticed that soy sauce was not listed as an ingredient.
Neither FSIS nor the company has received reports of adverse
reactions due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned
about an illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Ling Li, Manager, at (408) 857-0901.

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


CAREER SOLUTIONS: CA Affirms Denial of Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Fernando Martinez appealed from the trial court's order
denying his motion for class certification against defendants
Stephan Stratton O'Hara formerly known as Stephen Jones O'Hara
(O'Hara), Career Solutions and Candidate Acquisitions (CSCA), and
Professional Realty Council, Inc. in the case captioned, FERNANDO
MARTINEZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. STEPHEN STRATTON O'HARA et
al., Defendants and Respondents, Case No. G050710 (Cal. App. Ct.).

Plaintiff sued defendants in November 2012, asserting individual
causes of action for rape (later dismissed), sexual harassment,
fraud, Labor Code violations, and wrongful termination. After
several amendments, plaintiff filed a fifth amended (operative)
complaint in August 2013, alleging causes of actions for fraud,
false advertising, unfair business practices, Labor Code
violations, sexual harassment, and a request for alter ego
findings. The cause of action for false advertising contained
class action allegations that had not been pled in the prior
complaints. Defendants moved to strike the class allegations from
the operative complaint because plaintiff had not filed a motion
for class certification and the allegations were insufficient. The
court denied the motion for class certification, based in part on
the lack of an ascertainable class or a representative with claims
typical of the class.

On appeal, Plaintiff contended, among other things, that the court
erred in finding he had failed to establish an ascertainable class
and that his claims were not typical of the putative class.

Acting Presiding Judge Rylaarsdam of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Three in the Opinion dated
June 25, 2015 available at http://is.gd/EStGvsfrom Leagle.com,
affirmed the order denying class certification because of lack of
an ascertainable class and typicality of claims were valid reasons
to deny certification of the class.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kimberley Fonner, Esq.
     Benjamin Pavone, Esq.
     OFFICES OF PAVONE & FONNER
     7676 Hazard Center Dr., 5th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Tel: (619) 224-8885

Defendants are represented by Grant G. Teeple, Esq. --
grant@teeplehall.com -- Frederick M. Reich, Esq. --
fritz@teeplehall.com -- TEEPLE HALL


CARMAX AUTO: Court Trims "Malone" Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, moved to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint (FAC) or, in the alternative, to strike
portions of it in the case captioned, Keeya Shaunta Malone, v.
CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC, et al, Case No. LA CV14-
08978 JAK (JCX)(C.D. Cal.).

On October 6, 2014, Keeya Shaunta Malone (Plaintiff) filed the
case in the Los Angeles Superior Court against CarMax. Defendant
removed the action to the federal district court on November 20,
2014. On March 2, 2015, the parties stipulated to the filing of an
amended complaint. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff filed the First
Amended FAC (FAC).  The FAC advanced four causes of action: (1)
violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2)
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200; (3) violation of
the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; and (4) fraud and deceit.

District Judge John A. Kronstadt of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California in the Order dated
June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/gslvj0from Leagle.com,
granted in part, the motion to dismiss and denied in part, the
motion to strike. The motion is denied as to Plaintiff's CLRA and
Sec. 17200 claims for alleged violations of Cal. Civ. Code Sec.
1770(a).  The motion is granted without prejudice as to
Plaintiff's CLRA and Sec. 17200 claims based on alleged violations
of Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 11713.18(a)(6).  The Court said any amended
complaint must set out a good faith, non-conclusory basis for an
allegation that CarMax inspected a component of the Lincoln that
was not listed in the CQI.  In addition, the Court said the motion
is granted without prejudice as to Plaintiff's Sec. 17200 claim
based on alleged violations of Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 11713(t).  The
motion is denied as to Plaintiff's implied warranty of
merchantability claim; and granted without prejudice as to
Plaintiff's express warranty claim; and the motion is granted
without prejudice as to Plaintiff's fraud and punitive damages
claims.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hallen David Rosner, Esq.
     Joshua Charles Anaya, Esq.
     ROSNER BARRY AND BABBITT LLP
     401 West A. St., Ste. 1100
     San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619)231-0781

Defendant is represented by:

     Cynthia Yi-San Sun, Esq.
     Jamie L. Keeton, Esq.
     Steven C. Shonack, Esq.
     Valeria Golodnitska, Esq.
     Kurt A Schlichter, Esq.
     SCHLICHTER AND SHONACK LLP
     3601 S Aviation Blvd # 2700
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Tel: (310)643-0111


CHARLEY'S STEAKHOUSE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Sherman, Michael Abraham, Sidney Jones, and William Byrd, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Charley's
Steakhouse-Cypress Street, Inc. and Talk of the Town Restaurants,
Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01824-RAL-AEP (M.D. Fla., August 6, 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 Charley's Steakhouse restaurant in
Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      Suite 300, 1110 N Florida Ave
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL: CA Affirms Summary Judgment in Part
--------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Michelle Falk appealed from the judgment of the trial
court granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendant in the
case, MICHELLE FALK, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CHILDREN'S
HOSPITAL LOS ANGELES, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B251182
(Cal. App. Ct.).

Since May 2007, four class action complaints, including Falk's,
have been filed against Children's Hospital raising wage and labor
violations. The hospital moved for summary judgment on the ground
that the her claims were time-barred.

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Children's
Hospital and against Falk on the ground her wage and labor claims
were time-barred. The court rejected Falk's argument the filing of
a prior class action tolled her limitations periods, under
American Pipe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974) 414 U.S. 538
(American Pipe), which held that, under certain circumstances, the
filing of a class action tolls a limitations period for class
members who file subsequent actions.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Three, held that American Pipe tolling applies to some of Falk's
claims, but not to others.  The Appeals Court therefore affirmed
in part and reversed in part the judgment.  In an Order dated June
24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/2EzERgfrom Leagle.com, the
Appeals Court affirmed in part as to claims subject to a one-year
limitations period and reversed in part as to claims subject to a
three- or four-year limitations period.

Plaintiff is represented by Steven Bruce Gold, Esq. --
SGold@TheGoldFirm.com -- THE GOLD FIRM, Joseph Antonelli,Esq. --
jantonelli@antonellilaw.com -- Janelle Carney, Esq. & Jason
Hatcher, Esq., LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH ANTONELLI

Defendants are represented by Derek R. Havel, Esq. --
dhavel@sheppardmullin.com -- Daniel J. McQueen, Esq. --
dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- Marlene M. Nicolas, Esq. --
mnicolas@sheppardmullin.com -- Matthew A. Tobias, Esq. --
mtobias@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON,
Linda Miller Savitt, Esq. -- lsavitt@brgslaw.com -- BALLARD
ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT


CHRISTOPHER & BANKS: Rosen Law Firm Prepares Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
it is investigating potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Christopher & Banks Corporation (NYSE:CBK)
resulting from allegations that Christopher & Banks may have
issued materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

On August 13, 2015, Christopher & Banks released its preliminary
results for the second quarter. Christopher & Banks revealed that
it currently expects to report net sales of approximately $94
million, which is below its previous guidance of between $100
million and $103 million. Consequently, Christopher & Banks no
longer expects to meet its prior full year guidance. On this news,
shares of Christopher & Banks fell $1.55 per share or over 47% to
close at $1.69 per share on August 14, 2015, damaging investors.

The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action lawsuit to recover
losses suffered by Christopher & Banks investors. If you purchased
shares of Christopher & Banks on or before August 13, 2015, please
visit the firm's website at http://rosenlegal.com/cases-698.html
for more information. You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653
or via email 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


COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Plotnick" ERISA Suit Transferred to E.D. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin McNulty of the United States District Court
for District of New Jersey adopted the Report and Recommendation
(R&R) of Magistrate Judge Cathy L. Waldor recommending that the
Defendants' motion to transfer venue be granted in the case
captioned, JEFFREY PLOTNICK, Plaintiff, v. COMPUTER SCIENCES
CORPORATION DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN FOR KEY EXECUTIVES, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-303 (KM)(D.N.J.).

Jeremy Plotnick is a former employee of defendant Computer
Sciences Corporation (CSC). Plotnick maintains residences in
Jacksonville, Alabama, and Atlantic City, New Jersey. CSC is
headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia. On January 15, 2014,
Plotnick filed a putative class action lawsuit alleging that CSC
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA) by retroactively applying an amendment to the benefits
plan in which he participates. On March 21, 2014, the defendants
moved to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Virginia. In an
R&R issued on December 23, 2014, Magistrate Judge Waldor found
that the defendants had made the requisite showing under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1404(a) in support of the transfer, and accordingly
recommended that this Court grant the Defendants' motion.

Plotnick opposed the transfer arguing that the R&R fails to afford
sufficient weight to his choice of forum given that a significant
portion of his tenure at CSC occurred while he was a New Jersey,
that he participated in the benefits plan in question while he was
a New Jersey resident, and that he continues to maintain a part-
time residence in the state.

In the Opinion dated August 7, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/w51m6Efrom Leagle.com, Judge McNulty found that
Judge Waldor correctly applied the private interest factors, and
that a fortiori her application of them was not clearly erroneous
or contrary to law. As the R&R concluded, Plotnick moved his
permanent residence to Alabama and made his "diminished presence"
in New Jersey weighing in favor of transfer.

Plaintiff is represented by Simon Bahne Paris, Esq. --
sparis@smbb.com -- SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, PC

Defendants are represented by Thomas Anton Linthorst, Esq. --
tlinthorst@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


CLAMAR CORP: Court Grants Conditional Certification in "Banegas"
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ivan L. R. Lemelle of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Louisiana granted Plaintiffs' Motion
for Conditional Class Certification and Judicial Notice pursuant
to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) in the case captioned, JOEL BANEGAS v.
CALMAR CORPORATION, Case No. 15-593 (E.D. La.).

Plaintiff Joel Banegas (Plaintiff) was employed as a sprayer by
Defendants Calmar Corporation, Don Allen, and Michel D. Richard
(Defendants). Plaintiff's job duties consisted of spraying
insulation, fireproofing, and handling other foam and coating
products. As an employee of Calmar, Plaintiff earned a cash wage
of $12.00-$13.00 per hour. Plaintiff often worked in excess of 40
hours per work week, but claims to have only received overtime for
the first five hours he worked in overtime each week. Alleging
that this arrangement violated the overtime provisions of the
FLSA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., Plaintiff filed his Complaint
in the instant action on February 25, 2015. In the Complaint,
Plaintiff alleges that other employees were subjected to similar
arrangements in violation of the provisions of the FLSA. Defendant
filed an answer presenting defenses under Rule 12(b) and denying
the plaintiff's allegations.

In the motion, Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of a
class for the purpose of asserting claims for alleged violations
by Defendants of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA). The class is defined to consist: "of all
current and former employees of Defendants who are or have been
employed by Defendants during the three years immediately
preceding the filing of this suit as hourly or non-exempt
employees and who, during that period, worked in excess of forty
hours in any work week and failed to receive premium pay, at the
rate of one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay, for all
hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek."

Plaintiff argues he has satisfied his burden of establishing that
he and the potential class members are "similarly situated" for
purposes of the first step of the two-step Lusardi class
certification process generally applied by District Courts in the
Fifth Circuit in the context of FLSA collective actions.
Defendants contend Plaintiff has failed to carry his burden of
demonstrating that he and members of the proposed class are
"similarly situated" for conditional certification purposes.
Specifically, they argue Plaintiff must show both that other
similarly situated employees exist and also that they intend to
join the suit.

In his Opinion dated August 7, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/rxI1S6from Leagle.com, Judge Lemelle held that
Plaintiff has established a likelihood that a group of individuals
situated similarly to him exists and that the Court have the
jurisdiction to exercise its discretion to facilitate notice of
action to those individuals. The Defendant's argument is not a
valid or recognized basis for denying conditional certification
under the FLSA.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Roberto L. Costales, Esq.
COSTALES LAW OFFICE
3801 Canal St
New Orleans, LA 70119
Tel: (504)534-5005

     - and -

William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW
3801 Canal St
New Orleans, LA 70119,
Tel:(504)483-8008

Defendants are represented by:

Jeffrey Alan Jones, Esq.
Robert Anthony Contreras, Esq.
D'AQUILA, CONTRERAS & VEGA, APLC
3329 Florida Ave # 100,
Kenner, LA 70065,
Tel: (504)469-6699


CONAGRA FOODS: Court Rules in Suit Over Hunt's Tomato Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Gabriele brought a putative class action against ConAgra
Foods, Inc., on behalf of Arkansas consumers pursuant to the
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and other state law causes
of action, regarding allegedly deceptive and misleading labels on
Hunt's tomato products. Gabriele alleged violations of the
Arkansas, Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (AFDCA) which served as the
factual predicate for five causes of action: (1) deceptive trade
practices in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act (ADTPA); (2) unjust enrichment; (3) breach of implied warranty
of merchantability; (4) breach of express warranty; and (5)
negligence.

ConAgra sought to dismiss the complaint due to express preemption
by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA); failure to
allege facts sufficient to support his claims; and Gabriele's lack
of standing to pursue claims for products he never purchased.

Before the court were ConAgra's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and brief in support, Plaintiff's Memorandum Regarding
the Safe Harbor Provision of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and ConAgra's Supplemental Memorandum in Support of
its Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.

District Judge Timothy L. Brooks of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado in the Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/e3Gxnxfrom
Leagle.com, granted in part ConAgra's motion with respect to
Gabriele's claims for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability and for violations of the ADTPA, dismissed without
prejudice Gabriele's claim for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability and for violation of the ADTPA. The Court
concluded that Gabriele's state law claims effectively parallel
the FDCA, and were therefore not expressly preempted.

The case is captioned, JARED GABRIELE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CONAGRA FOODS,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:14-CV-05183.

