---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, September 9, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 180


                            Headlines


AAC HOLDINGS: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ACB RECEIVABLES: Motion to Bifurcate Discovery Granted
ACE AMERICAN: Court Allows Discovery, Rejects Motion to Dismiss
ACTION FINANCIAL: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
ALCON LABORATORIES: Court Dismissed Claims in "Cottrell"

ALICE'S TEA CUP: Court Grants Protective Order, Leave to Amend
ANGLOGOLD: TAC, Sonke Want to Join Mineworkers' Class Suit
AUTO CLUB GROUP: Class Cert. Bid in "Monteleone" Denied
B&G FOODS: Faces "Walker" Suit on False Marketing
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities-Price Fixing

BAREBURGER GROUP: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BETACOM INC: "Lehmann" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BIOGEN INC: Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violation
BLUE CROSS: Workers' Discrimination Class Suit Remanded
BLUE RIDGE PAPER: 6th Cir. Remands for Computation of Charges

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Morano" Case Voluntarily Dismissed
BNY MELLON: October 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
BOUNCEBACK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Bad Check Program
BP PLC: Seeks to Recover Some Oil Spill Settlement Payouts
BRINK'S INC: Conference Hearing Schedule Vacated, Action Stayed

BYRIDER FINANCE: Court Denies Motion to Seal Settlement Docs
CACH LLC: "Echols" Dispute Remanded to State Court
CALIFORNIA: 9th Cir. Ruled on Appeal Over Inmate's Bid for Stay
CALIFORNIA: CA Affirms Ruling in Suit v. State Personnel Board
CAROLINA ALE HOUSE: Court Grants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees

CASTFORCE INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CENTRAL PAYMENT: Faces "Heidarpour" Suit Over TCPA Violation
CEZ: Obtains Unfavorable Ruling from Bulgarian High Court
CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Must Face Class Suit; Discovery Okayed
CHICAGO, IL: Trial on Cops' OT Suit Enters Closing Arguments

CITIZENS BANK: Court Denies Bid to File Settlement Under Seal
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Cal. Appeals Court Revives "Lewings" Class Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: Inmate Complaint Dismissed
CORINTHIAN COLLEGE: Government to Erase Students' College Loan
COX ENTERPRISES: CA Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid

CRICKET AUSTRALIA: Legal Action Brought Against Ashes Cricketers
CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls Mountain Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
DIAGEO CANADA: Recalls Smirnoff Ice Alcoholic Beverages
DONNYBROOK ENERGY: October 9 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
EASY CHOICE: "Recio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

ELETROBAS: September 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
EL POLLO: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Damage from 2010 Oil Spill Worth $6MM, Atty Says
ENERGY FUTURE: December 14 Asbestos Claims Bar Date Set
ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Class Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages

FARM BOY: Recalls Ground Beef & Burger Products
FIC AMERICA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Pizzo" Suit Says
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Signs $3.2-Mil. Deal to Settle Labor Class Suit
FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS: "Bolton" Dropped as Plaintiff
FORT DETRICK: Faces $750MM Class Suit Over Mishandled Toxins

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac ATS 2013 Models
GLOBAL AMERICAN: Court Dismisses "Epperson" Complaint
GREEN ENERGY: Faces "Sifuentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GULF BEND: Faces "Schuetz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HAWAII: Court Dismisses "Hackett" First Amended Complaint

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
HONDA: Recalls Fit 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
INDIANA: Muslim Inmates' Motion to Intervene in Bias Suit Denied
ITG BRANDS: Sued in California Over Blu Electronic Cigarettes

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: CA Affirms Judgment in Retailers' Case
KAG WEST: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods
KILLION & SONS: Faces "Baughman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KODASCO INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LEON FARMA: Oct. 27 Alysena 28 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set

LIFE INSURANCE: Illegally Denies Disability Claims, Suit Claims
LINK PRODUCT: Recalls Beach Toy Sets Due to Choking Hazard
LORENZO HARDWARE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MACY'S INC: Falsely Marketed Hudson's Jeans, "Friedman" Suit Says
MAJOR KITCHEN: "Li" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

MANTRIA CORP: 3 People Charged Over Green Energy Ponzi Scheme
MARSHALL ETC: Court Grants Plaintiff Leave to Amend Complaint
MB FINANCIAL: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Bosch Suit Claims
MDC PARTNERS: Kessler Topaz Files Securitties Class Suit
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Illegally Denies Disability Claim, Suit Claims

MF GLOBAL: November 20 PwC Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MIDLAND FUNDING: Texas Assoc. Suit Removed to N.D. Texas Court
MISSISSIPPI: Court Grants Clarion Ledger's Motion to Intervene
MONFRIC INC: Montana High Court Affirms Denial of Class Cert.
MONTANA: Dist. Court Rejects Class Cert., TRO Bids in "Mascarena"

MONTANA: Dist. Court Rejects Class Cert., TRO Bids in "Kenfield"
MONTANA: Dist. Court Rejects Class Cert., TRO Bids in "Seminole"
MONTANA: Dist. Court Rejects Class Cert., TRO Bids in "Worm"
NATIONAL BUSINESS: November 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Controls Trade of Sunday Games, Suit Claims

NEIMAN MARCUS: Seeks Review of Data Breach Suit Decision
NETWORK ALIGNMENT: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NEW HAVEN, CO: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OREGON: Court Narrows Claims in Class Suit Against TriMet
OZARK COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Detention

PELHAM, AL: 11th Cir. Rules in Firefighters' Class Suit
PHILADELPHIA AUTO BODY: Settlement Agreement Granted in Part
PFIZER INC: Counsel Contends Plaintiffs' Expert Not Qualified
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Dykes"
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Joint Status Report in "Gardner" Due Nov. 1

PROVIDENT LIFE: 6th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Leonor"
QUAIL VALLEY: "Angel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
REMY INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports, Suit Says
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Grants Motion to Quash Subpoena
ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit

SAFEWAY: Recalls In-Store Products That Contain Cucumbers
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Narrows Claims in "Miller" Case
SAN DIEGO, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Medical Test of Children
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Treatment of Captive Orcas
SILVER WHEATON: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit

SIRIUS XM: Settles Wage & Hour Class Suit With Unpaid Interns
SKECHERS USA: Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in "Brown"
SONY CORP: Settlement of Vita Advertising Suit Includes $25 GCs
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AUTO: CA Affirms Denial of Attorney's Fees
SWIRE OILFIELD: Faces "McCain" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SYRINGA MOBILE: Class Suit Will Advance Again
TAILING LLC: "York" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TAMKO BUILDING: Case Dismissed, Parties Directed to Arbitrate
TARGET CORP: Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in "Neal"
TB ISLE: "Theogene" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

TEN THOUSAND: Recalls Striped Scarf Products Due to Fire Hazard
TINTING OF CORAL: Faces "Concha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TOURNAMENT PLAYERS: Dismissal in Bartenders' Suit Reversed
TRANSWOOD INC: Faces "Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TWO HARBORS: October 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Certifies Class of California Drivers
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiff Dismisses Rape Case in India
UNITED STATES: Settlement in Suit v. SSA Has Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Ordered to Release Immigrant Children in Detention
VOLVO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Hazard

WAL-MART STORES: December 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WALT DISNEY: Judge Refuses to Junk Animation Wage-Fixing Suit
WEATHERFORD INT'L: November 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
WESTERN RANGE: Doesn't Properly Pay Shepherds, Action Claims

* Circuits Split on Class Action Certification Requirements
* KCC Named Best Class Action Claims Admin. by The Recorder
* Mazie Slater Partners Face Ethics Charges


                            *********


AAC HOLDINGS: Oct. 23 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, has filed a class action lawsuit alleging
violations of the federal securities laws against AAC Holdings,
Inc. ("AAC" or the "Company") and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

The case is pending in the United District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, No. 3:15-cv-00923.  The Complaint was
brought on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired AAC's securities (the "Class") between October 2, 2014
and August 3, 2015 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose material information, including with respect to legal
proceedings brought against subsidiaries of the Company and
several former and one current employees, including its President
at the time, Jerrod N. Menz.  On August 3, 2015, the Company
revealed that second degree murder and dependent adult abuse
indictments had been brought in California.  This news caused
AAC's share price to drop substantially, harming investors.  The
drop in the days following the disclosure of the indictments
equaled approximately $153 million in market capitalization
losses, or 39%, of AAC's value.

The lawsuit seeks to recover damages on behalf of all Class
members.  If you are a shareholder who purchased securities of AAC
during the Class Period, you have until October 23, 2015 to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff in this action.  This deadline is
mandated by federal law and cannot be extended.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision to
serve or seek appointment as lead plaintiff. You may also retain
counsel of your choice and you need not take any action at this
time to be a class member.

If you have questions about the lawsuit, would like a copy of the
Complaint, or possess information relevant to this investigation,
please contact attorney Steven Harte, Esq. at (617) 398-5600 or
email him at Steven@blockesq.com.  Block & Leviton is also
experienced at representing whistleblowers and encourages any
insiders with information about the allegations to contact them.
Confidentiality is assured.

Steven Harte, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
155 Federal St Suite 400, Boston, MA 02110
(617) 398-5600
Steven@blockesq.com


ACB RECEIVABLES: Motion to Bifurcate Discovery Granted
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni of the United States
District Court for District of New Jersey granted ACB's Motion to
bifurcate discovery in the case captioned, LOGAN LOREAUX, et al.
Plaintiffs, v. ACB RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-710(MAS)(D.N.J.).

The case concerns whether the debt collection correspondence sent
by ACB to Plaintiffs allegedly listing an "Amount Due" different
than the "Amount Owed" was false, deceptive or misleading within
the meaning of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (the
"FDCPA"). Plaintiff alleges that the correspondence sent out was
deceptive and false in violation of the FDCPA. In contrast, ACB
argues that the correspondence did not warrant any plausible
misleading or incorrect interpretation and, therefore, does not
violate the FDCPA.

In the motion, ACB asks that discovery be initially limited to
Plaintiffs' claims that the debt collection correspondence sent to
them by ACB, listing an "Amount Due" different than the "Amount
Owed," was false, deceptive or misleading. ACB claims that
bifurcating discovery would allow the parties to expeditiously
reach potentially case dispositive motion practice. Plaintiffs
claim that the requested bifurcation should be denied because ACB
cannot meet the legal standard for it in part because the
requested discovery is neither overly complicated nor unduly
burdensome.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated August 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/uXcQ7jfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bongiovanni agreed with
ACB that a narrow, potentially dispositive issue exists concerning
whether ACB's correspondence to Plaintiffs violated the FDCPA's
prohibition against deceptive and false communications and found
that bifurcating discovery as proposed by ACB is warranted under
Rule 42(b). The Court finds that bifurcating discovery into two
phases will promote the efficient resolution of the matter and
directed to meet and confer to submit a proposed schedule for the
first phase of discovery. The schedule shall be submitted no later
than September 14, 2015.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC
375 Passaic Ave
Fairfield, NJ 07004
Tel: (973)227-5900

ACB Receivables is represented by Jonathan S. Ziss, Esq. --
jziss@goldbergsegalla.com -- GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP


ACE AMERICAN: Court Allows Discovery, Rejects Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JUSTIN MARK BOISE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ACE USA,
INC. and ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 15-
CIV-21264-COOKE/TORRES (S.D. Fla.), Justin Mark Boise, alleged
that he received two unsolicited telephone calls from Defendant,
ACE, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
and demanded statutory damages and an injunction requiring
Defendant to cease all unsolicited calls to consumers. Plaintiff
alleged that he did not provide Defendant with prior express
written consent to call his telephone and that he did not have a
business relationship with Defendant at the time of the calls.
Plaintiff sought to represent a nationwide class of persons who,
like him, were registered on the Do Not Call Registry (DNC) and
received more than one unsolicited phone call from or on behalf of
Defendant.

ACE American Insurance Company filed a Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative to Stay, and the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification and to Stay Briefing Pending Completion of
Discovery.

District Judge Marcia G. Cooke of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida in the Omnibus Order dated
July 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/OQbA2Nfrom Leagle.com,
denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss but granted its Motion to
Stay, and denied Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
without prejudice so that Plaintiff can re-file for certification
pending completion of discovery, if and when proceedings resume.

Justin Mark Boise is Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. --
jarett@hughesellzey.com -- William Craft Hughes, Esq. --
craft@hughesellzey.com -- HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP & Benjamin Hans
Crumley, Esq. -- ben@cwbfl.com -- CRUMLEY & WOLFE, P.A.

Ace American Insurance is represented by Archis A. Parasharami,
Esq. -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Matthew D. Ingber, Esq. --
mingber@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN, LLP, Marlin Kareem Green,
Esq. -- mgreen@brownsims.com -- Daniel Cruz, Esq. --
dcruz@brownsims.com -- BROWN SIMS


ACTION FINANCIAL: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted final approval
of settlement agreement in the case captioned, CYNTHIA ORAVECZ,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. ACTION FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
14-CV-1124 (E.D. Wis.).

On March 2, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the Class
Settlement Agreement reached between Plaintiff Cynthia Oravecz and
Defendant Action Financial Services, LLC ("AFS"). The Court
approved a form of notice for mailing to the class certified for
purposes of this settlement. The Court is informed that actual
notice was sent by first class mail, postage prepaid, forwarding
service requested, to 2,594 class members. A total of 748
envelopes were returned by the United States Postal Service. One
class member requested exclusion and zero objections were filed or
received. A total of 189 class members timely returned the proof
of claim form and are therefore entitled to a pro ratashare of the
monetary benefits of the settlement. As of June 23, 2015, seven
late claim forms were returned by class members.

In the Order dated June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/p1Lmby
from Leagle.com, the Court held that the Settlement Agreement is
fair, reasonable, adequate and made in good faith. Class
Representative Cynthia Oravecz received $3,000.00; and Class
Counsel received $32,000.00 as reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs and expenses of the lawsuit.

Cynthia Oravecz is represented by John D. Blythin, Esq. --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- Shpetim Ademi, Esq. --
sademi@ademilaw.com -- Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP

Action Financial Services LLC is represented by Bruce A. Schultz,
Esq. -- bschultz@cnsbb.com -- Vincent James Scipior, Esq. --
vscipior@cnsbb.com -- COYNE SCHULTZ BECKER & BAUER SC


ALCON LABORATORIES: Court Dismissed Claims in "Cottrell"
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LENOARD COTTRELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ALCON
LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-5859
(FLW)(D.N.J.), the Generic and Brand Name Defendants moved
separately to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against defendant
pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors of engaging in
unfair and illegal business practices by marketing prescription
eye medications that allegedly deliver unnecessarily large eye
drops, which resulted in consumers purchasing more medication than
they required. These Plaintiffs brought various state law consumer
fraud-related claims against Defendants.

In the motion, Defendants moved to dismiss on the grounds that (1)
lack of standing; (2) preemption; and (3) failure to state a
claim.

District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey in the Opinion dated June 24,
2015 available at http://is.gd/vWuSDmfrom Leagle.com, granted
Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, dismissed without prejudice all of
Plaintiff's claims on the basis that Plaintiffs lacked standing to
bring suit and granted Defendant's motion to dismiss because the
Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently alleged standing.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq. --
jwh@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF,
LLC

Defendants are represented by Roger B. Kaplan, Esq. --
kaplanr@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


ALICE'S TEA CUP: Court Grants Protective Order, Leave to Amend
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion for protective order in the case
captioned, DAVID ROSAS, JUAN PEREZ, IGNACIO TORRES, JOSE R.
MALDONADO, ISABEL TORIBIO SOLIS, DAVID RIVERS-SOLIS, RAMIRO
SALGADO-LANDA, ALFREDO ARELLANO-RODRIGUEZ, MARGARITO SALAS-FLORES,
and MIGUEL A. RIVERA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ALICE'S TEA CUP, LLC, ATC II LLC, and
ATCIII, LLC, and/or any other business entity doing business as
"ALICE'S TEA CUP," located at 102 West 73rd Street, New York, New
York, and 156 East 64th Street, New York, New York, and 220 East
81st Street, New York, New York, and ZHARIFF MELGOZA, and HALEY
FOX, individually, Defendants, Case No. 14 CIV 8788
(JCF)(S.D.N.Y.).

The plaintiffs alleged that during the course of their employment,
the defendants failed to pay them overtime compensation and a
"spread of hours" premium for days when the plaintiffs worked more
than ten hours. The Complaint asserted claims against the three
corporate defendants as well as Zhariff Melgoza and Haley Fox, who
owned the stock of Alice's Tea Cup, owned Alice's Tea Cup, and
managed and made all business decisions," including decisions
related to employee hours and salaries.