Jared Gabriele is represented by:

     Kenneth R. Shemin, Esq.
     SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
     3333 S Pinnacle Hills Pkwy # 603
     Rogers, AR 72758
     Tel: (479)250-4764

          - and -

     Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
     Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
     THRASH LAW FIRM
     3 Lakeway Centre Ct #100
     Lakeway, TX 78734
     Tel: (512)263-5400

          - and -

Sarah Sterling Starns, Esq. -- sstarns@barettlawgroup.com --
BARRETT LAW GROUP P.A.

ConAgra Foods, Inc. is represented by Angela M. Spivey, Esq. --
aspivey@mcguirewoods.com -- Joan S. Dinsmore, Esq. --
jdinsmore@mcguirewoods.com -- Richard Trent Taylor, Esq. --
rtaylor@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP, Kevin A. Crass, Esq.
-- crass@fridayfirm.com -- Roger Christopher Lawson, Esq. --
lawson@fridayfirm.com -- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP


DETROIT: Suit by LaSalle Town Houses Coop Assoc Goes to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in the case
captioned, LASALLE TOWN HOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, NICOLET
TOWN HOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, LAFAYETTE TOWN HOUSES, INC.,
JOLIET TOWN HOUSES COOPERATIVE ASSOCIATION, ST. JAMES COOPERATIVE,
Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DETROIT, Defendant, Case No. 12-CV-13747
(E.D. Mich).

Plaintiffs filed this class action suit under the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution and Article 1, Sec. 2 of the Michigan constitution.
They contended that there existed no rational basis for charging
the commercial rate to housing cooperatives with more than five
residential units. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant, the City of
Detroit (City), acting through its Water and Sewerage Department
(DWSD), arbitrarily overcharged them for water drainage services.
Plaintiffs asserted that Defendant charged them the commercial
rate for drainage services as opposed to the residential rate.
Plaintiffs further asserted that the residential rates and the
commercial rates were substantially different for structures with
water meters that were either one-and-a-half or two inches in
size.

Ditrict Judge Gershwin A. Drain of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the Opinion and
Order dated July 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/msRXxJfrom
Leagle.com, denied both Plaintiffs' and Defendant's Motion for
Summary Judgment because the parties did not overcome their burden
in demonstrating that the City violated the Michigan
Constitution's Equal Protection Clause.

Plaintiffs are represented by Kerry L. Morgan, Esq. --
kmorgan@pck-law.com -- Randall A. Pentiuk, ESq. -- rpentiuk@pck-
law.com -- PENTIUK, COUVREUR

Defendant is represented by Kathryn J. Humphrey, Esq. --
khumphrey@dykema.com -- Lauren M. Phillips, Esq. --
lmphillips@dykema.com -- Robert J. Franzinger, Esq. --
rjfranzinger@dykema.com -- Thomas H. Trapnell, Esq. --
thtrapnell@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Drama Therapy Institute's Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District of Columbia filed a motion to dismiss in the case,
ART & DRAMA THERAPY INSTITUTE, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-1604(TSC)
(D.D.C.).

Plaintiffs Art & Drama Therapy Institute, Inc. (ADTI) and its
owners, Margaret M. Dickerson and Sirkku Hiltunen, sued the
District of Columbia and two of its agencies for a variety of
claims in connection with the District's termination of ADTI as a
Medicaid waiver services provider.  Count I alleged a violation of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) on the basis of
age and national origin; Count II alleged a violation of the
District of Columbia Human Rights Act (DCHRA) for discrimination
on the basis of age and national origin; Count III alleged a
separate violation of the DCHRA for retaliation; and Count IV
alleged a violation of 48 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for, among other
things, the infringement of Plaintiffs' due process rights under
the Fifth Amendment as a result of inaccurate or improper
unreliable evidence manufacture.

In the motion, defendants argued that all counts shoud be
dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia in the Memorandum Opinion dated
June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/7Nywm7from Leagle.com,
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss because Plaintiffs could not
establish diversity of citizenship jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Sec. 1332. The Court denied Plaintiffs' mtion for eave to
file amended complaint.

Defendants are represented by Chad Wayne Copeland, Esq., OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Andrew J.
Saindon, Esq., D.C. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL


EAST-LEX DINER: "Rojas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Noe Rojas and Carlos Corte, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. East-Lex Diner, Ltd. d/b/a Midtown
Restaurant, Nicko Karadimas, Athina Kapouralos, and Vasillo [Lnu],
Case No. 1:15-cv-06195-KBF (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime, liquidated damages
and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate Midtown Restaurant located at 155
East 55th Street, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


ECHOSPHERE LLC: Tajonar Compelled to Arbitrate PAGA Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry Alan Burns of the United States District
Court for Southern District of California granted DISH's unopposed
request to dismiss the case without prejudice and denied as moot
the pending motion to amend the first amended complaint in the
case captioned, JOSE TAJONAR, Plaintiff, v. ECHOSPHERE, L.L.C., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 14CV2732-LAB (RBB) (S.D. Cal.).

Jose Tajonar is a former employee of DISH Network California
Service Corporation (DISH) and during her employment signed  three
arbitration argreements. He filed an employment-related class
action against Defendants, including DISH. He alleges violations
of the California Labor Code on behalf of himself and a putative
class of others similarly situated, and also seeks to bring a
representative action under California's Labor Code Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA). DISH filed an unopposed motion to
compel arbitration and stay proceedings.

Defendants argue that: (1) the Court, not an arbitrator, may
decide whether class arbitration is available under the Agreement;
(2) the Agreement forecloses class arbitration; and (3) because
class arbitration is foreclosed, so too is class arbitration of
the PAGA claim.

In his Order dated August 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ISR0RZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Burns held that
Tajonar's claims are subject to arbitration and he has to
arbitrate his claims individually. Since the motion to abitrate is
granted, the Plaintiff's motion to amend the first amended
complaint is denied as moot.

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.


EMERY FEDERAL: Faces Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA, MWHL, MWPCL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Pavsner, Richard L. Yankelov, Larry Goren, Kevin M.
Booker, Robert M. Schiller, Eduardo Gomez, Brett Barrow, Duncan
Tucker, Jason Lippman, Ralph Unglesbee, Terrence S. Brennan,
Howard Yankelov, Chris Haubner, Joseph F. Bracken, Jr., Larry H.
Lynn, Jr., and Julian Kappelman  v. Emery Federal Credit Union,
Case 1:15-cv-02252-JKB  (D.Md.,July 31,2015), seeks to be paid all
earned overtime, minimum and at least twice in each month wages,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour
Law, and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection  Law.

The Defendants employ/employed loan officers in selling mortgage
products.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

   Daniel A. Katz, Esq.
   THE LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES
   1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900
   Silver Spring, MD 20910
   Tell: (301) 608-0880
   Fax: (301) 608-0881
   E-mail: dkatz@ggilbertlaw.com

      - and -

   Lucy B. Bansal, Esq.
   THE LAW OFFICES OF GARY M. GILBERT & ASSOCIATES
   1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 900
   Silver Spring, MD 20910
   Tell: (301) 608-0880
   Fax: (301) 608-0881
   E-mail: Ibansal@ggilbertlaw.com


ENVIROCLEAN: Wooster Residents' Class Suit Reaches Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven F. Huszai, writing for The Daily Record, reported that the
class action suit brought by Wooster residents against a company
allegedly emitting a noxious odor in the air for the past decade
has reached a settlement. The case against Enviro-Tank Clean, also
known as Enviroclean, was settled in Wayne County Common Pleas
Court, and allows the company to continue operating at 515
Industrial Blvd.


ESPESETH INC: Faces "Pope" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pope, On behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Espeseth, Inc. and Wendy Espeseth, Case No. 3:15-cv-
00486-jdp (W.D. Wis., August 6, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay to minimum wage and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a franchisee of Fish Window Cleaning and
performs window cleaning services for residential and commercial
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yingtao Ho, Esq.
      PREVIANT, GOLDBERG, UELMEN, GRATZ,
      MILLER & BRUEGGEMAN, S.C.
      1555 N. River Center Drive, S. 202
      P. O. Box 12993
      Milwaukee, WI 53212
      Telephone: (414) 223-0437
      Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
      E-mail: yh@previant.com


FCA US LLC: Motion to Dismiss "Tomassini" Case Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, in the
alternative, to strike Plaintiff's class allegations in the case,
ROBERT TOMASSINI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-CV-
1226(MAD/DEP)(N.D.N.Y.).

In or about April 2012, Plaintiff purchased a used 2010 Town and
Country minivan manufactured by Defendant (the Minivan) from a
wholesale dealer in New York. Plaintiff commenced the putative
class action on September 8, 2014, alleging violations of New York
General Business Law (N.Y.G.B.L.) Sec. 349 and breach of express
warranty related to Defendant's use of metal alloy valve stems
within the tire pressure monitoring system (TPMS) on certain
minivans.

In the motion, defendants argued that Plaintiff's deceptive
omission claim failed because Plaintiff did not plead facts
plausibly alleging that Defendant in fact possessed information
that the valve stems were defective at the time of its alleged
failure to disclose and that Plaintiff had not established that
Defendant had a duty to disclose the existence of a defect.

District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York in the Opinion dated
June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/316ZH8from Leagle.com,
granted in part Defendant's motion to dismiss, dismissed with
prejudice Plaintiff's affirmative misrepresentation claim pursuant
to N.Y.G.B.L. Sec. 349 and breach of express warranty claim and
denied Defendant's motion to strike the class allegations.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ELMER, ROBERT KEACH III, P.C.
     1 Pine West Plaza Suite 109
     Albany, NY 12205
     Tel: (518) 434-1718

Defendants are represented by John W. Rogers, Esq. --
jrogers@thompsoncoburn.com -- Kathy A. Wisniewski, Esq. --
kwisniewski@rogerscoburn.com -- Stephen A. D'aunoy, Esq. --
sdaunoy@rogerscoburn.com -- THOMPSON COBURN LLP


GENERAL MILLS: Court Narrows, Stays Proceedings in "Backus" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California granted in part General
Mills' Motion to Dismiss and granted General Mills' Motion to Stay
the case under the primary jurisdiction doctrine in the case
captioned, TROY BACKUS, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-01964-the (N.D. Cal.).

Troy Backus' putative class action challenges General Mills'
practice of selling baking mixes that include trans fats in the
form of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils ("PHOs"). Backus
alleges that "Defendants manufacture, distribute, and sell a
variety of baking mix products containing partially hydrogenated
oil."  He alleges that he purchased General Mills baking mixes
"approximately 20 times a year over the past four years" and that
he "repeatedly purchased and consumed" the mixes since 2008.  The
presence of partially hydrogenated oils is indicated on the
ingredient list of various General Mills baking mixes.

Backus seeks to represent a class defined as "All persons who
purchased in the United States, on or after January 1, 2008 (the
"Class Period"), for household or personal use, boxed baking mix
products manufactured or distributed by Defendants containing
partially hydrogenated oil.

In the motion, General Mills first argues that the Complaint must
be dismissed because Backus lacks standing to bring his claims.
Specifically, General Mills argues that Backus has not pled a
cognizable "injury in fact" that is sufficient for Article III
standing in this case. Backus argues that he has standing in this
case in three ways: first, that consumption of trans fats caused
inflammation in and other damage to his organs; second, that he
suffered an economic injury in purchasing the products; and third,
that consuming trans fats caused an increased risk of certain
diseases.

In the Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/sP1um5from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson concluded
that Backus has Article III standing and he has stated claims
under the "unlawful" and "unfair" prongs of the UCL. His first two
injuries posed by the Plaintiff are sufficient for standing in the
case, but his third argument fails since he has failed to state
claims for public nuisance or for breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability. The case is stayed pending the FDA's
determination of the food additive status of PHOs. No later than
14 days after the FDA's determination, the parties shall file a
joint statement of no more than 15 pages setting forth their
respective positions on the effect of the FDA's determination and
recommending a further schedule for litigation in the case.

Troy Backus is represented by:

Gregory Weston, Esq.
David Elliot, Esq.
THE WESTON FIRM
1405 Morena Blvd Suite 201,
San Diego, CA 92110
Tel: (619)798-2006

Defendants are represented by David T. Biderman, Esq. --
DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Charles Christian Sipos, Esq. --
CSipos@perkinscoie.com -- Joshua A. Reiten, Esq. --
JReiten@perkinscoie.com -- PERKINS COIE LLP


IDAHO: Balla Case to Continue for at Least Another Two Years
------------------------------------------------------------
The Idaho Press reports that Kevin H. Kempf, director of the Idaho
Department of Correction, said "[W]hen I was appointed director of
the Idaho Department of Correction nine months ago, I hoped we
could soon bring to an end the Balla case -- the 34-year-old class
action lawsuit by inmates over the quality of health care at Idaho
State Correctional Institution. But U.S. District Judge David O.
Carter's recent decision to extend the court's oversight of the
facility till September 2017 means we have more work to do.

As we go forward, please know this: The actions that Judge Carter
ruled IDOC took with "improper purpose" occurred in 2011 and 2012.
We now have new people and new policies in place. In fact, Judge
Carter and even the inmates' attorneys acknowledge the department
has made progress over the past three years.

Here are just a few things we have done:

* IDOC administrators and health care professionals now meet
monthly with the inmates who represent the Balla class and their
attorneys to address health care-related issues at the facility
and provide an open forum to identify and resolve concerns.

* IDOC has assigned two registered nurses, one full time and
another part time, to audit the health care practices at the
facility and ensure compliance with national standards for inmate
health care. The nurses also meet with inmates to assure that
medical staff is addressing their concerns.

* IDOC has added a full-time clinical supervisor at ISCI to
oversee mental health staff and ensure consistent and sound mental
health treatment is provided to all inmates. An additional
clinical supervisor audits the facility to ensure compliance with
national standards.

* IDOC has expanded the pharmacy at ISCI to make the delivery of
medication to inmates more efficient and to decrease the amount of
time inmates spend waiting in line. We built a new building at
ISCI to accomplish this.

Over the past nine months, IDOC has made a renewed commitment to
being open and transparent. As proof, we invited the ACLU to see
how we operate our most restrictive housing units at our two
highest-security prisons -- Idaho Maximum Security Institution and
Idaho State Correctional Center. The day-long tour included a
visit to IMSI's Death Row.

We also invited the ACLU to attend the department's recent annual
strategic planning meeting. Our message: We want to work with our
critics instead of continuing to wage expensive legal battles
against them in court.

We have also sent letters to all 105 state senators and
representatives giving them 24/7 access to all of our prisons,
reentry centers and probation and parole offices. The lawmakers do
not need to tell us they're coming. They can stop by any time and
we will show them anything they wish to see.

Why are we doing this? Because we have nothing to hide. Because we
want our elected officials to see with their own eyes how we are
spending taxpayer dollars.

I am disappointed, of course, that the Balla case will now
continue for at least another two years, but I remain determined
to bring it to a close. To do so, we will need to work closely
with lawmakers, inmates and the organizations that represent them.
We must prove to them through our actions that we are worthy of
their trust.

That will take time. I am hopeful the recent court ruling does not
overshadow the sincere efforts of the many dedicated correctional
professionals who have made so much progress over the past three
years to finally put Balla to rest."


JUD PROPERTIES: Sued Over Handicap Inaccessible Parking Spaces
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leland Foster v. Jud Properties, LLC d/b/a Arby's, Case No. 2:15-
cv-12985-MAG-MJH (E.D. Mich., August 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to provide handicap accessible parking
spaces.

Jud Properties, LLC operates and owns a fast food restaurant in
Wixom, Michigan.

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


KAPOWSIN MEATS: Recalls Pork Products Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
Kapowsin Meats, a Graham, Wash. establishment, is recalling
approximately 523,380 pounds of pork products that may be
contaminated with Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:-, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced.

FSIS has been conducting intensified sampling at Kapowsin Meats
while this establishment took steps to address sanitary conditions
at their facility after the original recall on August 13, 2015.
Sampling revealed positive results for Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:-
on Whole Hogs for Barbeque, associated pork products and
throughout the establishment. FSIS has deemed sanitary improvement
efforts made by the Kapowsin Meats insufficient, and the scope of
this recall has been expanded to include all products associated
with contaminated source material. The establishment has
voluntarily suspended operations.

The whole hogs and associated items were produced on various dates
between April 18, 2015 and August 26, 2015. The following products
are subject to recall:

- Varying weights of boxed/bagged Whole Hogs for Barbeque

- Varying weights of boxed/bagged fabricated pork products
including various pork offal products, pork blood and pork trim.

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "Est.
1628" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The product was shipped
to various individuals, retail locations, institutions, and
distributors in Alaska, Oregon and Washington.

On July 15, 2015, the Washington State Department of Health
notified FSIS of an investigation of Salmonella I 4,[5],12:i:-
illnesses. Working in conjunction with the Washington State
Department of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), FSIS determined that there is a link between
whole hogs for barbeque and pork products from Kapowsin Meats and
these illnesses. Traceback investigation has identified 36 case-
patients who consumed whole hogs for barbeque or pork products
from this establishment prior to illness onset. These illnesses
are part of a larger illness investigation. Based on
epidemiological evidence, 152 case-patients have been identified
in Washington with illness onset dates ranging from April 25, 2015
to August 12, 2015. FSIS continues to work with our public health
partners on this ongoing investigation.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after eating the
contaminated product. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most
people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the
diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be
hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health
care provider.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers. Consumers who have purchased these
products are urged not to consume them, and should throw them away
or return the products to the place of purchase.

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

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume pork and
whole hogs for barbeque that have been cooked to a minimum
internal temperature of 145ΓΈ F with a three minute rest time. The
only way to confirm that whole hogs for barbeque are cooked to a
temperature high enough to kill harmful bacteria is to use a food
thermometer that measures internal temperature,
http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.For whole hogs for barbeque make sure to
check the internal temperature with a food thermometer in several
places. Check the temperature frequently and replenish wood or
coals to make sure the fire stays hot. Remove only enough meat
from the carcass as you can serve within 1-2 hours.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact John Anderson, Owner, at (253) 847-1777.

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


KENTUCKY: Court Dismisses Suit v. Housing Authority as Malicious
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boris Nickolaevich Skudnov, filed a pro se, in forma pauperis
complaint and amended complaint asserting neglect and violation of
the statute of limitations when the Court allegedly dismissed his
case against the Housing Authority of Kentucky.

Chief District Judge Joseph H. McKinley, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Louisville in
the Memorandum Opniion dated June 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/tcKOM6from Leagle.com, dismissed Plaintiff's claims
finding the claims as malicious and that the allegations in his
complaint was within the doctrine of judicial immunity.

The case is captioned, BORIS NICKOLAEVICH SKUDNOV Plaintiff, v.
U.S. DEP'T OF HUD et al. Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-100-JHM
(W.D.Ky.).


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Parties Directed to Conduct Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Wendy Bettlestone of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania has given parties three
months to conduct discovery in the case captioned, JENNIFER
GORDON, VALERIE TANTLINGER, and JENNIFER UNDERWOOD, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. and CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 15-730 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs Valerie Tantlinger and Jennifer Underwood were
cardholders of private label credit cards branded and serviced by
Defendant Kohl's and originally issued by Chase Bank America, N.A.
In connection with their credit card accounts, Tantlinger and
Underwood were enrolled in a payment protection plan called Kohl's
Account Ease (KAE). The Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
arises out of the issuance of credit cards by Kohl's Department
Stores, Inc. (Kohl's) and Capital One Financial Corporation
(Capital One) to Jennifer Gordon, Valerie Tantlinger, Jennifer
Underwood and, more particularly, out of certain payment
protection and credit monitoring programs in which Defendants
enrolled Plaintiffs in connection with those credit cards.
Plaintiffs allege, inter alia, that they were enrolled in the
programs without informed consent and that the programs had little
or no value. They claim violations of the Virginia Consumer
Protection Act of 1977, breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, unjust enrichment, rescission, and declaratory
relief.

In the motion to resolve the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule
12(b)(6), Kohl's contends that the Plaintiffs' claims are based on
their enrollment in KAE and, therefore, that the claims accrued at
the time of their enrollment. Because the Plaintiffs' enrolled in
KAE at a time when their credit card agreements contained the
Arbitration Provision, Kohl's argues that they are bound by that
provision. Under Kohl's view, the October 10, 2010 change in terms
letter, which removed the Arbitration Provision from the
agreement, did not apply retroactively to claims that had already
accrued before the letter was sent.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated August 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/3gem5Vfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bettlestone held that
the record submitted by the parties were insufficient to allow the
Court to determine which state's contract law to apply to the
parties' agreements in order to decide the Plaintiffs' claims
accrued.

The Court revised the May 18, 2015 Scheduling Order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Charles J. Kocher, Esq. --
ckocher@smbb.com -- Patrick Howard, Esq. -- phoward@smbb.com --
SALTZ MONGELUZZI BARRETT & BENDESKY & BENDESKY PC, Lee S. Shalov,
Esq. -- lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- Wade C. Wilkinson, Esq. --
wwilkinson@mclaughlinstern.com -- MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP

Defendants are represented by Martin C. Bryce, Jr., Esq. --
bryce@ballardspahr.com -- Daniel J.T. Mckenna, Esq. --
mckennad@ballardspahr.com -- Joseph J. Schuster, Esq. --
schusterj@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR LLP & Sarah Schindler-
Williams, Esq. -- swilliams@mmwr.com -- MONTGOMERY MCCRACKEN
WALKER & RHOADS, LLP


KRAFT HEINZ: Recalls Turkey Bacon Products
------------------------------------------
Kraft Heinz Foods Company, a Newberry, S.C. establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,068,467 pounds of turkey bacon products
that may be adulterated because it may spoil before the "Best When
Used By" date, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The turkey bacon was produced between May 31, 2015, and August 6,
2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 56 oz. cardboard boxes (containing four plastic wrapped
      packages) marked Oscar Mayer "Selects Uncured Turkey Bacon"
      bearing the plant number P-9070, the line number RS19 and
      Product UPC 0 4470007633 0, and with "Best When Used By"
      dates of 24 AUG 2015 through 26 OCT 2015.

  --- 36 oz. cardboard boxes (containing three plastic wrapped
      packages) marked Oscar Mayer Turkey Bacon "Smoked Cured
      Turkey Chopped and Formed" bearing the plant number P-9070,
      the line number RS19 and Product UPC 0 7187154874 8, and
      with "Best When Used By" dates of 28 AUG 2015 through 20
      OCT 2015.

  --- 48 oz. cardboard boxes (containing four plastic wrapped
      packages) marked Oscar Mayer Turkey Bacon "Smoked Cured
      Turkey Chopped and Formed" bearing the plant number P-9070,
      the line number RS19 and Product UPC  0 7187154879 3, and
      with "Best When Used By" dates of 3 SEPT 2015 through 30
      OCT 2015.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-
9070" inside the USDA mark of inspection, as well as the line
number "RS19". These items were shipped nationwide and exported to
the Bahamas and St. Martin.

The problem was discovered by the establishment during an
investigation into spoilage-related consumer complaints.

FSIS has not received any confirmed reports of adverse reactions
related to the consumption of these products.  However, the
company has received reports of illness related to the consumption
of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or illness
should contact a healthcare provider.

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

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the Kraft
Heinz Consumer Relations Center at (800) 278-3403. Media with
questions about the recall can contact Jody Moore, Head of
Communications, at (847) 646-4538.

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


LOUISIANA: Class Certification in Suit v. Sheriff et al. Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The defendants, a sheriff and five of his deputies, appealed the
trial court's judgment certifying a class action suit against them
in the case, CHERYL HILL, ET AL, v. SHERIFF SID HEBERT, ET AL,
Case No. 15-11 (La. App. Ct.).

The case involves the defendants' use of tear gas to disburse a
crowd on September 24, 2006, during the Sugar Cane Festival in New
Iberia, Louisiana. Various deputies deployed the tear gas three
separate times at three different locations. The plaintiffs filed
a class action petition for damages in April 2009. Their motion
for class certification was filed in August 2011. Following
hearings in the summer of 2013, the trial court granted the class
certification.

On appeal, defendants argued that the trial court erred in (1)
finding the plaintiffs satisfied the commonality requirement; (2)
finding that questions of law and fact common to the class
predominate over questions affecting only individual members; (3)
finding that a class action is superior to other available methods
of fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy; (4) finding
the typicality requirement was satisfied; and (5) finding that the
class representatives fairly and adequately protect the interest
of the class.

Judge Shannon J. Gremillion of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana,
Third District, Division Three, in the Opinion dated June 24, 2015
available at http://is.gd/NvnasPfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the
class certification because despite the substandard definition,
the trial court could remedy the error on remand and remanded the
action to the trial court to redefine the class based on the
evidence that was put forth at the certification hearing.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     James Patrick MacManus, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF JAMES P. MACMANUS
     225 West Main Street
     Lafayette, LA 70501
     Tel:(337)234-1720

Defendants are represented by James L. Pate, Esq. --
jpate@neuner.com -- Ben L. Mayeaux, Esq. -- bmayeux@neuner.com --
Sara Rodrigue, Esq. -- srodrigue@neuner.com -- NEUNER PATE


MANPOWERGROUP: "Enriquez" Class Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Felipe Enriquez, individually and
on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. ManpowerGroup,
Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. BC 585745, was removed from
the Los Angeles County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
05998-JAK-E to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Haik Hacopian, Esq.
      Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ZORIK MOORADIAN
      5023 North Parkway Calabasas
      Encino, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 876-9627
      Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
      E-mail: haik.hacopian@gmail.com
              zorik@mooradianlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Frank L. Tobin, Esq.
      James Patrick Allen, Esq.
      Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
      Timothy L. Johnson, Esq.
      OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMIOAK AND STEWART PC
      4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 990
      San Diego, CA 92122
      Telephone: (858) 652-3100
      Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
      E-mail: frank.tobin@ogletreedeakins.com
              Patrick.Allen@ogletreedeakins.com
              spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com
              tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com


MDC PARTNERS: Firefighters Pension Plan Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
North Collier Fire Control and Rescue District Firefighter
Pension Plan and on Behalf of all others similarly-situated,
v. MDC Partners, Inc., Miles S. Nadal, David B. Doft, and Michael
C. Sabatino, Case 1:15-cv-06034 (S.D.N.Y., July 31, 2015), seeks
relief and judgments pursuant to the U.S. Securities Exchange Act
on behalf of all persons who purchased MDC Class A subordinate
voting shares (referred to herein as "common shares" or "common
stock") between September 24, 2013 and April 27, 2015, inclusive.

MDC is a holding company that provides a range of customized
marketing, activation, communications and consulting services via
its subsidiaries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Samuel H. Rudman
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY  11747
     Tel:  631/367-7100
     Fax:  631/367-1173
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

      - and -

    Robert A. Sugarman
    SUGARMAN & SUSSKIND, P.A.
    100 Miracle Mile, Suite 300
    Coral Gables, FL 33134
    Tel:  305/529-2801
    Fax:  305/447-8115


MDC PARTNERS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in MDC Partners, Inc. ("MDC" or the "Company")
MDCA, +0.40% of the September 29, 2015 deadline to seek the role
of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit
filed against the Company and certain officers.

The lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased MDC securities between
September 24, 2013, and April 27, 2015 ("Class Period").