Magistrate Judge James C. Francis, IV of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York in the
Memorandum and Order dated July 6, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pfzvxGfrom Leagle.com, granted Plaintiffs' motion to
the extent that the defendants may not seek discovery of the
plaintiffs' immigration status, tax returns, or current employers.
The plaintiffs were also granted leave to amend the complaint to
add Lauren Fox as a defendant, add Teofilio Toribio as a
plaintiff, and removed the collective and class action
allegations.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
     CILENTI & COOPER, P.L.L.C.
     6, 708 3rd Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 209-3933

Defendants are represented by Howard Matalon, Esq. --
hmatalon@olenderfeldman.com -- Christian John Jensen, Esq. --
cjensen@olenderfeldman.com -- OLENDER FELDMAN LLP


ANGLOGOLD: TAC, Sonke Want to Join Mineworkers' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Ernest Mabuza, writing for Times Live, reported that the
organisations want to join in the case of Bongani Nkala and others
against Harmony Gold and others, which will be heard in October.

Nkala along with 68 other former mineworkers, all of whom
contracted silicosis as a result of their exposure to crystalline
silica dust while employed at the mines, seek the court's
permission to certify a class action against 32 gold mining
companies.

The class action concerns negligent conduct over a period of 50
years that allegedly caused mineworkers to contract silicosis and
tuberculosis.

The mineworkers seek to undertake the litigation as
representatives of all current and former gold mineworkers who
contracted silicosis, and dependants of deceased mineworkers who
died after contracting the disease. The number of people who might
benefit from the lawsuit is estimated at 200 000.

TAC and Sonke seek to join the case to introduce evidence of the
negative impact the gold mining industry's neglect has had on
labour-sending communities and particularly on women in rural
areas.

Their application is opposed by the mining companies in the main
application.

The companies claim evidence to be submitted by the TAC and Sonke
would not differ materially from that already proffered by the
applicants in the certification application. The gold mining
companies claim the evidence would not assist the court.

Advocate for the TAC and Sonke, Adila Hassim said, if allowed to
intervene, the organisations would assist the court.

However, Deputy Judge President Phineas Mojapelo asked Hassim
whether this application would not result in the postponement of
the main case in October.

"It would be very undesirable to delay the hearing of the main
application," Mojapelo said.

Hassim said the organisations did not want to upset the timetable
and hoped to find a way to fit within it.

If the organisations are admitted as friends of the court, the
mining companies would need to answer to the allegations contained
in submissions to be made by them a month before the October
application.

However, lawyers for the mining companies including Gold Fields,
said the friends of the court would have to advance its own
argument and not repeat arguments that had already been made by
the mineworkers.

Alfred Cockrell SC, for Anglo American South Africa, said the
evidence Sonke and the TAC sought to advance would not assist the
court.

The application continues on.


AUTO CLUB GROUP: Class Cert. Bid in "Monteleone" Denied
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case, FRANK MONTELEONE, and SHERI MONTELEONE, Plaintiff, v.
THE AUTO CLUB GROUP, el al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-12716
(E.D. Mich.), Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment and
declaratory relief, specifically seeking judicial interpretation
of certain contested policy terms and exclusions and for
certification of the declaratory judgment class.

On January, 17, 2013, the named plaintiffs, Frank and Sheri
Monteleone, suffered water damage in their finished basement of
their Clinton Township home which caused significant harm,
including loss of personal property, and structural damage to
their home.  They sought over $100,000 in damages in the putative
class action for homeowners' insurance coverage for water damage
in their basements.

District Judge George Caram Steeh of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in the Opinion and
Order dated July 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/4EOxCgfrom
Leagle.com, granted in part plaintiffs' motion for summary
judgment on their claim for declaratory relief and denied in part
as to the other declaratory relief sought in the original motion
and in the reply brief. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.

Petitioners are represented by Amy L. Marino, Esq. --
amarino@sommerspc.com -- Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. --
kstoops@sommerspc.com -- Jason J. Thompson, Esq. --
jthompson@sommerspc.com -- Lance C. Young, Esq., SOMMERS SCHWARTZ,
P.C.,  Michael H. Fabian, Esq. -- mfabian@fabiansklar.com --
Patrick A. King, Esq. -- pking@fabiansklar.com -- FABIAN, SKLAR

Defendants are represented by Kevin M. Aoun, Esq. - kaoun@bsdd.com
& Morley Witus, Esq. -- mwitus@bsdd.com -- BARRIS, SOTT, DENN &
DRIKER, PLLC


B&G FOODS: Faces "Walker" Suit on False Marketing
-------------------------------------------------
Troy Walker, and all others similarly-situated v. B&G Foods, Inc.
and B&G Foods North America, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03772 (N.D.
Calif., August 18, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
alleged false marketing and false representing the Trans Fat Tacos
as free of trans fat.

The Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendants to, inter alia:

  -- cease marketing and selling the Trans Fat Tacos using the
     false and unauthorized nutrient content claim "0g trans
     fat";

  -- conduct a corrective advertising campaign;

  -- destroy all misleading and deceptive materials and Products;

  -- award Plaintiff and other Class members restitution, actual
     damages, and punitive damages to the extent permitted under
     the law; and

  -- pay costs, expenses, and reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Defendants manufacture, market, and sell taco shells
containing partially hydrogenated oil ("PHO").

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory S. Weston, Esq.
      THE WESTON FIRM
      1405 Morena Blvd., Suite 201
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Tel: (619) 798-2006
      Fax: (313) 293-7071
      E-mail: greg@westonfirm.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Fouts, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06892
(S.D.N.Y., September 1, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
alleged collusive manipulation of the market for U.S. Treasury
bills, notes, and bonds, and derivative financial products based
on these Treasury securities, including Treasury futures and
options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Penny, Esq.
      Paul Scarlato, Esq.
      Mark Goldman, Esq.
      GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY, P.C.
      101 E. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 204
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 342-0700
      Facsimile: (484) 580-8729
      E-mail: penny@lawgsp.com
              scarlato@lawgsp.com
              goldman@lawgsp.com

         - and -

      Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
      PEIFFER ROSCA WOLF ABDULLAH CARR & KANE
      A Professional Law Corporation
      1422 Euclid Avenue, Suite 1610
      Cleveland, OH 44115
      Telephone: (216) 589-9280
      Facsimile: (888) 411-0038
      E-mail: arosca@prwlegal.com

         - and -

      Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
      EDELSON & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      3 Terry Drive, Suite 205
      Newtown, PA 18940
      Telephone: (215) 867-2200
      Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
      E-mail: medelson@edelson-law.com


BAREBURGER GROUP: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Morales, Moises Baxin, Marco Antonio Perez, Noe
Mendieta, and all others similarly-situated v. Bareburger Group
LLC, Bareburger Inc., Bare City Two LLC dba 85 Second Avenue Bare
Burger, Euripides Pelekanos, Georgios Rodas, Nikolaos
Marolachakis, and Nikolaos Galanis, Case No. 1:15-cv-06497
(S.D.N.Y., August 18, 2015), seek to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime, including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own operate or control several organic fast food
restaurants, one of which is located at New York and operating
under the trade name "Bareburger".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620


BETACOM INC: "Lehmann" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Lehmann, Michael Futch, and Scott Case, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Betacom, Inc.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-61846-JIC (S.D. Fla., September 1, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and damages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Betacom, Inc. provides specific technical services to support the
wireless industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      830 3rd Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (800) 616-4000
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com


BIOGEN INC: Suit Alleges Securities Exchange Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Tehrani, and all others similarly-situated v. Biogen Inc.,
George A. Scangos, and Paul J. Clancy, Case No. 1:15-cv-13189 (D.
Mass., August 18, 2015), seeks damages for Defendants' alleged
misrepresentation in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

This is a securities class action on behalf of all persons who
purchased Biogen common stock between January 29, 2015 and July
23, 2015, inclusive, seeking remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiff's claims are asserted against
certain of Biogen's executive officers and directors.

Biogen is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering, developing, manufacturing, and delivering therapies
for neurological, autoimmune, and hematologic disorders. It is
headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Its common stock trades
on the NasdaqGS ("NASDAQ") under the symbol, "BIIB."

The Defendant George A. Scangos is Chief Executive Officer and a
director of Biogen.

The Defendant Paul J. Clancy is Executive Vice President, Finance
and Chief Financial Officer of Biogen.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 363-7500
      Fax: (212) 363-7171


BLUE CROSS: Workers' Discrimination Class Suit Remanded
-------------------------------------------------------
Gina Carrano, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the Ninth Circuit remanded to Superior Court a consolidated class
action accusing Blue Cross of race- and gender-based employment
discrimination.

The consolidated class action sprang from two complaints, filed 13
minutes apart in San Francisco Superior Court in 2011. Both
accused Blue Cross of California and Anthem Blue Cross Life and
Health Insurance Company of discrimination. One claimed that
African-American and female employees were paid less than their
white male counterparts, the other that Blue Cross denied them
promotions based on race and gender.

In their long journey through the courts, the cases were
transferred to Los Angeles Superior Court, where they were
consolidated. After being removed to L.A. Federal Court, the
plaintiffs were split into two classes, creating what the Ninth
Circuit called "the incongruous result" of sending the promotion
discrimination claim to Federal Court and the wage discrimination
claim to state court.

The Central District (federal) court in L.A. separated the
classes, citing the local controversy exception in the federal
Class Action Fairness Act. The local controversy exception is a
four-pronged test to ensure that class actions where both
plaintiffs and defendants are concentrated in one geographical
area are not transferred to Federal Court, "because state courts
have a strong interest in adjudicating such disputes."

The federal judge ruled that the local controversy exception
applied only to the wage discrimination class, and remanded it to
state court, while retaining jurisdiction over the promotions
class.

Writing for a three-judge panel on Aug. 20, Judge Barry Silverman
disagreed.

The fourth prong of the local controversy exception requires that
no similar class actions have been filed in the same court within
the past three years. Silverman found it improper for the district
court to view the two class actions as separate cases after they
had been consolidated.

The district court sided with Blue Cross, which had argued that
because the two class actions were similar and had been filed
within three years of one another, the local controversy exception
did not apply to either one.

The plaintiffs claimed that Los Angeles Superior Court's initial
decision to consolidate meant it should be evaluated as a single
case, and sole one of its kind in the past three years.

Silverman remanded, ordering the Superior Court "to treat the
class actions as a single consolidated case and remand in its
entirety to state court."

Plaintiff-appellants Ebony Bridewell-Sledge et al. are represented
by Andre Balardini, with Myles, Knapp, Peterson & Clark.

Wellpoint et al. are represented by Seyfarth Shaw.

Seyfarth Shaw
333 South Hope Street
Suite 3900 Los Angeles, CA 90071-1406
Phone: (213) 270-9600
Fax: (213) 270-9601
http://www.seyfarth.com/


BLUE RIDGE PAPER: 6th Cir. Remands for Computation of Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Helene N. White of the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit remanded for computation of the taxable
portion of the conference room charge, and affirmed as to all
other costs in the case captioned, BETH FREEMAN, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v. BLUE RIDGE PAPER PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case Nos.
14-6197 (6th Cir.).

Plaintiff Freeman initiated the lawsuit on October 11, 2005, in
Tennessee state court. Freeman and the 300 class members are
citizens of Cocke County and own real property adjoining and/or
abutting the Pigeon River downstream from the Canton, North
Carolina, mill. Freeman alleged that in the course of operating
the mill, Blue Ridge discharged a number of pollutants into the
Pigeon River, which resulted in odor, discoloration, and foaming,
and caused injuries to her and the class, including loss of
enjoyment of their real property; impaired quality of life and
water; personal discomfort, fear, stress, annoyance, and
inconvenience; loss of recreational use of the river; and loss of
rental value of properties located on or near the river.
Plaintiffs sought damages accruing from August 17, 2005, until the
trial date, but disavowed damages in excess of $4.9 million,
presumably to avoid removal to federal court under the Class
Action Fairness Act (CAFA). Blue Ridge removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
on January 12, 2006, but the district court remanded the case to
state court after finding that it was more likely than not that
Freeman's claims did not meet the amount-in-controversy
requirement.

Blue Ridge filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims,
which the district court granted, finding that Plaintiffs did not
introduce sufficient evidence of causation. As the prevailing
party, Blue Ridge filed its bill of costs totaling $24,145.84,
together with supporting documentation. Plaintiffs appealed the
grant of summary judgment, and the district court stayed
assessment of the costs pending appeal. The district court clerk
issued findings recommending that the costs be reduced to
$15,101.07. The clerk disallowed a number of expenses because of
inadequate documentation or because the costs were not chargeable
under the applicable laws and guidelines. At Plaintiffs' request,
the district court reviewed the clerk's findings de novo and
ordered that the costs be taxed as recommended by the clerk.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argue that the entire award of costs should
be vacated, based on the totality of the circumstances, including
that: 1) they acted in good faith and with propriety during the
course of the litigation; 2) this case was close and difficult;
and 3) Blue Ridge's bill of costs included a number of
unnecessary, unreasonable, and unsubstantiated charges. Blue Ridge
responds that costs are presumptively awarded to the prevailing
party and there is no legal authority supporting appellate review
of the factors Plaintiffs set forth. Plaintiffs maintain that the
district court abused its discretion by not denying all costs
based on the deficiencies of Blue Ridge's bill of costs.
Specifically, Plaintiffs argue that because a number of costs
requested by Blue Ridge were inadequately described or not
permitted under applicable law and therefore disallowed by the
clerk, the district court should have denied the entire cost
award.

In the Order dated August 26, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/jnjz5Sfrom Leagle.com, Judge White held that
Plaintiffs' argument that the district court abused its discretion
in awarding costs failed and that Plaintiffs did not meet their
burden of demonstrating that these costs were impermissible. Blue
Ridge provided an adequate explanation that sufficiently connected
the room rental cost to the actual depositions, rather than
general business overhead specifically, the convenience to the
witnesses and the reduction of otherwise taxable travel costs. The
Court remanded for computation of the taxable portion of the
$400.00 conference room rental charge.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Morano" Case Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin McNulty granted Plaintiff's motion for
voluntary dismissal of the case captioned, JOHN J. MORANO,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:12-
CV-0606(KM) (MAH) (D. N.J.).

Plaintiff John Morano brought a putative class action against BMW
of North America, LLC (BMW) for violations of the Florida
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), breach of
contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
breach of warranty, and punitive damages.  He alleged that BMW
wrongly denied warranty coverage and failed to clearly disclose
the exclusion. He sought damages as well as an injunction
compelling BMW to change its warranty policy. After he found out
that BMW already modified its warranty policy in April 2011, he
sought to dismiss the action voluntarily and without prejudice,
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2).

A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at http://is.gd/raySTL
from Leagle.com.


BNY MELLON: October 20 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

In re:

CIVIL ACTION NO.
MASTER FILE
12 MD 2335 (LAK)

BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP.
FOREX TRANSACTIONS LITIGATION

This Document Relates to: 11-CV-09175

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION,
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT;
(II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who or which purchased the common
stock of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation ("BNYM") during
the period beginning on February 28, 2008 through and including
October 4, 2011, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement
Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been preliminarily
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of
Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $180,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on October 20, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 21B of the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street,
New York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 23, 2015 (and
in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and the Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator
at In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Securities Action, c/o Epiq
Systems, P.O. Box 3410, Portland, OR 97208-3410, 1-877-819-9774.
Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.BNYMFXSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than
December 11, 2015.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible
to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than September 29,
2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the
proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Representative Defendants' Counsel
such that they are received no later than September 29, 2015, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, BNYM, or its
counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form, should be made to Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
John C. Browne, Esq.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
1-800-380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form should be made to:

In re Bank of New York
Mellon Corp. Securities Action
c/o Epiq Systems
P.O. Box 3410
Portland, OR 97208-3410
1-877-819-9774
www.BNYMFXSecuritiesLitigation.com

By Order of the Court


BOUNCEBACK INC: Faces Class Suit Over Bad Check Program
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff McDonald, writing for  the San Diego Union  --  Tribune,
reported that a class-action lawsuit in Northern California is
challenging a program used by prosecutors across the nation --
including San Diego -- to help businesses collect on bounced
checks.

The program is run by BounceBack Inc. of Kansas City, Missouri,
which sends debtors letters that threaten prosecution. The letters
are sent in cooperation with local district attorneys, who get a
share of fees that are collected.