The complaint alleges that MDC's SEC filings materially
understated the Company's executive compensation while its
financial statements failed to disclose certain related party
transactions. The complaint also claims that the Company's
reported goodwill was materially overstated.

Specifically, on April 27, 2015, MDC announced its financial
results for the period ended March 31, 2015 and disclosed that the
SEC had been conducting a formal investigation into the Company's
reporting of executive compensation and goodwill. The Company also
announced the creation of a Special Committee to conduct an
internal investigation in regards to the reimbursement of expenses
purportedly incurred by defendant Miles Nadal, MDC's Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer, and President during the Class Period.

After this announcement, the MDC share price fell from a closing
price of $27.98 per share on April 27, 2015 to a closing price of
$20.20 on August 8, 2015 -- $7.78, or a 27.9% drop.

Request more information now by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/MDCA. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Take Action

If you invested in MDC stock or options between September 24, 2013
and April 27, 2015 and would like to discuss your legal rights,
visit www.faruqilaw.com/MDCA. You can also contact us by calling
Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or
by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding MDC's
conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.


Richard Gonnello, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292
FAX 212) 983-9330
www.faruqilaw.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Illegally Terminates Benefit Claims, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Calogero Croce v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case No.
1:15-cv-13212 (D. Mass., August 24, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's alleged unlawful termination of Long-Term Disability
Policy Plan benefits, specifically by failing to ensure that its
claim procedures contain administrative processes and safeguards
designed to ensure that benefit claim determinations are made in
accordance with governing plan documents.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company operates a life insurance
company doing business in Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan T. Macedo, Esq.
      Vincent A. Murray Jr., Esq.
      MURRAY LAW OFFICE
      2 Center Plaza, Suite 620
      Boston, MA 02108
      Telephone: (617) 720-4411
      Facsimile: (617) 723-5370
      E-mail: Macedo.jonathan@gmail.com
              vmurray@murraylawoffice.com


MEXICAN GASTRONOMY: Sued Over Alleged Unlawful Workers Discharge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alix Pierre, and other similarly situated individuals v. Mexican
Gastronomy International LLC d/b/a Cantina La Veinte, Case No.
31241223 (D. Fla., August 24, 2015), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendant's alleged wrongful, retaliatory discharge
of employees.

Mexican Gastronomy International LLC owns and operates a
restaurant and hotel 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


MIDLAND FUNDING: Motion to Remand "Murray" Case Granted in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff filed a motion for remand to state court in the case
captioned, CASSANDRA A. MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. JKB-15-0532 (D. Md.).

Plaintiff Cassandra A. Murray filed her Class Action Complaint &
Request for Jury Trial in the Circuit Court for Anne Arundel
County, Maryland, on April 25, 2014. The complaint alleged that
"Midland engaged in collection activities in more than 1,000
occurrences in the State of Maryland during the class period by
taking actions, in the form of collection lawsuits, to collect
debts from Plaintiff Class members." The case was removed  on
February 24, 2015, by Defendant under the auspices of the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA), codified at 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d) and
Sec. 1453 (2015).

In the motion, Plaintiff claimed that the removal was untimely,
and argued that the Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction
because of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.

District Judge James K. Bredar of the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland in the Mamorandum dated June 23, 2015
available at http://is.gd/OlYXqUfrom Leagle.com, granted in part
the motion to remand as to Counts I and II as required by the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine and denied in part as to the Counts III,
IV and V.

Plaintiff is represented by Phillip R. Robinson, Esq., at CONSUMER
LAW CENTER LLC,

          - and -

     Scott C. Borison, Esq.
     LEGG LAW FIRM LLP
     5235 Westview Dr. Suite 100
     Frederick, MD 21703
     Tel: (301) 620-1016

Defendant is represented by Amy Estelle Askew, Esq. --
aaskew@kg-law.com -- James P. Ulwick, Esq. -- julwick@kg-law.com
-- Steven Andrew Book, Esq. -- sbook@kg-law.com -- KRAMON AND
GRAHAM PA


MOBILEIRON INC: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chaile Steinberg, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Mobileiron, Inc., et al., Case No. 115-cv-
284761 (D. Cal., August 24, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
made false and misleading registration statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Mobileiron, Inc. provides a purpose-built mobile information
technology platform that enables enterprises to secure and manage
mobile applications, content, and devices while providing their
employees with device choice, privacy, and a native user
experience.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      George C. Aguilar, Esq.
      Jay N. Razzouk, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
              jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com


MRM SUPERMARKETS: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Olivares" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Olivares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MRM Supermarkets, Inc. d/b/a Constantin's Breads and
also d/b/a Dallas Gourmet Bakery and Mark R. Molter, Case No.
3:15-cv-02760-L (N.D. Tex., August 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a bakery in Dallas Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
      Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


MUSIC GROUP MACAO: Court Denies in Part Motions to Seal Docs
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, MUSIC GROUP MACAO COMMERCIAL OFFSHORE
LIMITED, Plaintiff, v. DAVID FOOTE, Defendant, Defendant(s), Case
No. 14-CV-03078-JSC (N.D. Cal.), parties filed administrative
motions to seal documents submitted in connection with the
briefing on certain motions.

The case stemmed from a cyber attack on the global computer
network and communication systems of Plaintiff Music Group Macao
Commercial Offshore Limited.  Plaintiff asserted that the cyber
attack occurred due to the failures of Defendant David Foote.  The
Court recently issued an Order denying Defendant's motion for
summary judgment, granting Defendant's motion for leave to file
supplemental evidence in support of summary judgment, denying
Plaintiff's motion for continuance under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 56(d),
and denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint.

Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Califronia in the
Order dated June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/5qheF1from
Leagle.com, denied in part the parties' administrative motions to
file under seal.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Anne E. Smiddy, Esq.
     AD ASTRA LAW GROUP, LLP
     582 Market St Suite 1015
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415)795-3579

Defendants are represented by Andrew Patrick Holland, Esq. --
aholland@thoits.com -- Jared Michael Ahern, Esq. --
jahern@thoits.com -- Mark Vincent Boennighausen, Esq. --
mboennighausen@thoits.com -- THOITS LAW, PC


NATIONAL BEEF: Court Approves Settlement in "Barbosa"
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the United States District
Court for District of Kansas approved a revised settlement in the
case captioned, VALENTE SANDOVAL BARBOSA and CAROLINA GAYTAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL BEEF PACKING COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 12-2311-KHV (D. Kan.).

Defendant operates a beef slaughtering and processing plant which
employs more than 2,000 hourly employees in Liberal, Kansas.
During the relevant time, defendant required hourly production
employees to use an electronic security card, or "ID badge." Upon
arriving at work each day, employees would swipe their ID badges
to enter the plant's security gate.  After entering the plant,
they would again swipe the badges to clock in and out of their
shifts. Defendant did not use the badges to record compensable
wages. Instead, defendant used a "gang time" system, which paid
hourly production employees for only the time that they work on a
running production line.

Under the "gang time" system, both DD Pay Position and Non-DD Pay
Position hourly production employees typically spent uncompensated
time before, during and after each shift performing and waiting in
line to perform  various tasks.  The daily tasks which hourly
production employees typically performed without pay included (1)
pre-shift waiting in line to receive and/or to sanitize equipment;
(2) pre-shift sanitizing equipment; (3) pre-shift walking from the
locker room to sanitization stations and assigned work stations;
(4) doffing protective gear during unpaid lunch breaks; (5)
waiting in line to receive and receiving sanitary equipment during
unpaid lunch breaks; (6) waiting in line to sanitize equipment and
sanitizing equipment during unpaid lunch breaks; (7) re-donning
protective gear during unpaid lunch breaks; (8) processing meat on
the production line after the line has stopped running at the end
of the shift; (9) post-shift waiting in line to sanitize equipment
and sanitizing equipment; (10) post-shift waiting in line for
inspection of sanitized equipment; (11) post-shift waiting in line
to receive protective equipment for the next shift; and (12) post-
shift walking from the production floor to sanitization stations
and the locker room.

On May 21, 2012, Valente Sandoval Barbosa and Carolina Gaytan
filed putative collective action claims for alleged violations of
the FLSA. See Complaint. Plaintiffs asserted that defendant's gang
time compensation system failed to fully compensate hourly
production workers for all hours worked.  Under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, plaintiffs seek damages for straight-time and
overtime compensation and liquidated damages for time spent
performing uncompensated tasks. Plaintiffs also seek attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs and expenses.

The parties participated in mediation on July 10, 2013. Thereafter
they agreed to settle. Under the terms of the settlement, National
Beef will pay a total of no more than $350,000, which will be
allocated as follows:

     $196,680 available to the 480 collective action members;
     $100,320 for attorneys' fees;
      $46,000 for litigation costs;
       $3,500 service payment to plaintiff Barbosa; and
       $3,500 service payment to plaintiff Gaytan.

In her Memorandum and Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/UrhdbGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Vratil found that
plaintiffs' lodestar calculation is inaccurate and held that the
correct lodestar calculation is $54,582.35.  Plaintiffs' counsel
may recover its requested costs of $46,000 and reasonable
attorneys' fees of $68,058.10.  The Court directed the class
counsel to mail notice of settlement and withdrawal of consent on
or before September 14, 2015.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Mark A. Kistler, Esq.
Michael F. Brady, Esq.
BRADY & ASSOCIATES LAW OFFICE
1940 5th Ave #202,
San Diego, CA 92101,
Tel: (619)544-9111

Defendants is represented by Craig S. O'Dear, Esq. --
scodear@bryancave.com -- Jennifer L. Berhorst, Esq. --
jlbernhorst@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP,

          - and -

Sara Kay Butler, Esq.
MARINER HOLDINGS, LLC
Pinnacle Corporate Centre IV
4200 West 115th Street, Suite 100
Leawood, KS 66211
Tel: (913)647-9700


NESTLE INDIA: Confident on Defending Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------
The Economic Times reports that after getting a reprieve from the
Bombay High Court on Maggi ban, Nestle India has said it is
confident of defending the INR640-crore class action suit filed by
the government against it before NCDRC.

". . . we are confident of defending ourselves when called upon to
do so," a company spokesperson said in an e-mailed response.

He said the company was disappointed with the "unprecedented step
of filing of a complaint before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (NCDRC) against Nestle India".

When asked if Nestle India plans a counter suit against the
government, the spokesperson said: "We will study the issue when
we receive the formal details."

He said based on media reports, the complaint by the government
"makes similar allegations which were made to ban the product on
June 5, 2015. These issues were awaiting judgement by the Hon'ble
Bombay High Court."

The Bombay High Court had lifted the ban slapped by food
regulators on nine variants of Maggi noodles in India in June
while asking Nestle to go in for fresh tests.

On the other hand, the Consumer Affairs Ministry filed a class
action suit against Nestle India seeking about INR640 crore in
damages for alleged unfair trade practices, false labelling and
misleading advertisements.

It was for the first time that the ministry dragged a company to
the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) using
a provision in the nearly three-decade-old Consumer Protection
Act.

Reiterating that Nestle India remains committed to working with
FSSAI, FDA Maharashtra and other stakeholders, he said: "We hope
that this issue will be resolved soon."

On the company's preparedness to bring back Maggi in the market,
he said: "The process of bringing Maggi noodles back on the
shelves is lengthy and complex. It requires alignment with several
stakeholders, including our suppliers, distributors and retailers,
among others, as well as our continuous engagement with the
authorities."

He further said that the Maggi noodles business, which is an
important part of Nestle India "is currently at a standstill".

"It is Nestle India's endeavour to get Maggi noodles back on the
shelves as soon as possible for the benefit of our consumers," the
spokesperson said.

In June, central food safety regulator FSSAI had banned Maggi
noodles, saying it was "unsafe and hazardous" for consumption and
the company also withdrew the product from the market.


NEVADA: Health Dept. Sued Over Fees for Medical Marijuana Cards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carri Geer Thevenot, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal,
reported that a 42-year-old Las Vegas man with a history of
migraine headaches has filed a class-action lawsuit against the
state of Nevada over the fees it charges for medical marijuana
registration cards.

The complaint, filed in Clark County District Court, says the
state has engaged in fraud and unjust enrichment by accepting fees
for registration cards without giving patients a legal source for
obtaining marijuana.

"This lawsuit also raises critical constitutional questions about
health care and the equal protection of our citizens' access to
health care," the complaint says.

Las Vegas attorney Jacob Hafter represents the plaintiff,
identified only as "John Doe," who filed the 20-page complaint "on
his own behalf and on behalf of a class of those similarly
situated."

Spokeswoman Patty Cafferata said the Nevada attorney general's
office does not comment on pending litigation.

The lawsuit specifically names the state Department of Health and
Human Services and Gov. Brian Sandoval as defendants.

"While the defendants have been accepting the fees for the
registration cards, and have been issuing such, they have failed
to license any dispensaries in Clark County, to date," the
complaint says.

In fact, the state has issued a final registration certificate to
one Clark County dispensary, Euphoria Wellness, but the business
has not opened amid disputes with the county about how it can
obtain marijuana.

The lawsuit seeks a ruling that the fees associated with the
registration cards are a violation of the equal protection clause
of the U.S. Constitution, "in so much as no patient has to pay a
tax in order to be able to receive any other treatment regime
prescribed or recommended by a licensed physician."

In addition, the lawsuit seeks a ruling that the creation of a
registry of patients is a violation of the same clause, "in so
much as no patient has to register with the state in order to be
able to receive any other treatment regime prescribed or
recommended by a licensed physician."

The complaint also says the payment of registration fees amounts
to an unconstitutional taking of private property.

Ultimately, Hafter wrote, "this case will require this court to
address the next fundamental rights question -- whether access to
health care, in whole or in part, is a fundamental constitutional
right."

According to the lawsuit, the plaintiff has suffered from
migraines since he was 15, and only marijuana has succeeded in
relieving the related nausea.