Backers of the program see it as a way to partner with the private
sector to fight petty crime, allowing public resources to focus on
bigger things.

Critics say the letters are over the top, threatening prosecutions
that are unlikely or unwarranted. They worry due process could be
at risk, and question whether private companies should be making
money off law enforcement.

In San Diego, District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis has offered the
program to local businesses who lost money for at least 10 years.

"My office is providing a Check Enforcement Program to assist
merchants and individuals in fighting back against bad check
writers," her website says.

Links on the district attorney's website lead visitors to
HotChecks.net, a domain registered to BounceBack Inc. of Kansas
City, Missouri, which features a photo of Dumanis, her official
office seal and her message urging creditors to sign up for the
service.

Writing a bad check is illegal in California if it's done
knowingly or with intent to defraud.

Critics say companies like BounceBack deliberately mislead debtors
by overstating the possibility that they will be criminally
prosecuted for bouncing a check.

"The district attorney's job is to enforce criminal laws," said
Paul Arons, a Washington state lawyer who filed the lawsuit
against BounceBack earlier. "DA's are not supposed to be in the
debt-collection business."

Arons said most people who bounce checks do so inadvertently and
without criminal intent. When they do overdraw their accounts,
they are typically charged a returned check fee by their banks,
and sometimes the business.

"Now they're being told they'll be charged with a crime," Arons
said. "Threatening to put someone in jail if they don't pay you
money is called extortion."

BounceBack president and founder H. Gale Krieg did not respond to
a message left at his Kansas City office or an email. Employees
said Krieg was the only person authorized to speak to reporters.

One of the lawyers defending BounceBack in the class-action case
said his client is merely operating as an administrative agent for
the district attorney and noted that everyone contacted by the
company has been determined by prosecutors to have possibly
committed a crime.

"The letters that are sent out are fully the responsibility of the
prosecutor," said Gregg R. Smith, an attorney in Spokane, Wash.
"They either draft, approve or modify a letter that may or may not
be sent. BounceBack provides an administrative service that will
assist and alleviate some of the budget problems" for prosecutors'
offices.

According to the company, BounceBack does business with dozens of
local governments, including at least eight counties in
California. The firm has several competitors across the country.

The American Bar Association examined the business model in detail
and issued a legal opinion aimed at helping lawyers and
prosecutors decide when it is appropriate to contract with outside
vendors to operate a check-enforcement program.

The opinion concludes it is unethical for prosecutors to farm out
the work absent a review for probable cause that a crime may have
been committed or a review of the letter to ensure that it
complies with the rules of professional conduct for lawyers.

The San Diego Union-Tribune contacted the San Diego County
District Attorney's Office on with a number of questions about the
program. Dumanis said answers and documentation would be provided.

"The involvement of the District Attorney's Office is in
compliance with the ethics opinion from the American Bar
Association, as you will see when you receive our documentation,"
Dumanis said via email.

Under its agreement with San Diego County, BounceBack collects
information about returned checks from businesses and individuals
who report the insufficient funds through the county enforcement
program.

Many of the cases are referred by collection agencies or companies
that accept a high number of personal checks.

BounceBack alerts the District Attorney's Office to possible cases
and prosecutors decide whether the checkwriters will receive a
warning letter, Smith said. He said every recipient is given a
chance to pay up long before a letter is sent.

"It's a good deal for prosecutors and their constituents," Smith
said. "Economic crimes cause a huge toll on society."

The BounceBack notices sent in Mendocino County are included in
the class-action lawsuit. On District Attorney's Office
letterhead, they carry messages such as "Warning of Criminal
Charges" and "It is still possible to avoid a CRIMINAL
CONVICTION." They contain no reference to the company or its
involvement.

The letters go on to state that the recipient must pay the full
dollar amount shown and also enroll in an online "check writer's
financial training course" at a fee of $145 or more. The program
fee is $50 or more and if the person pays with a credit or debit
card, there is a $6 fee for that.

"Payment must be received within ten (10) days from the date of
this letter," the notices state.

The contract that San Diego County officials signed with
BounceBack in 2011 calls on the company to provide monthly reports
indicating how many checks were reported, how much money was
recovered, how much was received in fees by the vendor and how
much was paid to the District Attorney's Office.

The proposal BounceBack submitted in advance of being awarded the
contract estimates the program would generate $1.3 million over
five years beyond the money it recovers on behalf of businesses
and individuals.

Most of those funds pay for BounceBack salaries, benefits and
operating costs. BounceBack estimated the county would receive
about $75,000 a year from fees paid by more than 1,200
checkwriters.

The class-action case against BounceBack was filed August 3 in
federal court in Northern California. The suit seeks an injunction
against the company, a legal determination that its practices
violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, punitive damages,
attorney fees and other damages.

"It is a misrepresentation to state that a check writer risks
prosecution when no prosecutor has reviewed evidence," the lawsuit
states.

Smith, the BounceBack attorney, said his client relies on the
prosecutors to review case histories before any warning letters
are mailed out.

"We have no discretion," he said. "This is the prosecutors'
program."

Arons said that prosecutorial review is nothing more than a
monthly list of checks with no specific evaluation of what
prompted the bank to return the check unpaid. No one reviews the
evidence to determine if a crime may have been committed, he said.

"They're looking at a name, an address and a check," Arons said.
"They don't do any investigation, any of the things they normally
do when they prosecute someone."

The practice of outsourcing check enforcement programs has gained
more attention from federal regulators as the industry has grown
in recent years.

In March, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced an
enforcement action against BounceBack competitor National
Collective Group of San Clemente that prohibited the company from
using District Attorney's Office letterhead

The order also directed the firm to inform consumers that
prosecutors had not specifically determined they should be charged
with a crime and to stop telling them they were required to enroll
in diversion courses.

"National Corrective Group masqueraded as prosecutors and used
deceptive tactics to intimidate consumers into paying hundreds of
dollars in extra fees to avoid potential criminal prosecution,"
said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. "we are taking action to put a
stop to these illegal debt collection practices."


BP PLC: Seeks to Recover Some Oil Spill Settlement Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGill, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
attorneys for BP told a federal appeals court on Sept. 3 that the
company should be able to get back some of the money it paid in
economic damage claims to businesses and individuals under a
settlement arising from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

After the 2012 settlement was approved, BP argued that the claims
administrator had not been correctly matching business' revenues
and expenses, resulting in overpayments.  A court eventually
ordered a new calculation method but refused to order restitution
of payments already made.

The company wants restitution of some of the money paid out prior
to October 2013.  Attorneys told the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals that restitution could involve more than 790 businesses,
with hundreds of millions of dollars at stake.

"A wrong was done," BP attorney Thomas Hungar told a three-judge
5th Circuit panel, arguing that the settlement does not preclude
BP from seeking repayment of inflated claims.

Attorneys representing a variety of plaintiffs in the case opposed
the move.  Samuel Issacharoff told the court that those who signed
releases and received settlement payments had a right to expect
that "this was their money.  They were able to get on with their
lives."

Fifth Circuit chief Judge Carl Stewart heard the arguments with
judges Edward Prado and Gregg Costa.  A ruling isn't expected
immediately.

The case is among the lingering legal issues after major
settlements in the massive oil spill that resulted from the
April 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon offshore rig, which
killed 11 people.  Earlier this year, BP reached an $18.7 billion
agreement with governments in the five Gulf Coast states affected
by the spill.

The 2012 settlement with businesses and individuals claiming
losses from the spill is expected to cost BP over $10 billion.  As
of July 31, the claims administrator had paid out $5.61 billion,
according to a report filed in federal court.

Other costs incurred by the company after the spill include an
estimated $14 billion for response and cleanup and $4.5 billion in
penalties announced after a settlement of a criminal case with the
federal government.


BRINK'S INC: Conference Hearing Schedule Vacated, Action Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jeffrey S. White of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California vacated the hearing
scheduled for September 4, 2015 and stayed the action in the case
captioned, ERNIE RICARDO FERNANDEZ, individually, on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiff, v. BRINK'S INCORPORATED, a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1-5, Defendants, Case Nos. 15-CV-02667-JSW (N.D. Cal.).

On April 8, 2015, Fernandez filed a putative class action in the
Superior Court of California for the City and County of San
Francisco. Brinks employed Fernandez as a messenger from October
13, 2008 though his termination on January 27, 2015. Fernandez
alleged that Brinks violated various provisions of California's
Labor Code by: (1) failing to pay overtime wages; (2) failing to
pay premium rest period wages; (3) failing to pay premium meal
period wages; and (4) failing to pay wages due at termination.
Based on these alleged violations of the Labor Code, Fernandez
also asserted a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law,
Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq., (UCL claim),
and a claim under the Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA claim). According to the allegations in the Complaint, the
putative class period began on April 8, 2011 and the PAGA claim
period began on February 26, 2014.

In the motions, Brinks moved to dismiss, or to stay, the PAGA
claim, pursuant to the Colorado River doctrine, in favor of the
Ceron state court litigation. It also moved to dismiss, or stay,
the remaining claims on the basis that they were duplicative of
the claims pending in the Ceron federal litigation. As an
alternative to dismissal, Brinks asked the Court to exercise its
inherent authority to stay the case pending resolution of the
Belew motion for final approval and the Ceron cases.

In his Order dated August 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/DIccAXfrom Leagle.com, Judge White Court exercises
its inherent authority to stay this litigation pending a ruling on
the motion for final approval in the Belew litigation because the
a ruling on Ceron's objection to the Belew settlement also may
alter the scope of the Ceronfederal litigation, as well as the
Ceron state litigation, which, in turn, could alter the landscape
of the case. The Court denied motion to strike and ordered the
parties to file a joint status report within 10 days of the Belew
court's ruling on the motion for final approval.

Ernie Ricardo Fernandez is represented by:

Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
Brent Alan Robinson, Esq.
LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
2760 Mission St
San Francisco, CA 94110
Tel: (415)695-1000

Brink's Incorporated is represented by Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. --
spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Becki Diana Graham, Esq. --
becki.graham@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.


BYRIDER FINANCE: Court Denies Motion to Seal Settlement Docs
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ANDREA POLLOCK, Plaintiff, v. BYRIDER
FINANCE, LLC., Defendant, Case No. 15-334 (W.D. Pa.), the
plaintiffs are all current and former assistant branch finance
managers employed by Defendant at its corporate-owned dealerships
at various locations throughout the U.S.  They filed suit against
Defendants under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for
misclassifying her and other employees as "exempt" and failing to
pay them overtime compensation.

A Motion to Dismiss was filed in May, 2015, which has yet to be
ruled upon by the Court because on June 8, 2015, the Court was
notified via motion that the parties have since reached a
settlement agreement. The notification came in the form of a Joint
Motion for Leave to File Confidential Joint Motion for Approval of
Settlement and Stipulation of Dismissal and Related Documents. The
Motion averred that the settlement agreement included a provision
to keep all financial terms of that settlement confidential. The
case has not yet been ruled to be either a collective or a class
action.

Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in the Opinion
dated June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/fOEGqyfrom
Leagle.com, denied the parties' request, saying the settlement and
stipulation of dismissal and related documents are a judicial
record and subject to the presumption of right of public access.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
     Sonia M. Whitehouse, Esq.
     THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
     614 W Superior Ave #920
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: (216)696-5000

BYRIDER FINANCE, LLC is represented by Gregory W. Guevara, Esq. --
gguevara@boselaw.com -- Philip R. Zimmerly, Esq. --
pzimmerly@boselaw.com -- BOSE MCKINNEY & EVANS LLP, Marie I.
Rivera Johnson, Esq. -- mriverajohnson@cohenlaw.com -- COHEN &
GRIGSBY, P.C


CACH LLC: "Echols" Dispute Remanded to State Court
--------------------------------------------------
Defendant William Echols filed a motion to remand and brief in
support, and Plaintiff CACH, LLC filed a response in opposition
and brief in support in the case captioned, CACH, LLC,
Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. WILLIAM ECHOLS, on behalf of a
class of similarly situated, Arkansas residents,
Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, and Third-Party Plaintiff, v.
SQUARETWO FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant, GENE
SLAYTON, Third-Party Plaintiff, Case No. 15-6042 (W.D. Ark.).

On November 14, 2013, CACH filed a complaint against Echols in
Clark County District Court, Arkadelphia Division, alleging breach
of contract.  CACH alleged that Echols defaulted on his obligation
to pay for the charges incurred with the credit card issued by GE
Money Retail Bank, and that the obligation had been assigned to
CACH, who was therefore entitled to enforce the contract and
receive payment of the credit card balance. Echols responded that
same day by filing an answer, class action counterclaim, and class
action third-party complaint. The counterclaim against CACH
included claims under the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
(ADTPA), the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA),
the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (AFDCPA), and for
abuse of process. The third-party complaint alleged a claim under
the ADTPA against third-party defendant SquareTwo Financial
Corporation (SquareTwo).

District Judge Robert T. Dawson of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas in the Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated July 2, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/UGR5xpfrom Leagle.com, granted Defendant Echols's
motion for remand to the Clark County Circuit Court because CACH
and SquareTwo did not provide the Court with any authority to
indicate that a plaintiff was entitled to removal; denied as moot
Plaintiff CACH, LLC's and Third-Party Defendant SquareTwo
Financial Corporation's motion to dismiss; and denied Defendant
Echol's request for attorney's fees and costs in pursuit of the
motion.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Becky A. McHughes, Esq.
     Christopher D. Anderson
     Jennifer Liwo, Esq.
     Josh Edgar McHughes, Esq.
     THE MCHUGHES LAW FIRM LLC
     917 W 2nd St
     Little Rock, AR 72201
     Tel: (501)376-9131

          - and -

David M. Donovan, Esq. -- david.donovan@wdt-law.com -- Staci Dumas
Carson, Esq. -- staci.carson@wdt-law.com -- WATTS, DONOVAN AND
TILLEY

Defendants are represented by David M. Donovan, Esq. --
david.donovan@wdt-law.com -- Staci Dumas Carson, Esq. --
staci.carson@wdt-law.com -- WATTS, DONOVAN AND TILLEY


CALIFORNIA: 9th Cir. Ruled on Appeal Over Inmate's Bid for Stay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Andrew Mitchell was convicted of first degree murder at a
jury trial in California state court. He was sentenced to 50 years
to life in prison. On direct appeal, Mitchell, represented by
counsel, raised several claims challenging the trial court's jury
instructions. Mitchell sought to remove "all unexhausted claims"
from his petition. The magistrate judge granted Mitchell's motion
and denied a motion to dismiss as moot, which was filed by the
state.  Subsequently, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation to the district judge recommending that the court
deny relief on the merits of the three exhausted claims.

On appeal, Mitchell argued that the magistrate judge overstepped
his authority by denying the motion to stay and abey his habeas
corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254, while he exhausted some
of his claims in state court.

Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon of the United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit in the Opinion dated July 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/cK1Olifrom Leagle.com, vacated the judgment, holding
that the magistrate judge "was beyond" his authority when he
denied the motion for stay.

The appellate case is, KEITH ANDREW MITCHELL, Petitioner-
Appellant, v. ELVIN VALENZUELA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee, Case
No. 12-55041 (9th Cir.).

Petitioner is represented by Sean Kennedy, Esq., FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Michael David Weinstein, Esq., ASSISTANT FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER & Mark Raymond Drozdowski, Esq.,  DEPUTY FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER

Respondent is represented by Kamala Harris, Esq., ATTORNEY
GENERAL, Dane Gillette, Esq., CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Lance Winters, Esq., SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, Michael
Johnsen, Esq., SUPERVISING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Kim Aarons,
Esq. & Ana Duarte, Esq., DEPUTY ATTORNEYS GENERAL


CALIFORNIA: CA Affirms Ruling in Suit v. State Personnel Board
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Vance W. Raye of the Court of Appeals of
California, Third District, Sacramento, affirmed the trial court's
judgment denying both petitions for a writ of mandate and a
supplemental petition for a writ of mandate in the trial court in
the case captioned, GLENN JOHNSTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
STATE PERSONNEL BOARD, Defendant; DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, Real Party in Interest and Respondent, Case No.
C075357 (Cal. App. Ct.).

Plaintiff Glenn Johnston retired from his position as chief
dentist at a correctional facility in 2005. In 2007 and 2008
Johnston applied for eight chief dentist positions at other
correctional facilities.  Prior to that, Johnston was chief
dentist at Camarillo State Hospital from 1988 through 1996. His
annual salary was $123,000, and he had served as chief dentist for
18 years. After he was not selected for any of those positions,
Johnston filed a discrimination complaint with defendant State
Personnel Board (Board) under Government Code section 19702. The
Board dismissed the complaint.