He applied for his registration card from the Department of Health
and Human Services in 2013 and paid the necessary fees before
being issued a card that expired after a year. He later renewed
his card.

"Notwithstanding the lack of access to any 'medical' marijuana,
defendants repeatedly took plaintiff's money and, in return,
issued him multiple registration cards," the lawsuit says.

Hafter estimates in the lawsuit that the potential class, which
includes all Clark County residents who applied and paid for a
medical marijuana registration card from the state, consists of
more than 6,700 patients.

The lawsuit seeks compensation "for all fees and costs associated
with the acquisition of a registration card" and "for pain and
suffering associated with the inability to obtain, legally,
medical marijuana in Nevada."


NICKA & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Degrassi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Degrassi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nicka & Associates, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-00577 (E.D.
Tex., August 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Nicka & Associates, Inc. is a Texas corporation that provides
medical coding and billing services for medical facilities
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chris R. Miltenberger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRIS R. MILTENBERGER, PLLC
      1340 N. White Chapel, Suite 100
      Southlake, TX 76092
      Telephone: (817) 416-5060
      Facsimile: (817) 416-5062
      E-mail: chris@crmlawpractice.com


NINE ENERGY: "Dooley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Dooley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nine Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02433
(S.D. Tex., August 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Nine Energy Services, LLC is a nationwide oilfield services with
significant completion and land drilling operations throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NTELOS HOLDINGS: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Shenandoah Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Sekerak, On Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. NTELOS Holdings Corp., et al., Case No. 11422 (D.
Del., August 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of NTELOS Holdings Corp. to enjoin the proposed
transaction to which NTELOS will be acquired by Shenandoah
Telecommunications Company through a flawed process and inadequate
consideration.

NTELOS Holdings Corp. is a regional provider of digital wireless
communications services to consumers and businesses primarily in
Virginia and West Virginia, as well as parts of Maryland, North
Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky.

Shenandoah Telecommunications Company operates a
telecommunications holding company that, through its operating
subsidiaries, provides both regulated and unregulated
telecommunications services to end-user customers and other
telecommunications providers in Virginia, West Virginia, central
Pennsylvania, and western Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Amended Complaint in Securities Suit Nixed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Nuverra Environmental Solutions Securities
Litigation This Document Relates to: All Actions, Case No. 2:13-
CV-01800-JWS (C.D. Cal.), defendants Nuverra Environmental
Solutions, Inc., W. Christopher Chisholm, and Charles R. Gordon
filed a motion to strike an amended complaint pursuant to Local
Rule 7.2(m)(1).  The Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) while plaintiffs moved
pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(m)(1) to strike defendants' reply in
support of their motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for leave to
file a sur-reply.

Plaintiffs alleged that Nuverra entered into an unprofitable
"albatross contract" in "the February/March 2012 timeframe" under
which it agreed to provide its services at a "discount of 30% or
more" to E&P driller EOG Resources, Inc. at the Eagle Ford basin
in Texas. It alleged that Nuverra misled the investing public by
making positive statements about the company while the EOG deal
was causing it to lose substantial sums of money at the Eagle Ford
site.

Senior District Judge John W. Sedwick of the United States
District Court for the Central District of California in the Order
and Opinion dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/dErNdx
from Leagle.com, granted with prejudice Defendants' motion to
dismiss because Plaintiff failed to state a claim and denied
Defendants' motion to strike at dockets 69 and 76 because the
court's decision did not consider any of defendants' arguments
that plaintiffs contend were raised for the first time in reply.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Betsy C Manifold, Esq.
     Francis M Gregorek, Esq.
     Marisa C Livesay, Esq.
     WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
     270 Madison Ave
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212)545-4600


OHNH EMP: Faces "Kovalchuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Kovalchuk and Gidget L. Petronelli, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. OHNH EMP, LLC, Water Leasing
Co. LLC a/k/a Chardon Healthcare Center and Communicare Family of
Companies aka Healthcare Facility Management, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-01689 (N.D. Ohio, August 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay non-exempt employees overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a nursing care facility in Chardon,
Geauga County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric M. Allain, Esq.
      ALLAIN LEGAL, LTD.
      28906 Lorain Road,, Suite 101
      North Olmsted, OH 44070
      Telephone: (440) 249-0932
      Facsimile: (440) 540-4538


ON DECK: Faces "Malafsky" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Isaac Malafsky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. On Deck Capital, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06187-
AT (S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading registration statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

On Deck Capital, Inc. is an online subprime commercial lender,
headquartered in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (6310 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
      David W. Hall, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      Post Montgomery Center
      One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 288-4545
      Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
      E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
              dhall@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0063
      Facsimile: (619) 255-1856
      E-mail: frankj@johnsonandweaver.com

         - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 802-1486
      Facsimile: (212) 602-1592
      E-mail: scotth@johnsonandweaver.com


PERFORMANT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Simmons" Suit for TCPA "Breach"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Simmons, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Performant Technologies, INC., Case 2:15-cv-05804-FMO-
AJW, (C.D. Cal, July 31, 2015), seeks damages or equitable
remedies resulting from defendants alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a company that "helps organizations enhance
revenue and contain costs by preventing, identifying and
recovering delinquent and improperly paid assets."

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
    Phone: (877) 206-4741
    Fax: (866)633-0228
    E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
            sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
            abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


PIERCE COUNTY, WA: Class Cert Bid for Erotic Dancers Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald B. Leighton of the United States District
Court for Western District of Washington granted Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class in the case captioned, JANE ROE 1 and
JANE ROE 2, Plaintiff, v. JULIE ANDERSON, PIERCE COUNTY, and DAVID
VAN VLEET, Defendant, Case Nos. 3:14-CV-05810 RBL.

Plaintiffs are an erotic dancer and a manager at Dreamgirls at
Fox's, a Parkland Washington erotic dance studio. Erotic dancers
and managers are required to be licensed under local law.
Defendant David Van Vleet, a private citizen, filed a Public
Records Act (PRA) disclosure request with Defendant Pierce County
Auditor Julie Anderson seeking the Dreamgirls' employees' personal
information. Anderson informed the Plaintiffs of Van Vleet's
request and of her intention to disclose the information to him
unless Plaintiffs obtained an injunction. Plaintiffs sued, seeking
to temporarily and permanently enjoin the disclosure not just to
Van Vleet, but to any member of the general public.

They also move to certify as a class of some 70 similarly situated
erotic dance studio workers in Pierce County, pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23 as follows: "Plaintiffs seek certification
of a class that includes every licensee of a Pierce County erotic
dance studio dancer license and Pierce County erotic dance studio
manager license issued pursuant to Pierce County Code Chapter
5.14.  Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification Defendants have
not responded to Plaintiffs' motion."

In his Order dated August 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/rxI1S6from Leagle.com, Leighton held that
Plaintiffs' proposed class meets all of the requirements for
certification. The class is numerous, common questions
predominate, the named Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those of
the class, class-wide resolution is superior to other available
methods of resolution, and the named Plaintiffs and their counsel
will adequately represent the class.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Gilbert Henry Levy, Esq.
Jennifer Kaplan, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF GILBERT H. LEVY
2003 Western Ave # 330,
Seattle, WA 98121
Tel:(206)443-0670


PILOT CORP: Appeals Court Wants Evidentiary Hearing in Star Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide trucking company, Star Transport, Inc. filed a lawsuit
against Pilot Corporation and Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, which
owned a network of truck stops and supplied fuel to Star. In the
lawsuit, Star alleged Pilot fraudulently breached an oral
agreement to sell fuel to Star at certain discounted rates with
certain rebates and wrongfully converted funds.

In a judgment dated October 7, 2014, the trial court (1) denied
Pilot's motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens; (2) granted
Star's motion in limine to exclude evidence of a certain
promissory note between the parties; and (3) denied Pilot's
exception of prematurity and motion to stay proceedings pending
arbitration.

On appeal, Pilot sought review of the decision arguing that the
trial court erred in its ruling.  Pilot also filed an application
for supervisory writs.

Judge Madeleine M. Landrieu of the Court of Appeals of Louisiana,
Fourth District in the Opinion dated June 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/UiFef3from Leagle.com, remanded the matter to the
trial court for an evidentiary hearing and a decision upon the
issue of the validity of the arbitration provision. The Appeals
Court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the
exception of prematurity without having first held an evidentiary
hearing to determine whether there was fraud in the inducement of
the arbitration clause.

The appellate case is, STAR TRANSPORT, INC. v. PILOT CORPORATION,
ET AL. STAR TRANSPORT, INC. v. PILOT CORPORATION, ET AL, Case No.
2014-C-1228, C/W No. 2014-CA-1393 (La. App. Ct.).

Plaintiff is represented by Michael W. Magner, Esq. --
mmagner@joneswalker.com -- Edward D. Wegmann, Esq. --
ewegmann@joneswalker.com --Virginia W. Gundlach, Esq. --
vgundlach@joneswalker.com -- Brittany M. Simpson, Esq. --
bsimpson@joneswalker.com -- JONES WALKER LLP

Defendant is represented by:

     Joseph M. Bruno, Esq.
     Meelissa A. DeBarbieris, Esq.
     BRUNO & BRUNO, LLP
     4298 Elysian Fields Ave
     New Orleans, LA 70122
     Tel: (504)284-8733


PLAQUEMINES: East Bank Residents Set to Get Katrina Levee Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Alexander-Bloch, writing for NOLA.com, reported that
Plaquemines Parish east bank property owners during Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita are set to get a combined $2 million to settle
their 2006 claims that parish government did not properly maintain
the east bank's back levee prior to Katrina, and as a result the
levee failed.

"Plaintiffs have alleged that the failure of these levees systems
was preventable and (Plaquemines government's) failure to inspect
and maintain these levee systems caused significant injury to the
people, property and businesses within these levee systems," the
preliminary settlement notice says.

The parish's Pittsburgh, Pa.-based insurance company, National
Union Fire Insurance Co., has agreed to create the $2 million fund
for payments to the class members who send in a valid claim form,
postmarked no later than Sept. 18. A person's share of the fund
will depend on the number of valid claim forms and the specific
damages.

Ad-hoc state Judge Frank Foil is set to hold a 10 a.m., Oct. 9,
fairness hearing at the 25th Judicial District Court in Belle
Chasse to hear any objections and then decide whether to approve
the proposed settlement.

Plaintiffs' attorneys would receive up to 25 percent of the
proposed fund to pay for their fees and expenses.

The money comes on top of an about $23.2 million settlement that
Plaquemines government agreed to since Katrina strictly for east
bank levee improvements and maintenance.

The Orleans, East Jefferson and Lake Borgne Levee district entered
into a similar class action settlement in 2009 for their role in
the failure of east bank hurricane levees in the New Orleans area
during Katrina. That $20 million settlement also was to be paid by
the levee districts' insurance company, St. Paul Fire and Marine
Insurance Co.

East bank residents were notified of how to apply for their share
of the levee districts' settlement, estimated at $1 to $463, in
November 2014.

The newly proposed settlement makes clear that Plaquemines does
not admit blame and that National Union does not admit its policy
insured the government for the storm damages. Instead, it says the
defendant is agreeing to the settlement to avoid the risk of trial
and the plaintiffs are agreeing so that people affected would
receive some compensation.

"National Union believes that the insurance policy at issue does
not insure (Plaquemines government) for levee failure and that
Hurricane Katrina was an Act of God that would prevent plaintiffs
from recovering any damages," the notice says. "The defendant also
argues that no one can distinguish between flood waters that came
through a levee versus flood water from rain or other sources for
which they are not responsible."

"Plaintiffs believe that the insurance policy does provide
coverage and that (Plaquemines government) was negligent in
maintaining the levees."

If individuals want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue
National Union on their own about the claims covered by the
settlement, then they must take steps to opt out of the settlement
by sending a letter postmarked by Aug. 20 to PPG Katrina Levee
Settlement Exclusions, P.O. Box 82565, Baton Rouge, LA 70884.

Those wishing to be excluded from the settlement must include
their name, address, telephone number, date of birth and
signature.

If he approves the settlement, Foil would appoint someone to
review all claims and make recommendations on how much money, if
any, each class member should receive, according to the settlement
notice.


PRECISIONS CASTPARTS: Sued Over Proposed Bershire Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin L. Harden, writing for Portland Tribune, reported that a
second shareholder has sued Precision Castparts board members to
block the $37.2 billion purchase by Bershire Hathaway Inc.

Attorneys for Victoria A. Shaev filed a second lawsuit, Aug. 17,
in Multnomah County Circuit Court against eight Precision
Castparts board members for what she claimed were terms of a
merger that "tilted the playing field in favor of Berkshire
Hathaway by agreeing, in breach of their fiduciary duties to
Precision Castparts shareholders, to a slew of provisions that
unreasonably inhibit potential third-party bidders from launching
topping bids."

Shaev's lawsuit also seeks class-action status for shareholders
dissatisfied by the merger.

Shaev asked the court to block the transaction "until such time as
the individual defendants act in accordance with their fiduciary
duties to maximize shareholder value."

Her lawsuit claimed the merger was "wrongful, unfair, and harmful
to Precision Castparts' public shareholders who are members of the
class, and represents an attempt by defendants to aggrandize their
personal and financial interests at the expense of, and to the
detriment of, the members of the class."

The merger has attracted attention from law firms across the
nation. At least five national firms have announced that they are
"investigating" the transaction and are seeking contact from
shareholders.

                       'Claims lack merit'

The first shareholder lawsuit was filed, Aug. 13, by Susan
McIlduff. That lawsuit claims that Castparts' board members
breached their fiduciary duties by "directly breaching and/or
aiding and abetting the other defendants' breaches of their
duciary duties of loyalty, due care, candor, independence, good
faith and fair dealing."

The lawsuit lists eight members of the company's board among the
defendants.