Johnston subsequently filed a petition for a writ of mandate in
the trial court, challenging the Board's decision. The court found
no evidence of discrimination with respect to seven of the eight
positions. The court held that the findings regarding the position
at Deuel were not supported by the evidence. The matter was
remanded back to the Board to "reconsider the evidence in the
record and make new findings on the issue whether Johnston proved
race or sex was a motivating factor in the decision not to select
him for the Chief Dentist position" at the institution. The Board
issued new findings, concluding Corrections did not discriminate
against Johnston when it failed to select him for the chief
dentist position at Deuel. It also found Corrections selected two
white males for chief dentist positions for which Johnston
applied. The court denied the supplemental petition, finding
Johnston failed to come forward with evidence demonstrating
discrimination played a role in the failure to hire him for the
Deuel position.

On appeal, Johnston argued Corrections treated him less favorably
than other candidates for the chief dentist positions because of
his race and gender.

In the Order dated August 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ESgfWZfrom Leagle.com, Judge Raye found no evidence
of a discriminatory motive on the part of Corrections nor any
evidence of pretext. The Board's findings are supported by
substantial evidence.


CAROLINA ALE HOUSE: Court Grants' Motion for Attorneys' Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Helen Gillmor of the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina granted Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for award of attorneys' fees, costs, and class
representatives' incentive awards and awarded attorneys' fees,
costs and incentive awards in the case captioned, KATIE D.
McCLARAN; ASHLEY THOMAS; JENNIFER L. ROACH; and JENNIFER L.
SHARPE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. CAROLINA ALE HOUSE OPERATING COMPANY, LLC; LM
RESTAURANTS, INC.; and SULLIVAN MANAGEMENT LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:14-CV-03884-MBS (D.S.C.).

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiffs Katie D. McClaran, Ashley Thomas,
and Jennifer Roach filed this collective action pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, against Defendants Carolina Ale House
Operating Company, LLC and LM Restaurants, Inc.  Subsequently, on
April 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a consent motion for preliminary
approval of certification and settlement. Plaintiffs alleged that
the express terms of their employment contracts require that all
tips received by an employee are to be retained by the employee
except for tips required to be contributed to a tip pool and that
Defendants regularly retained tips to pay overhead labor costs for
expediters, which violates the contract. On June 26, 2015,
Plaintiff filed a consent motion for final certification of the
settlement classes and approval of the settlement.

On July 31, 2015, the court held a fairness hearing and considered
Plaintiffs' consent motion for final certification of the
settlement classes and approval of the settlement, as well as the
unopposed motion for award of attorneys' fees costs, and class
representatives' incentive awards. At that time, the court
certified the class and approved the settlement. Subsequently, the
court issued a written order granting the motion for final
certification of the settlement classes and approval of the
settlement.

Plaintiffs' counsel requests a total of $629,730 in attorneys'
fees, $27,770 in costs,  $17,500 in claims related expenses and
$12,500 to the claims administrator.

In her Order and Opinion dated August 26, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/1aG8ilfrom Leagle.com, Judge Seymour found that the
expenses incurred, and those that will be incurred, are reasonable
and within the realm of expected expenses associated with
litigation in similar cases. Thus, the court approved Plaintiffs'
counsel's motion for costs.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Badge Humphries, Esq.
James Mixon Griffin, Esq.
Margaret Nicole Fox, Esq.
LEWIS BABCOCK AND GRIFFIN
1513 Hampton St
Columbia, SC 29201
Tel: (803) 771-8000

     - and -

Todd R. Ellis, Esq.
TODD ELLIS LAW OFFICE
7911 Broad River Rd #100
Irmo, SC 29063
Tel: (803)732-0123

Defendants are represented by William L. Duda, Esq. --
William.duda@ogletreedeakins.com -- Kevin S. Joyner, Esq. --
kevin.joyner@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK
AND STEWART


CASTFORCE INC: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Castforce, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03087-MHS
(N.D. Ga., September 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Castforce, Inc. represents itself as a "network for independent
contractors dedicated to providing professional retail services."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell D. Benjamin, Esq.
      Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
      Matthew W. Herrington, Esq.
      DELONG, CALDWELL, BRIDGERS, FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
      3100 Centennial Tower
      101 Marietta Street, NW
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3150
      Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
      E-mail: benjamin@dcbflegal.com
              charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
              matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com


CENTRAL PAYMENT: Faces "Heidarpour" Suit Over TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Heidarpour, and all others similarly-situated v. Central
Payment Co., LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-00139 (M.D. Ga., August 18,
2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other available
legal or equitable remedies pursuant to the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Central Payment provides credit card transaction processing
services to businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven H. Koval, Esq.
      THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC
      3575 Piedmont Road
      15 Piedmont Center, Suite 120
      Atlanta, GA 30305
      Tel: (404) 513-6651
      Fax: (404) 549-4654
      E-mail: shkoval@aol.com

         - and -

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      99 High St., Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (508) 221-1510
      E-mail: ted@broderick-law.com


         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      1 South Avenue, Suite 3
      Natick, MA 01760
      Tel: (508) 655-1415
      Fax: (508) 319-3077
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


CEZ: Obtains Unfavorable Ruling from Bulgarian High Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The Sofia Globe reported that Bulgaria's Supreme Court of
Cassation ruled on August 24 against electricity distribution firm
CEZ in a class action lawsuit filed by the consumer watchdog,
ruling that the company could not require end users to pay bills
that have been officially challenged by customers.

The consumer watchdog said that the court ruling required CEZ to
remove the clauses from its terms of use within a period of two
months, but the company said in a statement that the clauses have
been dropped already, in line with a regulation passed in 2013.

The Consumer Protection Commission said that CEZ's customers who
believe that their rights have been breached while the clauses
were in effect can sue the company for damages. The watchdog said
that it has several class action lawsuits against electricity
distribution companies regarding unfair clauses in their
contracts.


CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS: Must Face Class Suit; Discovery Okayed
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Max O. Cogburn of the United States District for
Western District of North Carolina denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss amended class action complaint in the case captioned,
CAMERON McINTYRE ROMAN ZAK, Plaintiffs, v. SIMON PEDDER L. ARTHUR
HEWITT J. NICK RIEHLE CHELSEA THERAPEUTICS INTERNATIONAL, LTD.
WILLIAM D. SCHWIETERMAN, Defendants, Case No. 3:12-CV-00213-MOC-
DCK (W.D. N.C.).

Plaintiffs are investors who purchased Chelsea stock between
November 3, 2008, and March 28, 2012 (the class period), and have
asserted a number of claims, including claims including that
defendants misled investors to believe that the FDA would approve
NORTHERA based on the results of only one successful efficacy
study, citing to dozens of allegedly misleading statements or
material omissions by the defendants. A week after the March 28,
2012 FDA advisory committee announced its non-binding
recommendation in favor of approving NORTHERA as a new drug,
plaintiffs filed this action and later filed their Consolidated
Class Action Complaint (Complaint), asserting violations of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule
10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5 (Rule 10b-5).

The defendants contend that (1) plaintiffs have not pleaded a
material misrepresentation, by either a false or misleading
statement or by a material omission, (2) plaintiffs must rely on a
theory of omission, but that they fail to state a claim because no
omission is actionable; and (3) that plaintiffs have not attempted
to show that such opinions were subjectively false or lacked a
basis in fact, as required by the Fourth Circuit.

In his Order dated August 26, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/3RmoyFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cogburn, Jr. held that
the court cannot not conclude from the pleadings alone that
plaintiffs have failed to state causes of action under Rule
12(b)(6) or 9(b), or under the PSLRA and the better course is to
allow plaintiffs the discovery they seek as to the documents
defendants contend support dismissal and deny the Motion to
Dismiss without prejudice.

The court directed that defendants answer the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint within 21 days and, after issues are so joined,
direct that a Pretrial Order be entered and supervised by Judge
Keesler.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeremy Allan Lieberman, Esq. --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- POMERANTZ HAUDEK GROSSMAN & GROSS LLP &
Gary W. Jackson, Esq. - gjackson@thejacksonlawgroup.com -- THE
JACKSON LAW GROUP, PLLC

Defendants are represented by Lee M. Whitman, Esq. --
lwhitman@wyrick.com -- Sarah M. Johnson, Esq. --
sjohnson@wyrick.com -- WYRICK ROBBINS YATES & PONTON LLP, Barry M
Kaplan, Esq. -- bkaplan@wsgr.com, Gregory Lewis Watts, Esq. --
gwatts@wsgr.com -- Ignacio Evaristo Salceda, Esq. --
isalceda@wsgr.com -- WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI


CHICAGO, IL: Trial on Cops' OT Suit Enters Closing Arguments
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, writing for Chicago Tribune, reported that
Chicago police aren't known for their reluctance to file for
overtime pay.

But during a bench trial in Chicago federal court, a parade of
sergeants and lieutenants with the Bureau of Organized Crime
testified to working off-duty on department-issued BlackBerrys
without thinking to file overtime -- and now, through a class-
action lawsuit that has dragged on for five years, they want to
get paid.

The trial, which enters closing arguments, is examining whether
the bureau's policies indicate that employees shouldn't be paid
for off-duty work on their BlackBerrys and whether that violates
federal labor law, which requires nonexempt workers be paid time-
and-a-half for working beyond 40 hours a week.

The testimony also offers a glimpse inside a workplace dilemma
common to employees across diverse industries and public and
private sectors, where unwritten rules and unspoken expectations
drive people to stay glued to their work no matter what policies
are on the books.

"Our culture was to answer our phone, on or off duty," testified
Sgt. Lawrence Stec, who worked in the narcotics division for
several years. As for why he didn't file for overtime for off-duty
BlackBerry time: "We just didn't do it. It wasn't our culture."

Office culture has generated headlines and water cooler
conversations recently as the racing pace of work and
inescapability of technology blurs work/life boundaries, prompting
some high-profile companies to trot out generous perks in the name
of balance while others are accused of squeezing every bit of
sweat out of their employees.

When Netflix announced unlimited paid parental leave for a year
for new moms and dads, and other tech giants followed suit --
Microsoft bumped up its paid maternity leave to 20 weeks, and
Adobe Systems to 26 weeks -- skeptics smelled a PR stunt and said
it was unlikely anyone would dare to take advantage of it.

The New York Times expose on Amazon's "bruising," high-achieving
culture, rich with anecdotes of white-collar workers crying at
their desks and encouraged to tattle on their peers, sparked an
outcry even as many people acknowledged that Amazon is hardly
alone in its breakneck demands of its employees.

Peer pressure is "vastly more powerful" than policy in shaping
employee behavior, said Mike Prokopeak, editor of Chicago-based
Human Capital Media. He added that companies have to be careful to
align their words with their actions. A poorly implemented perk
can lead to higher disengagement and erosion of trust if people
find they can't really take advantage of it, he said.

"Anything you want to do culturally comes down to what you see,"
said Warren Smith, central region talent leader for Ernst & Young,
which prides itself on embracing flexible work arrangements. "When
our people start to see our leaders take advantage and support it,
it has been a catalyst where they find it socially acceptable."

People tend to look to others to determine what the expectations
are, especially people who are in positions of power or high
prestige, so when a supervisor sends email at all hours, employees
emulate that behavior, said Larissa Barber, assistant professor in
the psychology department at Northern Illinois University in
DeKalb. Or, she said, people get the message when their boss
praises the "star" employee who is always available or shames
employees who do not respond fast enough.

Though there have always been people pulling all-nighters at the
office, the modern "borderless" workplace keeps people
psychologically connected to work wherever they are -- and that
can be bad for business and health. The option to check in
frequently evolves into a feeling that they are expected to and
then a strong urge to immediately respond, a phenomenon
researchers call "workplace telepressure."

When telepressure interferes with critical recovery time employees
need in order to return refreshed, they feel burned out and have
trouble focusing on work tasks, Barber said.

"A lack of recovery starts a vicious cycle of employees getting
less done at work the next day because they are tired, which then
makes them work longer hours to catch up," Barber said. "It's a
very inefficient way of working, with a lot of collateral damage
to employees' family lives."

The nonstop churn also may have long-term health consequences. A
study in The Lancet found that people who work more than 55 hours
a week are 33 percent more likely to have a stroke and 13 percent
more likely to have coronary disease than those who work standard
hours, though the reasons for the correlation are not clear.

Sometimes an office's cultural pressure to perform is more
perception than reality.

When Natasha Lindor worked in sales at a Fortune 500 consumer
packaged goods company, a policy that permitted employees to work
one day a week from home often went unused because people feared
that senior leaders would disapprove.

"It created this feeling that people who were in charge of your
career, the influencers, that they're in the office and they value
face time, so if you were serious about your career, you need to
get your butt in the office and forfeit your work-from-home day,"
said Lindor, a daughter of Haitian immigrants who instilled in her
a strong work ethic.

Giving up that work-from-home day enough times instilled
resentment toward the company and to the high achievers it seemed
were setting the pace, she said.

Lindor, now a Chicago-based life balance and career coach and
founder of The And Factor, said upon reflection that it was
"totally perception" that and people need to find examples of
people who are not killing themselves and still succeeding, or
clarify with their manager what is expected for them to get
promoted.

"There are examples of people who were able to do amazingly and
they took advantage of the maternity leave, the relocation
support, working from home," Lindor said. "Those are the
boundaries they set for themselves."

For the Chicago cops suing the city, the matter of getting paid
overtime for BlackBerry use is a matter of both culture and
policy. The case, before Magistrate Judge Sidney Schenkier, was
originally brought in May 2010 by Sgt. Jeffrey Allen and grew to
include about 50 members of the department.

At the time, it seems the department had no written policy on off-
duty BlackBerry use. That changed in October 2010 when the
department published a general order that stated that employees
were not obligated to carry, access or respond to their devices
while off-duty, and that they wouldn't be compensated for using it
off-duty unless the employee is officially on a callback
assignment -- meaning they are called back to work -- or directed
by their superior to immediately perform a substantial task with
overtime authorization. An updated policy in 2013 forbade
employees from using their devices while off-duty unless a
supervisor directed them to perform work immediately and
authorized overtime pay for it.

All Police Department members with the rank of lieutenant and
below are hourly employees who are not exempt from overtime pay.

Cmdr. Thomas Waldera, a 28-year veteran and head of the narcotics
division, joined the lawsuit when he was still a lieutenant but
has since withdrawn.

Still, the plaintiffs' attorneys called him to testify. Waldera
estimated that as a lieutenant he spent three to five hours a day
working off-duty on his BlackBerry. About 100 messages would come
in during off hours, not all of which required a response. But he
said he did have to read them to know if he should respond.

"There was an expectation," he said. He would have missed vital
information if he had ignored the messages. But when asked if he
feared getting "dumped" from the unit if he didn't immediately
respond, he insisted he did not.

Waldera said it was his "personal choice" not to claim BlackBerry
usage as overtime and that he believed his superiors would have
approved it if he had, and he noted that he typically filed for 15
to 20 hours of overtime monthly as it was.

"I think they trusted my judgment," he said.

Others, however, testified that they feared repercussions had they
put in for overtime.

Sgt. Darrell Spencer, a 21-year veteran who works in the gang
investigations unit, said he answers his BlackBerry at all hours
because "I like my assignment. . . . I don't want to jeopardize
being removed from the bureau."

Asked why he didn't file for overtime, he testified: "I didn't
want to be the first, not knowing what would be outcome."

When he didn't respond while on a cruise without a cellphone
signal, Spencer said he wasn't formally disciplined but "it was
mentioned. I was asked about it."

Jim Washburn, a sergeant supervising the Bureau of Organized
Crime's tech lab when he retired in 2012, testified that he never
turned off his BlackBerry. Like his fellow bureau members, he
received a constant flow of emails from the Crime Prevention and
Information Center with shooting alerts. But in addition, because
he led the tech unit, he would get messages as frequently as every
15 minutes when they were tracking the location of a cellphone.

His wife ultimately put her foot down, and he set the phone on
vibrate at bedtime so she couldn't hear it but he could. He
wouldn't wait until his next shift to respond.

"It just wasn't done," he said. "When a supervisor contacted you,
you returned his call or email."

Would he have disciplined a subordinate who didn't respond while
off-duty?

"No," Washburn testified, "but I would mention it like it was
mentioned to me."

The city's attorneys, from the law firm Laner Muchin, noted that
some calls and emails being used as examples took just a few
minutes and that some could have waited until their next shift,
and that supervisors wouldn't always know that the person they
were calling was off-duty.