McIlduff says the board members are considering a deal on a share
price that was well below what the company's shares have been
trading at in the past year.

Precision Castparts spokesman Joe Hixson said Saturday, Aug. 15,
that the "claims lack merit and PCC will contest them vigorously."
Officials with Berkshire Hathaway officials have not commented on
the lawsuit. No court date has been set for the case.

                         'A unique alignment'

On Aug. 10, boards of Berkshire Hathaway and Precision Castparts
unanimously approved an agreement to sell Castparts for $235 per
share, a deal worth about $37.2 billion. The merger should be
completed through its subsidiary NW Merger Sub Inc.

"I've admired PCC's operation for a long time," said Warren E.
Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway chairman and chief executive officer.
"For good reasons, it is the supplier of choice for the world's
aerospace industry, one of the largest sources of American
exports."

"We are very pleased to be joining forces with Berkshire
Hathaway," said Mark Donegan, PCC's chairman and chief executive
officer. "We see a unique alignment between Warren's management
and investment philosophy and how we manage PCC for the long-term.
This transaction offers compelling and immediate value for our
shareholders, and allows PCC's employees to continue to operate in
the same manner that has generated many years of exceptional
service and performance to our customers."

Precision Castparts has been a publicly traded company since 1968.
The company has about 144 million shares outstanding, nearly 95
percent owned by institutional investors.

Castparts board members held a special meeting, Aug. 17, in which
all eight board members were re-elected to their posts.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Sued Over Slack-Fill Deodorant Packaging
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Parker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The Procter & Gamble Company and Procter &
Gamble Productions, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06172 (S.D.N.Y., August
6, 2015), arises out of the non-functional slack-fill packaging of
the Defendant's Gillette(R) Odor Shield Invisible Solid, Old
Spice(R) High Endurance Invisible Solid, Old Spice(R) Champion,
and Old Spice(R) Classic antiperspirants and deodorants.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell and distribute, inter
alia, various consumer products under well-known household brand
names such as Gillette(R) and Old Spice(R).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
      Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: scott@bursor.com
              jmarchese@bursor.com
              ykopel@bursor.com
              pfraietta@bursor.com


PROTECTIVE SERVICE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Octavio Perez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly v. Protective Service Victory Security Corp. and
Mireya Morado, Case No. 1:15-cv-22965-JEM (S.D. Fla., August 6,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Protective Service Victory Security Corp. owns and operates a real
estate company that regularly transacts business within Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth Olivia Hueber, Esq.
      Julia M. Garrett, Esq.
      Jamie H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300-71st Street, Ste 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Telephone: (305) 865-6766
      Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
      E-mail: elizabeth.hueber.esq@gmail.com
              jgarrett.jhzidellpa@gmail.com
              ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL: Court Rules in LongPath Suit Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
LongPath Capital LLC asked the Court for Chancery of Delaware to
determine the fair value of its shares in Ramtron International
Corporation.  The petitioner acquired its shares after the
announcement of the merger between Ramtron and Cypress
Semiconductor Corporation, and demanded appraisal pursuant to 8
Del. C. Sec. 262.

Cypress, a non-party to LongPath's suit, issued a bear hug letter
to Ramtron on June 12, 2012, offering to buy all of its shares for
$2.48 per share.  After Ramtron's board rejected the offer as
inadequate, Cypress initiated a hostile tender offer on June 21,
2012, at $2.68 per share.  Ramtron and Cypress eventually reached
an agreement on a transaction price of $3.10 per share and signed
a merger agreement on September 18, 2012.  Following a subsequent
tender offer -- apparently in an unsuccessful effort to acquire
90% or more of the outstanding stock or at least solidify Cypress'
stock holdings -- and a stockholder vote, the long-form merger
closed on November 20, 2012.

Ramtron contended the merger price less synergies offered the most
reliable measure of the fair value of its shares. That
methodology, as applied by Ramtron's expert, yielded a value of
$2.76 per share. The petitioner's expert, relying on a combination
of a discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis and a comparable
transactions analysis, contended that the fair value was $4.96 per
share.

Vice Chancellor Donald F. Parsons of the Court for Chancery of
Delaware in the Memorandum Opinion dated June 30, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/QQ8ZBNfrom Leagle.com, determined that the fair
value of Ramtron as of the Merger date is $3.07 per share. The
Court directed the counsel for Petitioner to submit, on notice, an
appropriate final order to that effect, including provisions for
pre- and post-judgment interest.

The case is LONGPATH CAPITAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Petitioner, v. RAMTRON INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, Respondent, Case No. 8094-VCP (Del. Ch.).

Plaintiff is represented by:

     David A. Jenkins, Esq.
     Laurence V. Cronin, Esq.
     SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS LLP
     800 DE-52
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302)652-8400

Defendants are represented by A. Thompson Bayliss, Esq. --
Bayliss@AbramsBayliss.com -- Sara E. Hickie, Esq. --
Hough@AbramsBayliss.com -- ABRAMS & BAYLISS LLP


REICHENBACH RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Nordhaus v. Reichenbach Restaurant Group, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-06689 (S.D.N.Y., August 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Reichenbach Restaurant Group owns and operates Reichenbach Hall
located at 5 West 37th Street, New York, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Nordhaus, Esq.
      CARUSO GLYNN, LLC
      36 Peck Slip
      Nelson Blue Bldg.
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (718) 570-3338


ROY'S PIZZA: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Roy's Pizza Inc. d/b/a Roy's Pizza, 151 Roy's Rest.
Inc. d/b/a Flight 151, and Roy Savelli, Case No. 1:15-cv-06188
(S.D.N.Y., August 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate two restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SHUCKS MAINE: Faces "Perez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bunthoeun Perez, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Shucks Maine Lobster LLC, Ideal Global
Solutions LLC, Casco Temp Agency LLC., John Hathaway, Senghap
Roeun, and Solang Ung, Case No. 2:15-cv-00348-JAW (D. Maine,
August 24, 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 seafood processing facility in
Richmond, Maine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Schmidt, Esq.
      Peter Mancuso, Esq.
      ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW, PLLC
      97 India St.
      Portland, ME 04101
      E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com


SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS: Final Approval Hearing in February 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed motions to amend the complaint, for class
certification, and for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement in the case captioned, LAURA McCABE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. SIX CONTINENTS HOTELS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
12-CV-04818 NC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs sued on behalf of all California residents who called
defendant, alleging that defendant's recording policies violate
the California Penal Code. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that
defendant Six Continents Hotels, Inc. has a policy and practice of
recording and/or intercepting, without the consent of all parties,
customer-initiated calls routed to certain call centers. While
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and defendant's motion
for summary judgment were pending with the Court, the parties
settled the case. As part of the settlement, defendant agreed to
pay $11,700,000 and to not oppose plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. In addition, defendant agreed not to oppose
plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add a plaintiff and
claim for settlement purposes.

Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California in the
Order dated June 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/kABCCwfrom
Leagle.com, granted Plaintiffs' plaintiffs' request to amend the
complaint as proposed in the settlement agreement, conditionally
for the purposes of settlement only; certified the proposed class;
granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement; approved
the propsed method of notice; and approved the proposed class
counsel and class representative.

The Court will hold a final approval hearing on February 3, 2016,
at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom D, 15th Floor, U.S. District Court, 450
Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Eric A. Grover, Esq.
     Carey Gavin Been, Esq.
     KELLER GROVER LLP
     1965 Market St
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Tel: (415)543-1305

          - and -

     Scot David Bernstein, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SCOT D. BERNSTEIN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     101 Parkshore Drive Suite 100
     Folsom, CA 95630
     Tel: (916) 447-0100

Defendants are represented by Edward Dean Totino, Esq. --
edward.totino@dlapiper.com -- Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq. --
anahit.tagvoryan@dlapiper.com -- Monica D. Scott, Esq. --
monica.scott@dlapiper.com -- Perrie Michael Weiner, Esq. --
perrie.weiner@dlapiper.com -- DLA PIPER LLP


SJAC FULTON IND: Court Rejects Class Cert. Bid in "Lovett"
----------------------------------------------------------
AYOTUNDA LOVETT, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. SJAC FULTON IND I, LLC d/b/a
Zaxby's, SJAC FOOD GROUPS, LLC d/b/a Zaxby's, and DOES 1 THROUGH
10, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-983-WSD (N.D. Ga.), is a putative
collective action against Defendants, who owned and operated
various Zaxby's fast-food restaurants in the Atlanta, Georgia,
area. Plaintiff claimed that Defendants misclassified its
Assistant Managers, including Plaintiff, and Shift Supervisors as
"exempt" employees, and, as a result, failed to pay overtime
compensation to Plaintiff for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Defendants SJAC Fulton Ind I, LLC and SJAC Food Groups, LLC filed
Objections to Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand's Non-Final Reports
and Recommendations, issued on March 23, 2015, and April 28, 2015,
in the case.

District Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in the Opinion
and Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/4ZVqgx
from Leagle.com, adopted in part the Magistrate Judge's March 23,
2015 Non-Final Report and Recommendation as the recommendation
regarding the Court's jurisdiction and denying conditional
certification of a class including Shift Supervisors and denied
the adoption as to the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that
Plaintiff be found similarly situated to other Assistant Managers
and that a class of Assistant Managers be conditionally certified.
The Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of
Jurisdiction and Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Class
Certification; denied as moot Defendants' Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Dismissal and
Defendants' Motion to Decertify Class; and granted Plaintiff's
Motion to Strike and Defendants' Bill of Costs.

Magistrate Judge Anand's April 10 and April 28, 2015, Non-Final
Reports and Recommendations were declared moot and not adopted.

Plaintiffs' are represented by:

     Mark Y. Thacker, Esq.
     THE THACKER LAW FIRM
     125 Edinburgh S Dr #104
     Cary, NC 27511
     Tel: (919)275-0895

          - and -

     Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN
     191 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4200
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Tel:(404) 965-8811

Defendants are represented by Angela Franceta Ramson, Esq. --
ramsona@gtlaw.com -- Brett T. Lane, Esq. -- laneb@gtlaw.com --
Ernest L. Greer, Esq. -- greere@gtlaw.com -- David W. Long-
Daniels, Esq. -- danielsd@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


SO-CAL DOMINOIDS: CA Flips Order Denying Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, HEATHER PHILLIPS et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. SO-CAL DOMINOIDS, INC. et al., Defendants and
Appellants, Case No. D065381 (Cal. App. Ct.), Heather Phillips and
Jonathan Reider sued So-Cal Dominoids, Inc. and D.O.S. Pizza,
Inc., alleging, among other claims, wage and hour violations under
the Labor Code on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
employees. They also sought to bring a representative claim under
the Private Attorney General Act of 2004. Dominos moved to compel
arbitration and to dismiss plaintiffs' class and representative
claims based on alternative dispute resolution agreements (ADR
agreements) they signed in connection with their employment. The
trial court denied the motion, ruling the ADR agreements "carved
out" class and representative actions from binding arbitration and
that the individual and class-wide claims were factually and
legally intertwined, thus permitting plaintiffs' class and
representative claims to proceed in superior court.

On appeal, Defendant contended that (1) plaintiffs' ADR agreements
require arbitration of all employment-related disputes on an
individual basis and contain a valid class action waiver; (2)
state laws purporting to render the agreements invalid on grounds
of unconscionability are preempted; and (3) plaintiffs' PAGA
claim, which Dominos concedes may not be waived, must be
bifurcated from plaintiffs' individual claims and stayed pending
arbitration of the individual claims.

Judge Terry B. O'Rourke of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One in the Order dated July 1, 2015
available at http://is.gd/NuZii7from Leagle.com, reversed the
order denying arbitration of plaintiffs' individual claims and
directed the trial court on remand to address issues that it did
not reach in view of its order, and affirmed the order to the
extent it denied arbitration of plaintiffs' representative cause
of action under the PAGA.

Plaintiff is represented by John S. Addams, Esq. --
jaddams@nfaappeals.com -- NIDDRIE FISH & ADDAMS, Jeffrey L. Hogue,
Esq. -- jhogue@hoguebelonglaw.com -- HOGUE & BELONG,

          - and -

     Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
     THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
     9595 Wilshire Blvd Suite 900
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel (310)492-4370

          - and -

     Roger R. Carter, Esq.
     THE CARTER LAW FIRM
     2030 Main St
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Tel: (888)914-6900

Defendant is represented by Jonathan D. Andrews, Esq. --
jandrews@albblaw.com, Michael J. O'Connor, Jr., Esq. --
moconnor@albblaw.com & Kelly Folger, Esq. - kfolger@albblaw.com
-- ANDREWS LAGASSE BRANCH & BELL & Daniel John Turner, Esq. -
dturner@vtzlaw.com -- VAN VLECK TURNER & ZALLER


SOLARWINDS INC: Faces "Villa" Suit Over Securities Laws "Breach"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Villa and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
Solarwinds, Inc., Kevin B. Thompson and Jason Ream, Case 1:15-cv-
00652 (W.D. Tex, July 31, 2015), seeks to pursue remedies under
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
purchasers of SolarWinds securities between April 28, 2015 and
July 16, 2015, inclusive.

The Defendant sells infrastructure management software.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joe Kendall, Esq.
     Jaime J. Mckey, Esq.
     KENDAL LAW GROUP, LLP
     3232 McKinney Ave,Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75204
     Tell: (214) 744-3000
     Fax: (214) 744-3015
     E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
             jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

        - and -

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAL LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     L.A., CA 90067
     Tell: (310) 201-9150
     Fax: (310) 201-9160

        - and -

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Tell: (215) 638-4847
     Fax: (215) 638-4867
     E-mail: jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com


SOUFUN HOLDINGS: Sued in Ohio Over False Business Advertisements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Xiaoguang Zheng (Zheng), Fuqing Chen (Chen), and Xudong Song
(Song), on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. SouFun Holdings Ltd., Case No. 1:15-cv-01690-DCN (N.D. Ohio,
August 24, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of false
advertisement and fraud, specifically by representing that its
services had characteristics of truthfulness, reliability,
accuracy and up-to-date.

SouFun Holdings Ltd. is a Delaware corporation that provides
marketing, e-commerce, listing, and other services for China's
fast-growing real estate market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lei Jiang, Esq.
      LEI JIANG LLC
      26943 Westwood Rd.,
      Westlake, OH 44145
      Telephone: (440)835-2271
      Facsimile: (440)835-2817
      E-mail: ljiang@LeiJiangLaw.com


SOUTHEASTERN ARCHEOLOGICAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Garcia, for himself and all others similarly situated v.
Southeastern Archeological Research, Inc. and James Pochurek, Case
No. 1:15-cv-00180-MW-GRJ (N.D. Fla., August 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Southeastern Archeological Research, Inc. is a Florida corporation
that is in the business of providing archaeological consulting and
monitoring services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Massey, Esq.
      MASSEY & DUFFY
      855 E. Univ. Avenue
      Gainesville, FL 32601
      Telephone: (352) 505-8900
      E-mail: Massey@352law.com


STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Court Trims Claims in "Digiacomo" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Statebridge Company, LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's
Class-Action Complaint  in the case captioned, ROBERT DIGIACOMO,
Plaintiff, v. STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 14-6694 (JEI) (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Robert DiGiacomo filed the instant class action against
Statebridge, American Modern, American Modern's corporate parent
American Modern Insurance Group (AMIG), and Midwest Enterprises,
Inc. d/b/a Ameritrac Business Solutions (Ameritrac), the wholly
owned subsidiary of AMIG that acts as the program manager for
American Modern's force-placed insurance programs.  Alleging that
American Modern, AMIG, and Ameritrac and Statebridge "manipulated
the force-placed insurance market through collusive agreements
involving kickback arrangements and other forms of improper
compensation," Plaintiff brought suit against Statebridge for
breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(NJCFA), breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

In the motion, Defendants argued that the case should be dismissed
on the grounds that:

     a) all of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the filed rate
doctrine;

     b) Plaintiff cannot claim breach of contract because
Statebridge was not a party to the contract, the contract
authorized the actions alleged to be unlawful, and Plaintiff
himself violated the contract;

     c) Plaintiff cannot claim breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, because Plaintiff has failed to
allege that Statebridge deprived him of the benefit of his bargain
or that Statebridge acted in bad faith;

     d) Plaintiff cannot claim breach of fiduciary duty, because
no such duty exists between a mortgagor and mortgagee;

     e) Plaintiff cannot claim violation of the NJCFA, because
Plaintiff has failed to allege that Statebridge engaged in an
unlawful practice or that Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable
loss; and

     f) Plaintiff cannot claim RICO violations, because Plaintiff
has failed to allege a RICO enterprise or a pattern of
racketeering activity.

District Judge Joseph E. Irenas of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey in the Opinion dated June 25,
2015, available at http://is.gd/ChrKOefrom Leagle.com, granted in
part Defendants' motion as to the breach of contract claim and the
remainder of the motion were denied.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC
     363 Bloomfield Avenue, 2nd Floor
     Montclair, NJ 07042
     Tel: (973) 259-6990
     E-mail: roosevelt@nesmithlaw.com

Defendants are represented by John M. Falzone, III, Esq. --
john.falzone@piblaw.com -- PARKER IBRAHIM & BERG LLC, and Lesley
Mccall Grossberg, Esq. -- lgrossberg@bakerlaw.com --  BAKER &
HOSTETLER LLP


TOWERS WATSON: Faces "Mills" Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Mills, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., Case No. 11423 (D.
Delaware, August 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Towers Watson & Co. to enjoin the Defendants'
attempt to sell the Company to Willis Group Holding plc for
inadequate consideration.

Towers Watson & Co. is a Delaware corporation that provides human
capital, risk advisory, and financial management services
worldwide.

Willis Group Holding plc is an Ireland Public Limited Company that
provides insurance brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management
consulting services worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


TOYODA GOSEI: Sued in Michigan Over Brake Hose-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Halley Ascher, et al. v. Toyoda Gosei Co., Ltd., Toyoda Gosei
North America Corporation, TG Kentucky, LLC, and TG Fluid Systems
USA Corporation, Case No. 4:15-cv-13000-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.,
August 24, 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 Brake
Hoses.

The Defendants are manufacturers of automobile components,
optoelectronic products, and other general industry products.

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, MI 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


TRICARE MANAGEMENT: Court Reopens "Flores" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Avern Cohn of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan granted the request of Plaintiff
to reopen the case captioned, JOE FLORES, an individual, and
CONSUELO FLORES, as court-appointed conservator and guardian of
JOE FLORES, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, TRICARE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITY, and ROBERT M.
GATES, Defendants, Case No. 11-12119 (E.D. Mich.).

In 2011, plaintiff Consuelo Flores, on behalf of her father, Joe
Flores (Flores) and others sued to challenge a decision by TRICARE
Management Activity (TRICARE), a managed health care program for
members of the uniformed services, retirees, and their dependents,
to stop providing coverage to Flores. Flores suffers from "Locked-
In Syndrome" which renders him paralyzed in all parts of his body
expect for eye and eyelid movement. TRICARE denied coverage on the
grounds that the care provided to Flores was "custodial" and not
"skilled nursing care." Plaintiff sought relief under the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA).

In the motion, Plaintiff asked for the Court to reopen the case
and enter a final judgment which affirmed "TRICARE's Formal Review
Decision" issued on May 22, 2012. The motion appeared to have been
brought primarily so that plaintiff's counsel could file an
application for attorney fees under the Equal Access to Justice
Act (EAJA), which the time for doing so runs from the time a
judgment was entered.

District Judge Avern Cohn of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan in the Memorandum and Order dated
June 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/LtTar7from Leagle.com,
granted Plaintiff's motion directing the clerk of court to reopen
the case and restore it to the active docket.

Plaintiffs are represented by Brian M. Saxe, Esq. --
bsaxe@manteselaw.com -- David M. Honigman, Esq. --
dhonigman@manteselaw.com -- MANTESE HONIGMAN ROSSMAN & WILLIAMSON,
PC

Defendants are represented by Paul G. Freeborne, Esq., UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


UNITED AIRLINES: Dismissal of Senior Discount Class Suit Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a fourth
attempt by a pair of airline travelers to sue United for reducing
their perks under a seniors program fell flat on Aug. 10, when a
three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court
upheld the Cook County Circuit Court's dismissal of the case.

Plaintiffs Brian Warner and Daniel J. Driscoll had filed a class
action suit on behalf of themselves and other lifetime members of
United Airlines' Silver Wings Plus program, which offered savings
and other benefits to fliers 55 and older. Warner purchased a
lifetime membership in 2000 and Driscoll purchased one in 2002,
according to court documents.

The men filed suit in 2012, charging United with breach of
contract, breach of good faith and fair dealing, and specific
performance. The lawsuit claimed United had stopped providing
benefits to lifetime members in the program and had essentially
abandoned the program altogether. The circuit court dismissed the
suit the following summer, noting that no copy of the breached
contract or the terms and conditions the plaintiffs said had been
violated had been attached. Within three weeks, the men had filed
an amended complaint, attaching pieces of correspondence from
United, but that complaint was also dismissed, as none of the
attachments was an actual contract, the judge said.

In 2014, Warner and Driscoll tried again, filing a second amended
complaint. This time, the complaint said they had never executed a
formal written contract with United, but that the terms of the
contract were contained within the membership applications they
had returned to the airline. They attached several exhibits to the
second amended complaint, including a membership card, a screen
shot of United's website, an email to Warner from United, and two
redacted letters about the program sent to unknown people five or
more years before Warner and Driscoll had joined the program.

The circuit court again dismissed the complaint, and the appellate
court upheld that decision. In United's motion to dismiss, it
included archived web pages about the Silver Wings Plus Program
and two affidavits from United officials. One affidavit specified
that the program's terms and conditions reserved the airline's
right to change or terminate the program at any time. The motion
to dismiss also argued that the five-year statute of limitations
had run out on the lawsuit, since the men claimed the changes to
the program had happened in 2005 and they didn't file suit until
seven years later. Warner and Driscoll filed a response, but, the
court noted, it did not contain a counteraffidavit or any of the
contract terms the court had asked for, nor did it address the
statute of limitations argument.

"The [c]ourt has given multiple opportunities now to attach the
written instrument, and it seems as though there is a refusal to
do that," the court wrote in its dismissal. "Because clearly there
are terms and conditions out there."

In the appellate panel's unpublished order issued under Supreme
Court Rule 23, Justice Joy V. Cunningham wrote that Warner and
Driscoll contradicted their own position, claiming that there was
no written contract, while failing to submit any of the
correspondence they said contained the terms and conditions they
claimed had been breached. In fact, one of the letters attached to
their second amended complaint referenced a membership acceptance
form the court could have construed as a contract. They also never
submitted an affidavit claiming that correspondence was
inaccessible to them.

Cunningham further wrote that even if the rules regarding written
contracts did not apply, dismissal still would have been proper
under the statute of limitations argument.

Cunningham delivered the judgment, with justices Mathias W. Delort
and Sheldon A. Harris concurring.


UNITED STATES: DSHS Failures are Rarely Punished
------------------------------------------------
Will Drabold, writing for Yakima Herald, reported that the state
of Washington's largest department is tasked with caring for the
state's most vulnerable residents -- abused children, foster kids,
mentally handicapped adults. But time and again, it has failed.

Over the past eight years, the Washington state Department of
Social and Health Services (DSHS) has been hit with scores of
lawsuits, ultimately paying $166.4 million for personal-injury
claims. Many of the most severely injured were children who were
tortured, starved or raped. Some died.

DSHS employees behind these failures rarely are punished, The
Seattle Times has found.

From those scores of lawsuits, the newspaper selected one dozen of
the high-cost, child-welfare cases for which records were readily
accessible. Many of these cases made headlines and resulted in
verdicts or settlements ranging from $750,000 to $11 million, some
$75 million in all.

Using court records, public records and interviews, the newspaper
identified 48 DSHS staffers involved in the failures in these 12
cases.

None of the 48 was fired or suspended. None was demoted or lost
pay.

That is according to DSHS, which ran the 48 names through its
human-resources databases at the newspaper's request. (The
database only shows records that affect compensation.)

Whether any of the 48 staffers were given lesser forms of
discipline, such as reprimand letters, is unclear. DSHS in May
said it would takes several months to provide answers. (Recently,
the agency said one staffer had been given a letter of reprimand.
It hasn't completed its research.)

Slightly less than half the 48 still work for DSHS; some have
retired.

The review of the 12 cases -- as well as several dozen interviews
with current and former DSHS employees, state employee-union
officials, personal-injury lawyers, children's advocates and
others -- turned up some common failings: overlooked complaints of
abuse; delayed or inept investigations; placement of children in
unsafe homes.

DSHS' lack of focus on personal accountability is a significant
problem, said Tim Tesh, a personal-injury lawyer who has sued DSHS
many times. Policymakers can suggest reforms, he said, but "often,
it's that the worker didn't follow procedures that are already in
place. What good does reform do you when the worker just doesn't
follow them?"

DSHS said paying a victim does not mean an employee made a
mistake.

Jennifer Strus since 2013 has been head of the Children's
Administration, the division responsible for payouts of $141.4
million. She would not comment on how her predecessors handled
employees who may have made mistakes years earlier.

Any failures must be well-documented before the agency can take
action, she noted. DSHS in recent years has improved training and
how it tracks complaints of abuse and also reviews the performance
of employees implicated in claims against the agency.

Being a social worker is the "toughest job in state government,"
Strus said. A combination of large case-loads, employee turnover
and budget cuts makes it "pretty hard to do great work," she said.

Cheryl Schaefer, 28, isn't comforted by these words. She and three
siblings suffered years of abuse in a foster home under DSHS
supervision in northeastern Washington. Up until 2001, court
records show, they were beaten, forced to overeat, throw up and
eat their own vomit, and suffered sexual abuse.

According to court records, Schaefer and her siblings said the
caseworker repeatedly ignored their cries for help.

A 2012 lawsuit, filed by Tesh against DSHS, was settled for $5.3
million.

                       'I can't do my job'

Complaints about how DSHS handled foster kids and reports of child
abuse have tagged the agency for years. In 1998, lawyers for 13
foster kids filed a class-action lawsuit against the state, saying
foster children were being harmed across the board by inadequate
care. The state Supreme Court, in the landmark 2003 Braam decision
(named after one of the plaintiffs), upheld a lower court and put
Washington's child-welfare system under judicial oversight.

The Braam case led to several improvements, including sharply
cutting back on children bouncing from one foster home to another.
The court oversight continues, in part because a key court-ordered
mandate remains unfulfilled: foster-child caseloads of 18 or fewer
for 90 percent of social workers.

Besides the court, state lawmakers recently required DSHS to be
more accountable for mistakes. DSHS was required to do automatic
reviews of botched child-welfare cases only when someone died in
state care, a "fatality review."

As of July 24, under "Aiden's Law," DSHS must review worker
actions if a child experiences a "near fatality" within one year
of a previous incident of abuse.

State Sen. Steve O'Ban, R-University Place, who sponsored the
legislation, called it an improvement. That lawmakers had to force
DSHS to review such cases "speaks volumes," he said.

Most of the multimillion-dollar settlements come from the DSHS
Children's Administration division. There more than 1,800 social
workers oversee nearly 10,000 children in foster care and looked
into 90,000 reports of child neglect or abuse. Turnover is high --
about one in six staffers leaves each year. Starting pay can be as
low as $32,688.