In response to questions from the city's attorneys, the witnesses
said they were never discouraged from putting an overtime slip in
for BlackBerry work, were never told they wouldn't be paid if they
did and were never disciplined for not answering their BlackBerrys
off-duty. They said they never complained to their supervisors or
union about working on their BlackBerrys or asked them about
whether they could claim overtime for it. They didn't do so after
the lawsuit was filed either.

James O'Grady, commander of the narcotics division from 2008 to
2013 and now chief of police in Harwood Heights, said constant
BlackBerry vigilance was not expected.

"You had to sleep, you had to have a life," he said. "If you
received an email at 2 in the morning no one would ever chastise
you for not answering."

He said he often didn't know if his subordinates were off-duty,
and if he did know, he tried not to send a lot of emails. If it
was an emergency, he would call them at home.

If nonexempt employees performed substantial work off-duty on
their BlackBerrys -- anything more than 10 minutes, he estimated -
- O'Grady said he would expect them to file for overtime and that
"it certainly would have been approved if they did." However, he
said, he never directed anyone to do so specifically. But he felt
that if a supervisor called, permission was inferred.

Nicholas Roti, who resigned as chief of the bureau in March and is
now chief of staff at the Illinois State Police, said that any
officer who worked at least 15 minutes of overtime on their
BlackBerrys "should file for overtime."

Asked by plaintiffs' attorney Paul Geiger if he felt putting in
long hours was how to get ahead, Roti said it isn't the only
factor.

"I think it's just hard work and if that's part of hard work,
maybe," he said. Personally, he said, he sets his phone to ring
only with emergency calls overnight, sparing him from the constant
email pings.

Sergeants, he said, are "adults" who can determine whether the
off-duty work they do on BlackBerry merits an overtime slip.

"I believe guys know how to put in overtime, and they're not shy
about it," Roti said. Chicago police racked up nearly $100 million
in overtime the most of any department. "If they're working a
little over and they feel it's not substantial, I feel they don't
have to if they don't want to."


CITIZENS BANK: Court Denies Bid to File Settlement Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
LORI A. MESTA, Plaintiff, v. CITIZENS BANK, N.A.; CITIZENS BANK OF
PENNSYLVANIA, Defendants, Case No. 14-703 (W.D. Pa.), alleges
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.  Plaintiff says defendant failed to pay her a
bonus for the last calendar year of her employment. The case was
initially filed as a collective class action. No ruling has been
made as to class certification. On May 28, 2015, plaintiff amended
her complaint to drop the class and collective claims and proceed
as an individual.

The parties later moved for leave to file a settlement agreement
under seal.  The parties averred that the settlement agreement
contained financial and other confidential information concerning
the terms of the private settlement agreement reached between the
parties.

Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania in the Opinion
dated June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/lLknOpfrom
Leagle.com, denied the parties' request, saying the parties have
not shown that the settlement agreement met any of the exception
criteria for trade secrets or other sensitive information or that
they relied on any statements by the Court assuring
confidentiality.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Keith L. Eliou, Esq.
     Jeffrey W. Chivers, Esq.
     Zachary K. Warren, Esq.
     THE EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS GROUP
     100 First Ave., Suite 1010
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Citizens Bank Of Pennsylvania is represented by Richard L. Etter,
Esq. -- retter@reedsmith.com -- Catherine S. Ryan, Esq. --
cryan@reedsmit.com -- REED SMITH


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Cal. Appeals Court Revives "Lewings" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashante K. Lewings appealed from the dismissal of her class action
following the successful demurrer of Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
to Lewings' third amended complaint.

Plaintiffs sued Chipotle asserting that the company violated Labor
Code section 3751, statute which prohibited employers from
receiving a contribution from an employee, directly or indirectly,
to cover any part of the cost of workers' compensation. The TAC
asserted allegations on behalf of all nonexempt or hourly
employees who worked for Chipotle in California in the four years
preceding October 22, 2013. Chipotle demurred to the TAC, arguing
that sections 3751 and 3752 did not prohibit safe workplace
programs that were voluntary, nor did they prohibit third party
warranty reimbursements. The trial court sustained the demurrer
without leave to amend. Lewings' action was dismissed.

Judge Judith Ashmann-Gerst of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Two in the Order dated July 1, 2015
available at http://is.gd/IxWs1Vfrom Leagle.com, reversed the
judgment of dismissal and remanded the action for further
proceedings.

The appellate case is captioned, ASHANTE K. LEWINGS, Plaintiff and
Appellant, v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, Case No. B255443 (Cal. App. Ct.).

Plaintiff is represented by Stephen M. Harris, Esq. --
smh@kpclegal.com -- Gwen Freeman, Esq. -- gf@kpclegal.com -- Kevin
J. Stack, Esq. -- kjs@kpclegal.com -- KNAPP, PETERSEN & CLARKE

Defendant is represented by Richard J. Simmons, Esq. --
rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Jason W. Kearnaghan, Esq. --
jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- Daniel J. McQueen, Esq. --
dmcqueen@sheppardmullin.com -- Robert Mussig, Esq. --
rmussig@sheppardmullin.com  -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON


COOK COUNTY, IL: Inmate Complaint Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald A. Guzman of the United States District
Court for Northern District of Illinois dismissed the complaint
and terminated the civil case in the case captioned, Marcus
Malewski, Plaintiff, v. Toni Preckwinkle, et al. Defendants, Case
No. 14 C 4187 (N.D. Ill.).

The case was filed on June 6, 2014, alleging that Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, was subject to
"barbaric" living conditions while a pretrial detainee at Cook
County Jail ("Jail") from May 12, 2015 through approximately 10
p.m. on May 16, 2015. Thomas Dart, Cara Smith and Cook County
alleging a policy and practice of instituting and allowing cruel
and unusual conditions of confinement at the Jail, and a Monell
claim against Preckwinkle and Cook County based on the policy,
practice and procedure of underfunding the Jail. According to the
initial allegations, Plaintiff and other detainees were denied
food for 2-1/2 days, provided little opportunity to sleep,
required to sleep on a floor with no bedding, and denied access to
bathrooms and running water for various periods during the 5-day
time span. The complaint did not include any claims against the
individual officers involved in the alleged perpetration of the
unconstitutional acts.

In the motion, Plaintiff's counsel sought to withdraw both their
motion to withdraw as well their motion for class certification,
which is granted. Plaintiff also sought leave to file an amended
complaint, dropping the class allegations as well as the Monell
claims against Preckwinkle, Dart, Smith and Cook County and
alleging, on his behalf only, that: (1) Director Miller, a
director at the Jail, either instituted policies and procedures
leading to barbaric living conditions or failed to implement
policies preventing such conditions (Count I); (2) individual
defendants Deputy Sheriffs Arriaga and Gonzalez witnessed the
cruel and unusual conditions of confinement and failed to
intervene (Count II); (3) Deputy Sheriff Oomens inflicted cruel
and unusual punishment by placing Plaintiff in handcuffs and
putting him in a small room without windows, ventilation or a
bathroom for several hours (Count III); and, (4) Deputy Sheriffs
Arriaga and Gonzales inflicted cruel and unusual punishment on
Plaintiff by forcing him to be housed in a tier without access to
showers, food and a bed(Count IV).

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 24, 2015
available at http://is.gd/XNLDQpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Guzman
concluded that Plaintiff failed to include these claims in his
initial complaint. Instead, he alleged broad and far-reaching
claims of unconstitutional policies and procedures against Cook
County and its President, the Sheriff of Cook County, and the
Executive Director of the Jail on behalf of a class of detainees.
Plaintiff failed to include these claims in his initial complaint.
Instead, he alleged broad and far-reaching claims of
unconstitutional policies and procedures against Cook County and
its President, the Sheriff of Cook County, and the Executive
Director of the Jail on behalf of a class of detainees.

Marcus Malewski is represented by:

Gregory E. Kulis, Esq.
Brian M. Orozco, Esq.
Joshua S. Patrick, Esq.
GREGORY E. KULIS & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
30 N Lasalle St
Chicago, IL 60602
Tel: (312)580-1830

     - and -

Alan S. Mills, Esq.
UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER
4413 N Sheridan Rd
Chicago, IL 60640
Tel: (773)769-1410

Defendants are represented by Jill Vosicky Ferrara, Esq., and
Conor Thomas Fleming, Esq., at the Cook County State's Attorney's
Office


CORINTHIAN COLLEGE: Government to Erase Students' College Loan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christine Armario, Anne Flaherty and Jennifer C. Kerr, writing for
The Associated Press report that more than 3,000 former Corinthian
College students will have their college loans erased, the first
wave of debt relief tied to the collapse of the for-profit higher
education chain.  The potential cost to taxpayers if all
Corinthian students seek relief: $3.2 billion.

So far, almost 12,000 students have asked the federal government
to discharge their college loan debt, asserting that their school
either closed or lied to them about job prospects, according to a
report released on Sept. 3 by the Education Department.

About 3,100 closed-school claims have so far been approved --
totaling about $40 million in student loans, the department said.

While unprecedented, the figures represent just a fraction of the
students who might qualify for debt relief.

Education Undersecretary Ted Mitchell told reporters in a press
call that processing remaining claims will take some time.
"Borrowers and taxpayers are counting on us to get this right," he
said.

For 33-year-old Tasha Rincon, a mother of three, relief from her
government loans for Corinthian cannot come soon enough.  Deeply
in debt, Ms. Rincon says she can't even afford to buy groceries
and is working three hours a day in a school cafeteria about an
hour away from her home in Lake Elsinore, California.

"It's just not fair," said Ms. Rincon, who graduated in 2012 from
Corinthian's Everest College with an associate's degree in
criminal justice and a bachelor's degree in business management.
She's earning nowhere close to the $45,000 that recruiters had
promised her.

"If it had helped me get a better job, I could do more for my
kids," Rincon said in an interview.  She owes more than $43,000 in
student loans and is waiting to hear from the Education Department
whether her loans will be erased.

As of late last month, most of the nearly 12,000 claims that have
been filed are Corinthian-related, and they represent an
unprecedented spike in what's called a "borrower's defense" claim.
With such a claim, students can ask for loan forgiveness if they
believe they were victims of fraud.

Mr. Mitchell said the borrowers' defense claims are "new
territory" for the department.

Before Corinthian, officials say they knew of five or so
"borrower's defense" cases in the past 20 years.  Following
Corinthian's demise, some 4,140 such claims have been filed since
the department's June announcement that it would make the debt-
relief process easier.  An additional 7,815 Corinthian students
have filed claims for debt-relief because their school closed,
officials said.

Mr. Mitchell and the department's new "special master" for debt
relief, Joseph Smith, did not have a dollar estimate for the
nearly 12,000 claims made to date.

Mr. Mitchell said the potential costs to taxpayers could be up to
$3.2 billion if all Corinthian students dating back to 2010 who
borrowed government money were to seek relief.  Some 350,000
students have attended Corinthian schools over the past five
years.

Education Department rules say the company should be responsible
for any canceled debt but it is unlikely that the company can pay.
Corinthian filed for bankruptcy protection in May 2015.

Corinthian had been one of the largest for-profit schools when it
collapsed and became a symbol of fraud in the student loan
program.  According to investigators, Corinthian schools charged
exorbitant fees, lied about job prospects for its graduates and,
in some cases, encouraged students to lie about their
circumstances to get more federal aid.  The bankruptcy court
filing came after the department notified Corinthian that it would
fine its Heald College $30 million for misleading students.  Some
13,500 students still were enrolled.

The Obama administration is trying to rein in the for-profit
college industry, which it says relies too heavily on federal
student loans and often misleads students on job prospects.  In
its latest move, the Education Department on Aug. 28 sent a letter
to DeVry University asking the for-profit institution for proof to
support its job placement claims.

In a plan orchestrated by the federal government, some of the
Corinthian schools closed while others were sold.  The biggest
question has been what should happen to the debt incurred by
students whose schools were sold.  The law already provides for
debt relief for students of schools that close, so long as they
apply within 120 days.

The latest plan expands debt relief to students who attended a
now-closed school as far back as a year ago.  And it streamlines
the process for students whose schools were sold, but who believe
they were victims of fraud.


COX ENTERPRISES: CA Affirms Denial of Arbitration Bid
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed a
district court ruling that denied Cox Communications, Inc.'s
motion to compel arbitration in a class action lawsuit.

The case stemmed from class-action litigation against Cox by
subscribers to its cable service. In 2009, subscribers in several
jurisdictions filed actions against Cox alleging that the company
illegally tied its premium cable service to rental of a Cox set-
top box. These actions were consolidated as a multidistrict
litigation and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma. Cox then moved to dismiss. During
the pendency of its motion, Cox began inserting mandatory
arbitration clauses into the contracts of some customers,
including putative class members. The district court denied the
motion to compel arbitration on the basis that Cox's prior conduct
in this litigation constituted waiver.  The district court cited
the ruling in Peterson v. Shearson/Am. Express, Inc., 849 F.2d 464
(10th Cir. 1988).

On appeal, Cox contended that the Peterson analysis was inapposite
because a party did not invariably waive its right to compel
arbitration against absent class members by filing its motion to
compel after the class has been certified. Cox explained that it
would have been futile to file a motion to compel against absent
class members before the class had been certified because those
individuals were not parties.

The Court of Appeals, in the Order dated June 24, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/EdsquUfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the denial of the
distsict court on Plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration finding
that Cox's failure to inform it about the presence of the
arbitration agreements until after certification was inconsistent
with an intent to arbitrate and suggested an attempt to manipulate
the process.

The appellate case is captioned, In re: COX ENTERPRISES, INC. SET-
TOP CABLE TELEVISION BOX ANTITRUST LITIGATION. RICHARD HEALY,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant-
Appellant, Case No. 14 16158 (10th Cir.).

Plaintiff is represented by Todd M. Schneider, Esq. --
tschneider@schneiderwallace.com -- SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL
BRAYTON & KONECKY, LLP,

          - and -

     Rachel Lawrence Mor, Esq.
     RACHEL LAWRENCE MOR, P.C.
     3037 NW 63rd St., Ste 205
     Oklahoma City, OK 73116
     Tel: (405) 562-7771

          - and -

A. Daniel Woska, Esq. -- AWoska@WoskaLawFirm.com -- WOSKA,
HASBROOK & DOWD, W. Tucker Brown, Esq. -- tbrown@whatleykallas.com
-- Henry C. Quillen, Esq. -- hquillen@whatleykallas.com --
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP

Defendants are represented by Margaret M. Zwisler, Esq. --
margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr., Esq. --
Alfred.pfeiffer@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, D. Kent Meyers,
Esq. -- kent.meyer@crowedunlevy.com -- CROWE & DUNLEVY, Robert G.
Kidwell, Esq. -- RGKidwell@mintz.com -- MINTZ, LEVIN, COHN,
FERRIS, GLOVSKY & POPEO P.C


CRICKET AUSTRALIA: Legal Action Brought Against Ashes Cricketers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gareth Kidd, writing for The Roar, reported that a class action is
being brought against players from the Australian and English
cricket teams.

The civil suit is being filed after the sides took turns
capitulating, and failed to complete anywhere near the 25 days of
cricket they were paid to provide.

There were only 50 sessions of cricket played during the 2015
Ashes out of a possible 75. With only a third of the scheduled
overs bowled, everyone from advertisers to ground staff, even the
general public, are suing the sides for loss of revenue, income
and entertainment.

Both Cricket Australia and the ECB say that their hands are tied
in the matter, unable to help their players given the disastrous
lack of contests.

"Let's face it," a Cricket Australian spokesperson stated,
"they've only completed a third of their job, and unless you're a
politician that's just unacceptable."

The players even received a barb from the commentary box with
microphones managing to pick up another Shane Warne nugget, who
exclaimed that he's actually had relationships which have lasted
longer than this series.

In an attempt to raise the funds to pay a settlement fee, players
are resorting to selling their equipment. Luckily, as only three
players managed to score a century, their bats for sale are listed
as being in 'mint' condition.

Unfortunately, even local Op-Shops have refused to take Shane
Watson's donated cricket pads, claiming that due to the amount of
damage, they are 'not fit for resale'.

The only viable source of revenue is a proposed group sponsorship
deal with a well known erectile dysfunction medication. The
company is willing to bail the players out as long as their next
team shirts sport the phrase: "It's embarrassing when you finish
too soon".

The only real winners from the series are the royalty owners from
the sitcom Friends. With the lack of cricket to televise,
broadcasters managed to squeeze in a whopping 316 re-runs of the
former smash hit. In comparison to the batting performances,
Matthew Perry's acting prowess was nowhere near as painful.