Joyce Murphy, a social worker in Vancouver who's worked for a
decade at the agency, said she has failed to see children once a
month, as required by DSHS policy. She blames it on her caseload,
which she says over the past four years has averaged about 25
children -- well above the national standard of 15 and the DSHS
average of 19.

"I can't do my job," she said. She worries each night that one of
her clients will die on her watch.

No one died in the case of two young Snohomish County boys, ages 3
and 6, who were being starved and beaten by their father and his
girlfriend in 2006, but it does illuminate the tragic results when
workers utterly fail to do their jobs. The case is one of many
that reveals the personal consequences for such failures can be
slight.

Between May and July 2006, a neighbor filed four complaints with
DSHS, saying two young boys were being starved and beaten by their
parents. She would later say that no one at DSHS ever followed up
with her, court records show.

The father, Danny Abegg, and his girlfriend, Marilea Mitchell,
kept a padlock on the refrigerator and withheld food to punish the
boys. A social worker, Aubrey Kilgore, in one visit reported that
the house "had plenty of food in it."

He went back a second time after a sheriff's deputy, shopping at
Wal-Mart, saw bruises on the face of the 3-year-old, and alerted
DSHS. Kilgore required the parents to see a family therapist,
documents show.

The child-welfare case was transferred that fall to another social
worker, Deanna Neff. Among her failures, she gave Abegg eight-days
notice she would be visiting the home, giving him time to hide
evidence of abuse. Nor did she speak to the more severely abused
younger brother, Shayne, records show.

A few months later, Ada Sharp, who had no experience or training
investigating child abuse, was given the case, court records show.
Other warning signs surfaced, records show, but Cherokee
Screechowl, the area supervisor, ended the investigation in
February 2007.

A month later, someone alerted authorities that a little boy was
being "starved." Paramedics rushed Shayne, now 4, to the hospital
where he was found in urine-soaked clothes, emaciated, with a body
temperature of 87 degrees. After being given food at the hospital,
the boy told doctors not to let his parents know that he had
eaten. A veteran paramedic later said he had not seen "a worse
case of neglect or malnourishment."

After Abegg and Mitchell were charged with first-degree criminal
mistreatment, the case, with its sickening details and claims of
DSHS failures, exploded in the news. Gov. Chris Gregoire asked for
a special review, and DSHS said its employees failed to protect
the two boys.

At the time, a DSHS spokesman said two employees linked to the
case had resigned. DSHS recently said one of the four did receive
a letter of reprimand.

Kilgore and Sharp still work at DSHS. Neff resigned from the
agency. Screechowl resigned in 2007, came back in 2011 and then
re-retired.

Screechowl could not be located; the others did not return calls
for comment.

Shayne Abegg received $5 million from the state in 2009 after a
judge compared him to a concentration-camp survivor. His older
brother received $2.85 million two years later.

                    'It is a war zone'

If the high-profile Snohomish starvation case didn't result in
someone being punished, what sort of case would?

"This story has been going on for 30 years," said Dennis Braddock,
DSHS secretary from 2000 to 2005. He once described DSHS' culture
as "bunkerlike" and said he tried to hold staffers to account but
faced an uphill battle.

"Republicans don't like administration," he recently said.
"Democrats all side with the union. So management gets the short
end of the stick in (employee) disputes."

It's a proven formula: To effectively serve children and families,
social workers need a reasonable number of cases to manage, a
finding backed by decades of state and national studies.

The average caseload for child-protective-services (CPS) workers
-- Children's Administration employees who investigate reports of
child neglect -- is 16, well above the national standard of no
more than 12. Also, it takes on average two years for a CPS
investigator "to become proficient," DSHS said.

Greg Devereux, executive director of the Washington Federation of
State Employees, which represents unionized DSHS staff, describes
social-worker caseloads, burnout and turnover in dire terms: "It
is a war zone."

Some former DSHS officials and child advocates point to his union
when noting that individual discipline doesn't always occur. DSHS
is required to have substantial documentation to punish negligent
employees, they assert, and the arbitration process can be time
consuming.

"That's ridiculous," Devereux said. The union makes sure DSHS
"fairly holds people accountable."

In the past eight years, the union went to arbitration on only two
cases of Children's Administration social workers who were
terminated, he said. One firing was upheld; the other employee was
reinstated.

"I don't think anyone in the field can credibly deny that there's
a scary connection between overburdened workers and risk of harm
to kids," said Ira Lustbader, litigation director of Children's
Rights, a national organization that advocates and files lawsuits
to bring accountability to child-welfare systems.

Lustbader's organization has filed lawsuits in other states
arguing high caseloads are a civil-rights violation for children
because it puts them in harm's way.

"These kids don't vote. They're poor. They're disproportionately
of color. They're not a legislative priority," he said.

                        Not held accountable

Even so, heavy caseloads cannot always explain away mistakes or
why they go unpunished. According to interviews with 10 plaintiff
attorneys who have brought personal-injury cases against DSHS,
none of them has heard of a social worker being disciplined for
failing to protect someone.

David Moody is a Seattle lawyer who has brought lawsuits against
DSHS that resulted in $86 million in verdicts or settlements since
2000. "There's a constellation of warnings and a corresponding
constellation of failures by DSHS to heed those warnings," said
Moody, lawyer for the Abegg children. "No one is held
accountable."

DSHS Secretary Kevin Quigley declined to be interviewed.

In an email, he wrote that the agency has an improved performance-
evaluation system and is more aggressive about dismissing subpar
workers during their probation period.

"I understand the solution for some is to blame the caseworker
every time a mistake is made, but when we are some 30 percent
above a reasonable caseload,  that can be like sending the
Seahawks to play the Super Bowl with two-thirds of a team then
firing them when they lose," Quigley wrote.

Some officials note that the state does have another tool to hold
DSHS accountable: The Office of Family and Children's Ombuds.
Director Patrick Dowd says the office plays a neutral role when it
intervenes in cases in which DSHS failed to act or was
unreasonable.

However, he said, his office's "focus is on the actions of the
agency and not the specific caseworker."


USAA CASUALTY: 11th Cir. Tosses Appeal in Insurance Refund Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spouses James R. Allen and Diane Z. Allen appealed a district
court's dismissal of their complaint against USAA Casualty
Insurance Company, arguing Florida Statutes Sec. 627.7011(2)
entitles them to a refund of the difference in premiums USAA would
have charged for 25% rather than 50% building ordinance and law
(BOL) coverage.

After the Allens purchased BOL insurance from USAA covering 50% of
their home's value, they suffered no losses triggering payment.
The Allens sought to recover a portion of their premium payments
because they asserted they would have elected to pay for BOL
insurance covering only 25% of their home's value. Nonetheless,
their position was that had they actually suffered a loss, they
would have been entitled to 50% of their home's value, not 25%.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that Florida Statutes Sec.
627.7011(2) entitled them to a refund of the difference in
premiums USAA would have charged for 25% rather than 50% BOL
coverage.

Circuit Judge Black of the United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit, in the Order dated June 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/kJc1tSfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the district court's
dismissal of the Plaintiff's complaint finding that the district
court did not err in its judgment that the plain language of Sec.
627.7011(2) did not require an insurer to obtain a policyholder's
written consent on a form approved by the Florida Office of
Insurance Regulation (Regulation Office) before issuing BOL
coverage greater than 25%.

The appellate case is captioned, JAMES R. ALLEN, DIANE Z. ALLEN,
MATTHEW J. SCHALL, JUDITH A. SCHALL, Husband and Wife Individually
and as Representatives of Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A Texas
Corporation, Defendant, UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, A
Texas Reciprocal Inter-Insurance Exchange and Unincorporated
Association, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14-13478 (11th Cir.).


VELOCITY EXPRESS: Court Grants Motion on Successor Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
PHILLIP FLORES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VELOCITY EXPRESS, LLC, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-05790-JST (N.D. Cal., November 9,
2012), is a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and a class action pursuant to California's Labor Code and
Unfair Competition Law. Plaintiffs alleged that Velocity Express
misclassified its delivery drivers as independent contractors when
they were, in fact, employees.  Because of the misclassification,
Plaintiffs alleged that Velocity Express failed to pay Plaintiffs
minimum wages and overtime.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to
Successor Liability and Joint Employer Status in the case.  In the
motion, Plaintiffs attempted to establish that Defendants Dynamex
should be held responsible for Velocity's potential liability
under the successor liability and joint employer doctrines.

District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California in the Amended Order dated
June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/EZth0Bfrom Leagle.com,
granted in part Plaintiffs' motion as to successor liability for
Dynamex and denied as to summary judgment regarding Defendants'
joint employer status.

Plaintiffs are represented by Caleb Marker, Esq. --
c.marker@rlollp.com -- Christopher Paul Ridout, Esq. --
c.ridout@rlollp.com -- RIDOUT MARKER & OTTOSON LLP -- Jacob R.
Rusch, Esq. -- jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
-- tbecker@johnsonbecker.com -- JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC

Defendants are represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise, Esq. --
aspurchise@littler.com -- Alexander Hurd Scherbatskoy,Esq. --
ascherbatskoy@littler.com -- Emily Erin O'Connor, Esq. --
eoconnor@littler.com -- Jessica Xing Yun Rothenberg, Esq. --
jrothenberg@littler.com -- Robert G. Hulteng, Esq. --
rhulteng@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


VISION HOMES: Sued Over Breach of Home Improvement Contracts
------------------------------------------------------------
Maryann Immerso & Michael Immerso, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Vision Homes of New York, Inc. and
John Geiger, Case No. 603508 (D.N.Y., August 24, 2015), arises out
of the alleged breach of five home improvement contracts for the
demolition and reconstruction of the Immersos' home after it was
substantially damaged by Superstorm Sandy.

Vision Homes of New York, Inc. owns and operates a construction
company having a principal place of business at 7 Port Washington
Road, Sound Beach, NY 11789.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Goldman, Esq.
      Jonathan Fox, Esq.
      NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
      7 Hanover Square, 18th Floor
      New York, NY 10004

      Telephone: (212) 613-5095
      Facsimile: (212) 714-6633
      E-mail: bgoldman@nylag.org
              jfox@nylag.org


WHOLE FOODS: Faces "Markman" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yochanan Markman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., John P. Mackey,
Walter E. Robb III, and Glenda Jane Flanagan, Case No. 1:15-cv-
00681-LY (W.D. Tex., August 6, 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.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a Texas corporation that owns and
operates 417 natural and organic food stores worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
      SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-7211
      Facsimile: (713) 225-0827

         - and -

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

         - and -

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


WORLD EMBLEM: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Woodford, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v.  World Emblem International, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-02983-ELR-LTW (N.D. Ga., August 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide proper disclosures
and pre-adverse action notices and other required documents prior
to obtaining and using consumer reports regarding their applicants
and employees.

Headquartered in Miami, Florida, World Emblem International, Inc.,
operates a plant that manufactures apparel decorations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
      SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD
      1718 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 660
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 893-9400
      Facsimile: (404) 260-4180
      E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

         - and -

      Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
      Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
      WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
      3900 East Mexico Avenue, Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80210
      Telephone: (720) 213-0675
      Facsimile: (303) 927-0809
      E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
              ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


YELP: Class Suit Over "Employment Status" Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
Kathrine Proctor, writing for CourthouseNews Service, reported
that Yelp reviewers are volunteers, not employees, and therefore
don't need to be paid, a federal judge 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, Yelp's attorney, said in an email that the
action was a "frivolous lawsuit that should never have been
filed."

"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. Facchetti's office is in Pasadena, California.


* Employee Overtime Cases Could Wind Up Before Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Dipietro, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
Federal courts across the U.S. have come to different
interpretations about whether certain white-collar employees are
eligible for overtime pay if they work more than 40 hours a week-
and that could mean the matter ultimately may have to be decided
by the Supreme Court.

The latest case came down when the U.S. District Court in the
Eastern District of California ruled in favor of Provident Savings
Bank FSB, which argued the Fair Labor Standards Act allowed it to
classify mortgage underwriters as being exempt from the law's
overtime rules, said Howard Knee and Michael Ludwig, attorneys at
the law firm Blank Rome, which represented the bank.

It's possible the decision in the class-action lawsuit could be
appealed, and if it is, it will be heard by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, said Mr. Knee.

A similar case litigated in New York against J.P. Morgan Chase &
Co. resulted in the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruling
in 2011 against the bank and in favor of mortgage underwriters
being classified as non-exempt employees eligible to be paid
overtime. That ruling prompted several banks to pay millions of
dollars to settle similar complaints and to reclassify employees
as non-exempt, said Mr. Knee.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is presently
considering a similar case that originated in Ohio and if either
that court or the Ninth Circuit rule differently than the appeals
court in New York, it may be up to the Supreme Court to resolve
the matter, said Mr. Knee. There was also a ruling from a federal
court in Washington state in favor of the mortgage underwriters
but that case wasn't appealed, he said.

While the cases all involve the classification for mortgage
underwriters, because the Fair Labor Standards Act applies to
administrative employees, the ruling could have ramifications for
companies outside the mortgage industry, said Mr. Knee. "If the
Supreme Court takes the case, or even if it is decided at the
appellate level, it's likely that the decision would affect more
than just mortgage underwriters," he said. "It could enunciate
principles that would apply generally to administrative
employees."

The attorney representing the plaintiffs in the California case
wasn't immediately available to comment.

The question of overtime pay has also arisen in relation to law
firms. In July, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said a
lawsuit filed by an attorney working on a temporary basis for the
firm Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, who claims he is owed
overtime pay for the hours he spent reviewing documents, could
proceed.

Also in July, the U.S. Department of Labor announced proposed rule
changes that would increase the salary threshold for workers who
are eligible for overtime, and that prompted some companies to
come up with strategies to comply with the changes and still keep
a control on their costs.


                            *********

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  * * *