CYCLING SPORTS: Recalls Mountain Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 3, 2015
Posting date: September 3, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54850

This recall involves all model year 2011 through 2015 Flash, FSi,
F-4, F-5, F-29, Lexi, RZ, Scalpel and Trigger Cannondale mountain
bicycles, with OPI stem/steering tube assemblies.  "OPI" is
printed diagonally across the stem/steering tube in black letters.

The OPI stem/steering tube assemblies can fail, posing a risk of
injury from a fall.

Neither Health Canada nor Cycling Sports Group, Inc. has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of these bicycles.

Approximately 917 units of the recalled bicycles were sold by
authorized Cannondale Dealers across Canada, and approximately
23,000 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled bicycles were sold from July 2010 to July 2015 in
Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Manufacturer: Cycling Sports Group, Inc.
              Wilton
              Connecticut
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled bicycle and
should contact the nearest authorized Cannondale dealer for a free
repair. Cannondale dealers will fit a locking reinforcement wedge
assembly inside the OPI stem/steering tube and replace the clamp
bolts.

For more information, including the location of their nearest
authorized dealer, consumers can contact Cycling Sports Group by
telephone at 1-(800) 245-3872 (1-800-BIKEUSA) from Monday to
Friday 9am to 6pm Eastern standard time, by e-mail, or online by
visiting the firm's website, and click on "recalls".

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

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

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

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

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


DIAGEO CANADA: Recalls Smirnoff Ice Alcoholic Beverages
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 4, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Diageo Canada
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Diageo Canada is voluntarily recalling Smirnoff Ice brand
alcoholic beverages from the marketplace due to possible glass
contamination. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

The following products, sold in glass bottles, were distributed
nationally.

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

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

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

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

  Brand     Common    Size     Code(s) on      UPC
  name      name      ----     product         ---
  -----     ------             ----------
  Smirnoff  Peach     330 mL   Bottle codes    0 82000 76753 4
  Ice       Bellini            beginning with
                               L5 204
                               L5 231
  Smirnoff  Peach     4 x      Bottle codes    0 82000 76754 1
  Ice       Bellini   330 mL   beginning with
                               L5 204
                               L5 231
  Smirnoff  Peach     6 (4 x   Bottle codes    1 00 82000 76754 8
  Ice       Bellini   330 mL)   beginning with
                               L5 204
                               L5 231

  Smirnoff  Green     330 mL   Bottle codes    0 82000 76013 9
  Ice       Apple              beginning with
                               L5 205
                               L5 232
  Smirnoff  Green     4 x      Bottle codes    0 82000 76012 2
  Ice       Apple     330 mL   beginning with
                               L5 205
                               L5 232

  Smirnoff  Green     6 (4 x   Bottle codes    1 00 82000 76012 9
  Ice       Apple     330 mL)  beginning with
                               L5 204
                               L5 231
  Smirnoff  Raspberry 330 mL   Bottle codes    0 82000 76011 5
  Ice                          beginning with
                               L5 205
                               L5 232
  Smirnoff  Raspberry 4 x      Bottle codes    0 82000 76010 8
  Ice                 330 mL   beginning with
                               L5 205
                               L5 232
  Smirnoff  Raspberry 6 (4 x   Bottle codes    1 00 82000 76010 5
  Ice                 330 mL)  beginning with
                               L5 205
                               L5 232
  Smirnoff  Cranberry 330 mL   Bottle codes    0 82000 76019 1
  Ice       & Lime             beginning with
                               L5 205
                               L5 232
                               L5 206
                               L5 233
  Smirnoff  Cranberry 6 (4 x   Bottle codes    1 00 82000 76018 1
  Ice        & Lime   330 mL)  beginning with
                               L5 205
                               L5 232
                               L5 206
                               L5 233
  Smirnoff  Smirnoff  330 mL   Bottle codes    0 82000 76360 4
  Ice       Ice                beginning with
                               L5 210
                               L5 236
                               L5 237
  Smirnoff  Smirnoff  4x       Bottle codes    0 82000 75948 5
  Ice       Ice       330 mL   beginning with
                               L5 210
                               L5 236
                               L5 237
  Smirnoff  Smirnoff  6(4x     Bottle codes    1 00 82000 75948 2
  Ice       Ice       330 mL)  beginning with
                               L5 210
                               L5 236
                               L5 237
  Smirnoff  Smirnoff  12 x     Bottle codes    0 82000 75949 2
  Ice       Ice       330 mL   beginning with
                               L5 210
                               L5 236
                               L5 237
  Smirnoff  Smirnoff  2 (12 x  Bottle codes    1 00 82000 75949 9
  Ice       Ice       330 mL)  beginning with
                               L5 210
                               L5 236
                               L5 237
  Smirnoff  Watermelon 330 mL  Bottle codes    0 82000 77350 4
  Ice       Mimosa             beginning with
                               L5 206
                               L5 233
  Smirnoff  Watermelon 4 x     Bottle codes    0 82000 77351 1
  Ice       Mimosa     330 mL  beginning with
                               L5 206
                               L5 233
  Smirnoff  Watermelon 6 (4 x  Bottle codes    1 00 82000 77351 8
  Ice       Mimosa     330 mL) beginning with
                               L5 206
                               L5 233

  Smirnoff  Orange     330 mL  Bottle codes    0 82000 76021 4
  Ice       Screwdriver        beginning with
                               L5 206
                               L5 207
                               L5 234
                               L5 235
                               L5 236
  Smirnoff  Orange     4x      Bottle codes    0 82000 76020 7
  Ice       Screw-     330 mL  beginning with
            driver             L5 206
                               L5 207
                               L5 234
                               L5 235
                               L5 236
  Smirnoff  Orange     6 (4x   Bottle codes    1 00 82000 76020 4
  Ice       Screw-     330 mL) beginning with
            driver             L5 206
                               L5 207
                               L5 234
                               L5 235
                               L5 236
Smirnoff   Smirnoff   330 mL  Bottle codes    0 82000 76370 3
Ice        Ice Light          beginning with
                               L5 207
                               L5 233
                               L5 234
Smirnoff   Smirnoff   4 x     Bottle codes    0 82000 75947 8
Ice        Ice Light  330 mL  beginning with
                               L5 207
                               L5 233
                               L5 234
Smirnoff   Smirnoff   6 (4 x  Bottle codes    1 00 82000 75947 5
Ice        Ice Light  330 mL) beginning with
                               L5 207
                               L5 233
                               L5 234
Smirnoff   The Life   12 x    Case codes      0 82000 77352 8
Ice        of the     330 mL  beginning with
            Party Pack         L5 137
                               L5 139
                               L5 203
                               L5 231
Smirnoff   The Life   2 (12 x Case codes      1 00 82000 77352 5
Ice        of the     330 mL) beginning with
            Party Pack         L5 137
                               L5 139
                               L5 203
                               L5 231


DONNYBROOK ENERGY: October 9 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP and Siskinds LLP on Aug. 19
announced the Notice of Hearing of Application for Approval of
Settlement in Donnybrook and Donnycreek Securities Class Action.

This notice is directed to the following "Class Members": all
persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be domiciled,
who held shares of Donnybrook Energy Inc. (now known as Stonehaven
Exploration Ltd.) ("Donnybrook") at the time of a plan of
arrangement completed by Donnybrook on November 4, 2011 (the
"Arrangement") and received shares of Donnycreek Energy Inc. (now
known as Kicking Horse Energy Inc.) ("Donnycreek") through the
Arrangement, other than (i) Excluded Persons (certain persons
associated with the Defendants and persons who purchased
Donnycreek shares in the Private Placement (defined below)), and
(ii) persons who have previously opted out of the class action.

In August 2013, the Plaintiff Wayne Philpott commenced a class
action against Donnybrook, Donnycreek, Malcolm Todd, Robert Todd,
Murray Scalf, David Patterson, Randy Kwasnicia, Ken Stephenson and
Colin Watt (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta (the "Court").  The class action claims
arise out of the Arrangement whereby various assets of Donnybrook
were transferred to Donnycreek, as well as a concurrent private
placement by Donnycreek pursuant to which shares were issued to
various persons (including the individual Defendants) at $0.37 per
share (the "Private Placement").

On January 22, 2015, the Court certified this proceeding as a
class action on consent.  Certification by the Court is not a
decision on the merits of the class action.

On July 10, 2015, the parties to the class action executed a
Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") providing for
the settlement of the class action.  The settlement is subject to
the approval of the Court.  The Settlement Agreement provides for
the payment of CDN$5,500,000.00 (the "Settlement Amount") in
consideration for full and final settlement of the claims of Class
Members. The Settlement Amount includes all legal fees,
disbursements, taxes and administration expenses.  In return for
the Settlement Amount, the Defendants will receive releases and a
dismissal of the class action. The settlement is a compromise of
disputed claims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing
or fault on the part of any of the Defendants, all of whom have
denied, and continue to deny, the allegations against them.

NPT RicePoint Class Action Services has been appointed by the
Court as the Administrator for the settlement.

A Settlement Approval Hearing Will Be Held in Calgary, Alberta

The settlement must be approved by the Court before it can be
implemented.  Class Members may, but are not required to, attend
at the settlement approval hearing which will be held on
Friday, October 9, 2015 at 1:00pm (MDT), at the Calgary Courts
Centre, 601 - 5 Street SW, Calgary, Alberta.

Class Members who approve of or do not oppose the settlement do
not need to appear at the settlement approval hearing or take any
other action at this time.

In addition to seeking the Court's approval of the settlement,
Siskinds LLP and Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP (together,
"Class Counsel") will seek the Court's approval of its legal fees
not to exceed 32.5% of the Settlement Amount, plus disbursements
and applicable taxes ("Class Counsel Fees") at the settlement
approval hearing.  In addition, Class Counsel will seek the
Court's approval for the payment of an honorarium of CDN$2,000 to
the Plaintiff Wayne Philpott.  The fees of the Administrator,
together with any other costs relating to approval, notification,
implementation and administration of the settlement
("Administration Expenses"), will also be paid from the Settlement
Amount.  Class Counsel Fees, Administration Expenses and the
honorarium will be deducted from the Settlement Amount before it
is distributed to Class Members.

Terms of the Settlement Agreement

The Settlement Amount, after deduction of Class Counsel Fees,
Administration Expenses and the honorarium to Mr. Philpott (the
"Net Settlement Amount"), will be distributed to Class Members in
accordance with the Plan of Allocation which is also subject to
Court approval.

The amount of each Class Member's actual compensation from the Net
Settlement Amount will depend upon: (i) the number of Donnybrook
shares held by the Class Member at the time of the Arrangement for
which they received Donnycreek shares through the Arrangement;
(ii) the number of Donnybrook shares held at the time of the
Arrangement by all Class Members who submit a claim for
compensation to the Administrator.  It is therefore not possible
to predict what any individual Class Member's share of the Net
Settlement Amount will be.

If the Court approves the settlement, Class Members may
participate in the Settlement by filing a claim for compensation.
All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the settlement,
regardless of whether they submit a claim for compensation or
receive payment from the Settlement Amount.  Class Members will
not be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal
proceeding against the Defendants or any other person released by
the settlement in relation to the matters alleged in the class
action.

If the settlement is approved, another notice to Class Members
will be published which will provide instructions on how to make a
claim to receive compensation from the settlement.

Copies of the Settlement Agreement and the proposed Plan of
Allocation may be found on the websites of Class Counsel at
www.jssbarristers.ca/pages/class-actions/class-actions.cfm or
http://www.siskinds.com/donnybrook-energy-and-donnycreek-energy/,
or by contacting Class Counsel at the contact information provided
below.

Class Members May Object to the Settlement

Class Members who wish to comment on or object to the settlement
should do so in writing.  All objections should be received by
Class Counsel (contact details below) no later than September 21,
2015. Class Counsel will file all such submissions with the Court.
You may attend at the settlement approval hearing whether or not
you deliver an objection.  The Court may permit you to participate
in the settlement approval hearing whether or not you deliver an
objection.

A written objection should use the heading "Donnybrook/Donnycreek
Securities Class Action", and should include: (i) the Class
Member's name, address, telephone number, fax number (where
applicable) and email address; (ii) a brief statement outlining
the nature of, and reasons for, the objection; and (iii) a
statement as to whether the objector intends to appear at the
settlement approval hearing in person or through a lawyer and, if
through a lawyer, the name, address, telephone number, fax number
and email address of the lawyer.

Questions related to this Notice should NOT be addressed to the
Court of Queen's Bench for Alberta.

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT OF
QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

Visit Class Counsel's websites at www.siskinds.com or
www.jssbarristers.ca

For further information please contact Class Counsel at:

Siskinds LLP
Nicole Young
680 Waterloo Street
London, ON N6A 3V8
Tel: 1-877-672-2121 x 2380
Fax: 519-672-6065
Email: nicole.young@siskinds.com


EASY CHOICE: "Recio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Raul G. Recio, and all others similarly-situated v. Easy Choice
Health Plan, Inc., Easy Choice Health Plan, Employers Resource,
Wellcare Health Plans of California, Inc., Wellcare Health Plans,
Inc., and Does 1 to 100 inclusive, Case No. BC591773 (Cal. Super.,
August 18, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages for all hours
worked at minimum wage or overtime rate of pay, unpaid vacation
pay, statutory penalties, waiting time penalties, injunctive
relief and other equitable relief, reasonable attorneys' fees,
costs and interests pursuant to the Labor Code.

The Defendants are health maintenance organizations, offering
Medicare advantage prescription drug and special needs plans to
Medicare and dual eligible populations in Southern California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 432-0000
      Fax: (310) 432-0001


ELETROBAS: September 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until September 21, 2015, to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. if they purchased the
Company's American Depository Shares ("ADSs") between the expanded
period of August 17, 2010, through April 29, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Eletrobas and would like to discuss
your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your
right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com).
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by September 21, 2015.

About the Lawsuit

Eletrobas and certain of its executives are charged with failing
to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The action alleges that Eletrobas's senior officials were in non-
compliance with its corporate governance directives and Code of
Ethics, resulting in investigations and disciplinary actions by
various governmental and regulatory authorities, and, as a result,
Eletrobas's financial statements were materially false and
misleading.

On April 30, 2015, Eletrobas announced that due to news reports
about bribery taking place at its subsidiary, the Company would
not be filing its Form 20-F on time and needed the additional time
to make sure the proper auditing procedures were being followed.
On this news, the price of Eletrobas's ADSs plummeted.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and other
lawyers with significant experience litigating complex securities
class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and
individual shareholders, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
206 Covington St. Madisonville, LA 70447
1-877-515-1850
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


EL POLLO: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of El Pollo Loco
Holdings, Inc. ("El Pollo Loco") common stock during the period
between May 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015 (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from.  If you wish to discuss this action or
have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or
interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H. Rudman or
David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-
1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com.  If you are a member of
this class, you can view a copy of the complaint as filed or join
this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/elpolloloco/. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges El Pollo Loco, certain of its officers and
directors and certain of its controlling shareholders with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  El Pollo Loco
develops, franchises, licenses, and operates quick-service
restaurants in the United States.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information about El Pollo Loco's business and prospects,
including that traffic at El Pollo Loco stores had declined
substantially due to the removal of the value items from the
restaurants' menu boards, and that as a result, comparable store
sales were not growing at 3%, much less the 3% to 5% the
defendants had led investors to believe they would grow in the
second quarter of 2015.  As a result of these false and misleading
statements and/or omissions, El Pollo Loco securities traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, with the
Company's stock price reaching a high of $25.37 per share.

After the close of trading on August 13, 2015, the Company issued
a release announcing its second quarter 2015 results for the
three-month period ended July 1, 2015.  El Pollo Loco disclosed
that contrary to defendants' prior claims of being on track to
achieve 3%-5% comparable store sales increases, second quarter
2015 "[s]ystem-wide comparable restaurant sales [had grown] 1.3%,
including a 0.5% decrease for company-operated restaurants, and a
2.6% increase for franchised restaurants."  On this news, the
price of El Pollo Loco's shares declined by 20% from its closing
price of $18.36 per share on August 13, 2015, to $14.56 per share
on August 14, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
El Pollo Loco common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many
of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and
was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder
class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/elpolloloco/for more
information.

Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA  92101
T: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900
F: (619) 231-7423
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Damage from 2010 Oil Spill Worth $6MM, Atty Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Trace Christenson, writing for Battle Creek Enquirer, reported
that damage from the 2010 Enbridge oil spill is worth $6 million
to owners of a Battle Creek trailer park, a lawyer will argue in
an October trial.

"We are alleging that the oil contamination realized by Baker
Estates has substantially or totally devalued the property and
gutted the business and the future of the business," Eugene Boyle
Jr., an attorney from Grosse Pointe Park, told the Enquirer
recently. "We have contaminated property and we have a business
that has been basically disabled. At trial we will be asking for a
figure in the neighborhood of $6 million."

The lawsuit against Enbridge Inc. stemming from the June 25, 2010
break in a 30-inch oil pipe along Talmadge Creek near Marshall is
one of the last remaining court cases.

Almost all of the 40 cases against Enbridge filed in Calhoun
County Circuit Court on behalf of hundreds of people have been
settled out of court. Terms of the agreements are being kept
private as a condition of the settlements.

Many of the cases were brought by individuals or families, but one
had 336 plaintiffs who claimed they were affected by the spill.

The company said that about 45 cases have been filed in state and
federal court stemming from the spill and nearly all have been
resolved.

Locally, lawsuits filed by owners of Baker Estates and a woman who
has claimed health issues are awaiting trial before Calhoun County
Circuit Judge Sarah Lincoln.

Lincoln soon will rule in a bench trial in a case brought by Terry
Mahrle, who alleges that Enbridge used a Marshall building he owns
to clean wildlife covered in oil but left the building filled with
mold.

In August 2014, a jury rejected a claim by a Bellevue man that the
spill damaged his plans to begin a business to take disabled
people hunting in the Fort Custer Recreation Area.

Early in the process, former Calhoun County Circuit Judge James
Kingsley ruled that Enbridge was responsible for the spill and
plaintiffs only would have to prove the amount of damage.

Now that cases have been settled, the lawyers and the clients they
represent agreed not to speak about the settlements.

Twenty suits, 20 settlements

Millard Mayhall, a Marshall attorney, filed nearly 20 suits
against Enbridge and has settled all of them.

He told the Enquirer earlier this summer that, "generally I would
be happy to speak with you regarding any cases in which I am
involved. However the resolution of all these cases involved
confidentiality agreements which prohibit me from discussing the
cases. I therefore do not think I can discuss the cases even in
general terms."

Other attorneys either declined to comment or did not return phone
calls seeking comment.

Jason Manshum, a spokesman for Enbridge Inc., said the settlements
are part of the total clean-up of $1.2 billion. He said he, too,
could not comment on individual cases.

Class-action suit settled

In December the company agreed to pay about $6.8 million to settle
a class-action lawsuit stemming from the spill.

Enbridge agreed to pay a total of $2.2 million to residents and
land owners of properties within 1,000 feet of the Kalamazoo
River, beginning where Talmadge Creek enters the river near
Marshall and ending at the mouth of Morrow Lake in Kalamazoo
County.

Those previously receiving compensation through voluntary payouts
or litigation, or who previously filed suits that were dismissed,
were not eligible for the payments.

In the class-action suit, those who lived within 200 feet of the
river were to receive payments split from a total of $250,000.
Other payments were: $750 for those who lived within 200 to 400
feet; a $600 payment for those within 401 to 600 feet; a $400
payment for those within 601 to 800 feet; and $300 for those
within 801 and 1,000 feet.

Payments of more than $750 were to be paid in checks. Those less
than $750 were to be distributed through prepaid cards to be used
at local businesses in Calhoun and Kalamazoo counties.

The company also agreed to donate $150,000 to organizations such
as the Kalamazoo River Watershed Council and the Calhoun
Conservation District. Payments include a nearly $1.9 million fee
award and a total of $40,000 in incentive fees to the class
representatives.

"The intent from the onset always has been if anyone has a
legitimate concern they could file a claim and the intent was to
avoid litigation," Manshum said. "But when you get to this point
you hope you can come to an amicable resolution as quickly as
possible."

Two cases remain open in Calhoun County and at least one, Battle
Creek Realty vs. Enbridge, is now scheduled for trial Oct. 1 while
the case of Yvette Matthews, who is alleging long-term health
problems from the spill, is awaiting a trial date.

Baker Estates claims

In the Battle Creek Realty case, Boyle alleges the spill crippled
the 18-acre mobile home park in Emmett Township which began
operating in the 1960s and is bordered by the Kalamazoo River,
Beadle Lake Road and Columbia Avenue.

Steve Baker, maintenance supervisor, said before the spill some
residents walked on trails a short distance to the river bank and
several regularly fished in the Kalamazoo.

"The residents used to fish back there and some people hunted back
there," he said. "We had quite a few fishermen and we had kids who
played back there in homemade forts."

But Baker and Paula Crigger, the park manager, remember that all
changing the night of the spill.

"We were driving back from up north," Crigger said, "and we
thought they must have been doing a lot of asphalt work. Steve
thought maybe the (nearby) grocery story was sealing their parking
lot."

Instead it was the smell from the oil flowing from the broken pipe
13 miles upstream.

"You could smell it really bad and it was like that for weeks,"
Baker said.

Crigger said management and residents eventually met with
representatives of the health department and were told not to
touch the oil.

"Our people were scared," she said. "The property was condemned
and people moved out."

She said 77 of the 121 lots were occupied at the time of the
spill, but only 36 now.

Crigger, Baker and Boyle allege that oil remains in the river
wetlands only a few feet from some of the occupied trailers.

The river was at a record high level at the time of the spill and
Baker points to black rings around trees. And they contend that
oil remains in the ground.

"The water was just up to just behind these homes," Baker said.
"You can see on the trees that the water was so high because there
are still black rings around the trees."

And Boyle said oil is still present even five years after the
spill.

"You can walk across our property and when you leave footprints
there will be a sheen of oil that will come up in your footprint,"
Boyle said.

"Our greater concern is what is in the soil and what will be in
the soil for a long time to come as the river flushes the oil," he
said.

Manshum said he could not comment on any pending litigation. He
said the oil cleanup ended, although monitoring of the river will
continue for years.

Boyle contended in his suit that Enbridge workers cleaned the
river upstream and downstream from the mobile home park but for
some unexplained reason left Baker Estates almost untouched.

"They are telling the press that they have spent tens of millions
of dollars to clean upstream and downstream, but for you, Baker
Estates, we don't think you are affected."

Enbridge, in written filings with the court, has denied
allegations that efforts to clean the oil were any different along
the Baker Estates property than anywhere else on the river.


ENERGY FUTURE: December 14 Asbestos Claims Bar Date Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Power Plant Employees and Contractors

If you or a family member ever worked at a power plant, you
could have been exposed to asbestos.

To keep your right to compensation if you become ill in the
future (or have asbestos-related illness today), you must
submit a claim by December 14, 2015, at 5:00 p.m.,
prevailing Eastern Time

A bankruptcy has been filed by Energy Future Holding Corp., Ebasco
Services, Inc. EECI, Inc. and certain subsidiaries ("EFH").  EFH
owned, operated, maintained, or built power plants across the
United States and in other countries where asbestos may have been
present.  Workers at these power plants (and family members and
others who came into contact with these workers) may have been
exposed to asbestos.

Under the supervision of the Court, EFH is seeking a "clean start"
by restructuring its debts.  As part of this process, the Court
has decided that anyone who has a claim today against EFH for
asbestos-related illness or who may develop asbestos-related
illness in the future, must submit a claim by December 14,
2015, at 5:00 p.m., prevailing Eastern Time to be eligible for
compensation now or in the future (the "Asbestos Bar Date")

Which power plants are included?
Power plants related to EFH in which asbestos exposure may have
occurred were located across the United States and in foreign
countries.  The list of included power plants is provided at the
end of this notice.

How could this affect me?
You could have been exposed to asbestos if you or a family member
worked at any of the included power plants as an employee, a
contractor or in any other role.  You also could have been exposed
by coming in contact with another person who worked at a power
plant (for example, if asbestos was brought home on your spouse or
parent's clothing).  You may also file a claim on behalf of a
deceased family member.

What are my options?
If you believe that you or a family member may have been exposed
to asbestos at an included plant, submit a claim by December 14,
2015, at 5:00 p.m., prevailing Eastern Time.  Even if you have not
been diagnosed with disease or experienced symptoms, you must make
a claim to preserve your right to compensation if you develop
asbestos-related illness in the future.  You can submit a claim
yourself or you can ask a lawyer to help you.

If you do not submit a claim by December 14, 2015, at 5:00 p.m.,
prevailing Eastern Time and later develop asbestos-related
disease, you will not be eligible for compensation.

This notice explains your options regarding the Court's order
related to asbestos claims ("Asbestos Bar Date Order"), how to
submit an asbestos claim and the consequences of doing nothing.


ESTENSON LOGISTICS: Class Suit Alleges Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------
The San Diego employment law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a class action lawsuit against Estenson Logistics,
LLC alleging that the company failed to lawfully compensate their
employees working as Truck Drivers for all their time spent
working. The class action lawsuit against Estenson Logistics, LLC,
is currently pending in the San Diego County Superior Court, Case
No 30-2015-00803197-CU-OE-CXC.

The class action Complaint filed against Estenson Logistics, LLC.
by the San Diego labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik alleges that Estenson Logistics, LLC. did not have a
policy or practice which provided a full off-duty, thirty minute
uninterrupted meal break to the Plaintiff and California Class
Members. The Complaint claims that the company's alleged failure
to provide the legally required meal and rest breaks is evidenced
by their business records which contain no evidence of these
breaks. As a result, Truck Drivers working for Estenson Logistics,
LLC. allegedly forfeited meal and rest breaks without additional
compensation.

Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff and other truck
drivers working for the company in California performed the manual
task of transporting goods for Estenson Logistics, LLC. and were
allegedly paid on a piece-rate basis. The Complaint alleges that
the truck drivers were not paid minimum wages and alleged federal
overtime wages to which they were entitled to because of

Defendant's alleged failure to record all time worked.
Specifically, the Complaint claims that the truck drivers should
have been paid minimum wages for their non-drive time, the time
spent working during pre-trip and post trip inspections and time
spent allegedly waiting for Defendant's loads to be ready for
transport.

For more information about the class action lawsuit against
Estenson Logistics, LLC. call (866) 771-7099 to speak to an
experienced San Diego employment attorney.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik is a labor law firm with law
offices located in San Diego County, Riverside County, Los Angeles
County, Sacramento County, and San Francisco County. The firm has
a statewide practice of representing employees on a contingency
basis for violations involving unpaid wages, overtime pay,
discrimination, harassment, wrongful termination and other types
of illegal workplace conduct. Call one of their experienced
employment law attorneys at (866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug, & Bhowmik
2255 Calle Clara, La Jolla, CA 92037
Phone:+1 858-367-9913
www.bamlawca.com


FARM BOY: Recalls Ground Beef & Burger Products
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Farm Boy 2012 Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10014

  Brand   Common name   Size       Code(s) on    UPC
  name    -----------   ----       product     ---
  -----                            ----------
  Farm    Lean Ground   Variable   15.AU.27      Starts with
  Boy     Beef          weight                   270037

  Farm    Extra Lean    Variable   15.AU.27      Starts with
  Boy     Ground Beef   weight                   270013

  Farm    Dbl Smk       Variable   15.AU.27      Starts with
  Boy     Bacon/Ched    weight                   270549
          Burger


FIC AMERICA: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Pizzo" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Pizzo v. FIC America Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-07714
(N.D. Ill., September 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in excess of
40 hours in a week.

FIC America Corporation manufactures and markets mufflers, exhaust
manifolds, pressed parts, and canisters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin F. O'Connor, Esq.
      Ryan O. Estes, Esq.
      O'CONNOR | O'CONNOR, P.C.
      110 E. Schiller St., Ste 306
      Elmhurst, IL 60126
      Telephone: (630) 903-6397
      Facsimile: (630) 658-0336
      E-mail: kevin@oconnor-oconnor.com
              ryan@oconnor-oconnor.com


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: Signs $3.2-Mil. Deal to Settle Labor Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Nash, writing for Nashville Business Journal, reported that
auto insurance company First Acceptance has signed a memorandum of
understanding to settle two class-action suits alleging the
company violated labor laws.

According to the Nashville Post, one current and three former
workers accused the Green Hills-based company of incorrectly
classifying its insurance agents as exempt employees, violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

First Acceptance has denied the allegations, but in a meeting with
involved parties on AUg. 17, the company signed a proposed
settlement that will have them paying $3.2 million.

Through the first half of 2015, First Acceptance had a net profit
of $801,000 on revenue of $156 million. The profit is down for $4
million for the same period.


FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS: "Bolton" Dropped as Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JAMON BOLTON and CHRISTOPHER STAPLES, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. FIRST ADVANTAGE LNS SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14 CIV 5735 (PAC)(S.D.N.Y.), Plaintiffs Jamon
Bolton and Christopher Staples brought a class action against
Defendant First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc., alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Bolton alleged
that, based on First Advantage's report, T.J. Maxx erroneously
concluded that his conviction date was December 5, 2006 and
terminated his offer, pursuant to its policy against hiring
employees who have a felony conviction in the eight years
preceding their applications.

Bolton initiated this class action on July 25, 2014, and First
Advantage moved to dismiss the claims as untimely. On February 23,
2015, while First Advantage's motion to dismiss was pending,
Bolton amended the complaint to add Staples as plaintiff. Staples
also alleged violations of FCRA Sec. 168 1e(b) arising from a
report First Advantage furnished to his prospective employer, Home
Depot, in July 2013.  On March 16, 2015, First Advantage moved to
partially dismiss the suit, renewing its contention that Bolton's
claims are untimely.

District Judge Paul A. Crotty of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York in the Opinion and Order
dated July 1, 2015 available at http://is.gd/okQl3Wfrom
Leagle.com, granted First Advantage's motion to partially dismiss
the Bolton case finding the case untimely.  Judge Crotty said
since Staples' claims are timely, this class action proceeds with
Staples as the representative for both the willful FCRA violation
class and negligent FCRA violation class. The starting date for
claims covered by this suit is the date of the amended complaint:
March 16, 2015.

Christopher Staples is represented by Eleanor Michelle Drake, Esq.
-- drake@nka.com -- John G. Albanese, Esq. -- jalbanese@nka.com --
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP;

          - and -

     Kim Eleazer Richman, Esq.
     RICHMAN LAW GROUP
     6150 GA-400
     Cumming, GA 30028
     Tel: (678)829-2826

First Advantage LNS Screening Solutions, Inc. is represented by
Frederick Thomas Smith, Esq. -- fsmith@seyfarth.com -- Gina Renee
Merrill, Esq. -- - gmerrill@seyfarth.com -- Tara Michelle Conroy,
Esq. -- tconroy@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP


FORT DETRICK: Faces $750MM Class Suit Over Mishandled Toxins
------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Ritter, writing for CBS Baltimore, reported that a group of
people battling cancer in Frederick, who lost loved ones, are
suing Fort Detrick for $750 million.

The lawsuit claims the Army recklessly handled chemical toxins in
the past which lead to the death of some workers and those who
lived nearby.

WJZ's Rick Ritter has the latest.

Outrage and disgust for Louise Mason, it's pain that's lingered
for years.

"Why is our government not protecting us, the people?" she says.

Mason says she's had many side effects as the time go by and it
continues to get worse.

The Frederick native lost her father to a deadly disease and now
battles cancer herself.

Mason is just one of many pointing the finger at Fort Detrick.

"What happened was a wrong was made and it was never made right,"
said Angie Piper, President, Kristen Renee Foundation.

A $750-million lawsuit accuses the Army of recklessly and
negligently handling toxic chemicals -- citing Agent Orange
experiments during the Vietnam War -- that ultimately led to
diseases and deaths of dozens of people who worked at Fort Detrick
or lived nearby.

Angie Piper's mother died of kidney cancer and her sister passed
with a brain tumor.

Their family grew up within a mile of the base.

The state's health department was unable to find cancer clusters
near Fort Detrick. They say the cancer rate in this area is very
similar to the county's and the state's.

In February,  more than 100 families had their claims of health
problems denied. The Massachusetts lawyer leading their charge
against the Army says he hasn't got any response from the
government.

"They've done nothing what so ever, no phone call, letter email or
anything that's come from us government to show they have any
concern or empathy for the families and the lives they destroyed,"
said Attorney Michael Hugo.

Many are still hoping to get their day in court.

Hugo says he's unsure how many people may eventually be part of
the class action suit. He says some people are seeking money for
medical testing to give them peace of mind.

A state public health investigation in 2011 found no significant
evidence of cancer clusters within 2 miles of Fort Detrick.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Cadillac ATS 2013 Models
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 10441
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015390TC
ID number: 2015390
Manufacturer recall number: 15299

On certain vehicles, the coil antenna module located in the driver
side rear pillar, which powers the rear defogger system, could
generate significant temperatures if the module is subjected to
excessive cycling or continuous operation. This could result in a
fire developing inside the rear pillar on the driver's side of the
vehicle, which could cause injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Dealers will update the Electronic Climate Control
(ECC) module software to remove the automatic rear defogger "on"
function that occurs as a result of manual or remote start of the
vehicle. 2013 models also have a "continuous on" feature (enabled
at highway speeds in low temperatures) that will also be disabled.
Note: The base functionality of the rear defogger will not be
lost.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  CADILLAC   ATS        2013


GLOBAL AMERICAN: Court Dismisses "Epperson" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California dismissed
Plaintiff's complaint in the case, CHRIS JONATHAN EPPERSON,
Plaintiff, v. GLOBAL AMERICAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-CV-
935-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff's complaint, titled a class action, consisted of a
short, sparse list of allegations against Defendant Global
American Inc. for encounter espionage and "enevident tampeeron
discreet" [sic]. Plaintiff also sought $60 million in damages. On
June 22, 2015, Chris Jonathan Epperson (Plaintiff), appearing pro
se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. A review of
his application revealede that Plaintiff was entitled to proceed
in forma pauperis and his application was granted. Plaintiff also
filed a complaint and named Global American, Inc. as a Defendant
in the action (Defendant).

In the Order dated July 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/zn2NIS
from Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff's complaint
for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and
failure to state a cognizable claim.  Plaintiff, however, was
permitted to file a first amended complaint.


GREEN ENERGY: Faces "Sifuentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Sifuentes, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Green Energy Oilfield Services, LLC, Case
No. 5:15-cv-00752 (W.D. Tex., September 1, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all
hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Green Energy Oilfield Services, LLC is an oilfield service company
that specializes in fluid management for oil and gas well drilling
and production services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GULF BEND: Faces "Schuetz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Leland D. Schuetz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gulf Bend Center, Case No. 6:15-cv-00067 (S.D. Tex.,
September 1, 2014), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Gulf Bend Center is a provider of services for persons
experiencing mental health issues as well as persons with
intellectual functioning and developmental disabilities and
related conditions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael K. Burke, Esq.
      Michael M. Guerra, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL M. GUERRA, BURKE & KHIRALLAH, LLP
      3900 N. 10th St., Suite 850
      McAllen, TX 78501
      Telephone: (956) 682-5999
      Facsimile: (888) 317-8802
      E-mail: mburke@mmguerra.com
              mike@mmguerra.com

         - and -

      Timothy D. Raub, Esq.
      RAUB LAW FIRM PC
      814 Leopard Street
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 880-8181
      Facsimile: (361) 887-6521
      E-mail: timraub@raublawfirm.com


HAWAII: Court Dismisses "Hackett" First Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Clifford Hackett filed an Amended Complaint against
Defendants State of Hawaii and Alison Lee, in her official
capacity as Director of the State of Hawaii Department of
Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR).  Plaintiffs sued the Defendant
for denying him the opportunity to receive benefits and activities
in the State of Hawaii Department of Vocational Rehabilitation
(DVR) program that were available to other qualified individuals.
The court determined that these allegations were "too conclusory
to allege plausible claims under Title II of the ADA and Sec.
504," pointing out that Plaintiff failed to specifically identify
the facts. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint alleging that
Defendants discriminated against him in violation of Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act (Sec. 504), the Michigan Persons with
Disabilities Civil Rights Act (MPDCRA), and Hawaii law, by denying
him DVR services for which he qualified based on his blind/deaf
disabilities.

District Judge J. Michael Seabright of the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii in the Order dated July 6, 2015
available at http://is.gd/t74iCbfrom Leagle.com, dismissed with
leave to amend Plaintiff's ADA and Sec. 504 claims because without
factual allegations showing that Defendants' refusal to create an
IPE amounted to discrimination by reason of Plaintiff's
disabilities, the Amended Complaint failed to state plausible ADA
and Sec. 504 claims.

The case is captioned, CLIFFORD HACKETT, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF
HAWAII; ALISON LEE, in her official capacity as Administrator of
the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation, Department of Social
Services, Defendants, Case No. 15-00178 JMS-RLP (D. Hawaii).


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP regarding the settlement reached in the In Re HP
Securities Litigation, No. 3:12-CV-05980-CRB.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

IN RE HP SECURITIES LITIGATION, MASTER FILE NO. 3:12-CV-05980-CRB,
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE PUBLICLY
TRADED COMMON STOCK OF HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY ("HP") BETWEEN
AUGUST 19, 2011 AND NOVEMBER 20, 2012, INCLUSIVE (THE "SETTLEMENT
CLASS"). CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AS SET FORTH IN DETAIL IN THE STIPULATION OF
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, that the litigation
captioned In re HP Securities Litigation, No. 3:12-cv-05980-CRB
("Action") has been preliminarily certified as a class action for
the purposes of settlement only and that a settlement has been
proposed for $100,000,000 in cash.  A hearing will be held in
Courtroom 6 - 17th Floor before the Honorable Charles R. Breyer,
at the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, CA 94102 at 10:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 to, among
other things: determine whether the proposed Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; determine
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the
settlement proceeds should be approved as fair and reasonable; and
consider the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND THE SETTLEMENT,
AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT FUND. If you
have not yet received a copy of the full printed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Settlement
Fairness Hearing and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice"), with the enclosed Claim
Form, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting the
Claims Administrator: In re HP Securities Litigation Settlement,
c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10224, Dublin, Ohio 43017-5724, (888) 985-9382.
Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from
the website maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.HPSecuritiesLitigationSettlement.com, or from Lead Counsel's
website, www.ktmc.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member, in order to be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement,
you must submit a Claim Form postmarked on or before October 31,
2015.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not submit a
valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this
Action.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion such that it is received no later
than October 14, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do
not exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound
by the judgment entered by the Court in this Action, including the
releases provided for in the judgment, whether or not you submit a
Claim Form.  If you submit a request for exclusion, you will have
no right to recover money pursuant to the Settlement and will have
to pursue any claims against the defendants independently.  Lead
Counsel offers no advice and no opinion on whether you will be
able to maintain such claims.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or the request for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses, must be submitted to the Class Action Clerk or filed
with the Court on or before October 14, 2015, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or
Claim Form, may be made to Lead Counsel:

Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
San Francisco, CA 94104
(415) 400-3000
www.ktmc.com

Andrew L. Zivitz, Esq.
Stacey M. Kaplan, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(610) 667-7706
www.ktmc.com

By Order of the Court


HONDA: Recalls Fit 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 3, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 992
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015389TC
ID number: 2015389

On certain vehicles, the plug top ignition coil (PTC) may not
provide sufficient protection against electrical noise and wires
inside the coil could be damaged as a result. If this occurs, the
coil could overheat and melt, potentially causing the check engine
light to illuminate, and/or the engine or fuel injection system to
malfunction. This could result in an engine stall resulting in
loss of motive power which, in conjunction with traffic and road
conditions, and the driver's reactions, could increase the risk of
a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers
will replace the plug top ignition coil (PTC) with a new PTC of a
different design.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  HONDA      FIT        2015


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces the filing of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of Investment
Technology Group, Inc. ("Investment Technology Group" or the
"Company") who purchased shares between February 28, 2011 through
July 29, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investment
Technology Group investors have until October 5, 2015 to file a
lead plaintiff motion.

On July 29, 2015, after the market close, the Company announced
that it would incur significant expenses associated with settling
SEC claims that a market-making unit run by Investment Technology
Group in 2010 and 2011 traded using information not available to
other customers of Investment Technology Group's private stock-
trading systems. The Company announced that, "ITG reserved $20.3
million for a probable settlement with the SEC and incurred $2.3
million in legal and other related costs associated with this
matter during the second quarter of 2015," and that a Company
board member had resigned effective immediately. On this news
shares of Investment Technology Group dropped significantly, over
$5 per share or over 21%, during intraday trading on July 30,
2015.

The Complaint alleges that Investment Technology Group misled
investors by failing to adequately disclose that (1) Investment
Technology Group's AlterNet Securities, Inc. subsidiary operated a
proprietary trading operation in 2010 through mid-2011 inside of
Investment Technology Group's POSIT dark pool, a private stock
trading platform, against some of its broker clients; (2) the
proprietary trading operation used information from customer stock
orders within Investment Technology Group's dark pool, as well as
information from Investment Technology Group clients that used the
firm's algorithms to execute trades on other trading platforms,
which should not have been available.

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

Lesley Portnoy, Esq
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Toll-free: (888) 773-9224
Fax: (310) 432-1495
info@glancylaw.com


INDIANA: Muslim Inmates' Motion to Intervene in Bias Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioners Timmy K. Elian, Richard Albright, Amber Lambert, Lisa
R. Murphy, Georgette Thornton, and Lisa M. Tullis filed a Motion
to Intervene in the case, YAHYA (JOHN) LINDH, Plaintiff, v.
DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, in his official capacity,
Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-151-JMS-WGH (S.D. Ind.).  On May 23,
2014, Mr. Lindh filed the action against the Defendant, alleging
that the Defendant's policy prohibiting Muslim prisoners from
wearing their pants above their ankles violated the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Mr. Lindh filed his action as a
putative class action and later sought class certification
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

In the motion, Petitioners alleged that they personally witnessed
discrimination against Muslim prisoners "in other Federal prisons
and State prisons nationwide. Petitioners claimed that because
they "have a common vested interest in this Litigation," they
should be allowed to intervene pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 24(a)(2) and (b).

District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana in the Order dated July
6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/VoLwCzfrom Leagle.com, denied
Petitioners' Motion to Intervene because the general allegations
presented by the Petitioners were not enough to demonstrate a
shared question of law or fact with Mr. Lindh's claim at issue in
the litigation.

Yahya Lindh is represented by:

     Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
     Gavin Minor Rose, Esq.
     ACLU OF INDIANA
     1031 E Washington St
     Indianapolis, IN 46202
     Tel: (317)635-4059

Defendants is represented by Jonathan A. Bont, Esq. & Thomas E.
Kieper, Esq., at UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE


ITG BRANDS: Sued in California Over Blu Electronic Cigarettes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Whitney, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals v. ITG Brands, LLC, Fontem US, Inc., LOEC,
Inc., and Reynolds American Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04003-JSC (N.D.
Cal., September 1, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' deceptive
and unfair sales of Blu electronic cigarettes in California,
specifically by failure to provide any warnings about the
carcinogenic hazards associated with exposure to carcinogenic
toxin formaldehyde in the products.

The Defendants are manufacturers and distributors of electronic
cigarettes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark N. Todzo, Esq.
      Donna F. Solen, Esq.
      Abigail Blodgett, Esq.
      LEXINGTON LAW GROUP
      503 Divisadero Street
      San Francisco, CA 94117
      Telephone: (415) 913-7800
      Facsimile: (415) 759-4112
      E-mail: mtodzo@lexlawgroup.com
              dsolen@lexlawgroup.com
              ablodgett@lexlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Christopher M. Burke, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: cburke@scott-scott.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: CA Affirms Judgment in Retailers' Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker of the United States Court of
Appeals, Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district
court in the case captioned, CASH & HENDERSON DRUGS, INC., OMEGA
PHARMACY, LLC, DISCOUNT DRUGS OF ELLIJAY, GA, INC., KLEIN'S
PHARMACY & ORTHOPEDIC APPLIANCES, INC., MONROE PHARMACY, INC.,
TRIANGLE PHARMACY, INC., THE TROUTMAN DRUG CO., GRAVES DRUG STORE
EMPORIA, INC., R.H. MOORE DRUG COMPANY OF FRANKLIN, INC., PELTA
DRUG, INC., ACKAL'S IBERIA PHARMACY, INC., NORTHPARK PHARMACY,
LTD., MILLER DRUGS, INC., RICKMAN & HAILE, INC., COLLINWOOD DRUGS,
THRIFTY DRUG STORE, INC., PHARMA-CARD, INC., CREECH DRUG CO.,
INC., FELDMAN, INC., FAMILY PRESCRIPTION CENTER, INC., HARRAH
PHARMACY, INC., DAVID W. GARBER, MARJORIE H. LAMAR, LIVELY DRUG
CO., INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, DRUG MART PHARMACY CORP., ET
AL., Plaintiffs, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, CAREMARK L.L.C., EXPRESS
PHARMACY SERVICES OF PA, L.L.C., Defendants-Appellees, AMERICAN
HOME PRODUCTS CORP., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 12-4689-CV (2nd
Cir.).

Plaintiffs-appellants, a group of twenty-eight retail pharmacies,
appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (Gold, M.J.) dismissing their claims
for money damages and injunctive relief under subsections 2(a),
2(d), and 2(f) of the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 13(a),
13(d), 13(f), and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 15, 26.

Plaintiffs-appellants filed a putative class action against
Defendants contending that that the lower prices offered by
manufacturers violate the Robinson-Patman Act by harming their
ability to compete, and that favored purchasers violated the Act
by using their drug formularies to extract the lower prices.
Plaintiffs sought to prove that the discounts caused them to lose
customers to the favored purchasers, and that as a consequence
they suffered injury under the antitrust laws. Defendants
contended that the plaintiffs could prove neither the competitive
injury required to establish a prima facie claim under the
Robinson-Patman Act, nor the antitrust injury required to recover
damages.

Following discovery that lasted many years, the defendants moved
for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment
as to plaintiffs' Section 2(a) claims for declaratory relief and
for damages and defendants' motion for summary judgment on
plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief. The district court held
that plaintiffs' Section 2(d) and 2(f) claims also failed because
liability under these sections requires establishing antitrust and
competitive injury.

On appeal, Plaintiffs contended that they were entitled to an
inference of competitive injury under the Morton Salt doctrine and
claimed that the district court relied entirely on the matching
process in reaching its decision, improperly excluding other
evidence from consideration.

In his Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/EeWNZpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Parker concluded that
plaintiffs failed to raise a question of material fact as to
whether they suffered competitive injury and offered no argument
that future conditions will change in such a way as to make the
injuries they claim to have suffered more pronounced than
currently alleged.

Plaintiffs are represented by Steven I. Froot, Esq. -m
sfroot@bsfllp.com, Michael I. Endler, Esq. - mendler@bsfllp.com &
Robert C. Tietjen, Esq. - rtietjen@bsfllp.com --  BOIES SCHILLER &
FLEXNER LLP

Defendants are represented by Kathleen M. Crotty, Esq. --
kmcrotty@pbwt.com & Reed C. Bienvenu, Esq. -- rcbienvenu@pbwt.com
-- PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP


KAG WEST: Sued Over Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods
------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Malone, as an individual, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated v. Kag West LLC, and Does 1-100, Case No.
RG15784137 (D. Del., September 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide lawful meal and rest periods as
required by the California Labor Code.

Kag West LLC operates a tanker truck transportation and logistics
company which delivers fuel products to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
      ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
      401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1000
      Santa Monica, CA 9040 1
      Telephone: (310) 394-08881
      Facsimile: (310) 394-0811
      E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com

         - and -

      Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
      MICHAEL BOYAMIAN, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
      301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 800
      Pasadena, CA 911 01
      Telephone: (626) 795-0205


KILLION & SONS: Faces "Baughman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Seth Baughman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Killion & Sons Well Service, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
01143-CB (W.D. Penn., September 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Headquartered in Palatine, Texas, Killion & Sons Well Service,
Inc., provides services at oil and gas drilling sites in various
states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James J. Brink, Esq.
      BRINK LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      428 Forbes Ave., Ste. 1600
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 227-0961
      Facsimile: (412) 227-0964
      E-mail: jbrink@jamesbrinklaw.com

         - and -

      Steven C. Townsend
      EDDY DELUCA GRAVINA & TOWNSEND
      564 Forbes Ave., Penthouse
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-5336
      Facsimile: (412) 281-3537
      E-mail: stownsend@pghlaw.com


KODASCO INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Eduardo Quevedo Ferrari, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Kodasco International, LLC, Steve Hong,
Daniel Lee, and Yuan Gao, Case No. 1:15-cv-23291-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
September 1, 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 shipping company that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEON FARMA: Oct. 27 Alysena 28 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action, Kohler v. Laboratorios Leon Farma SA, Court File
Number 1303 13736, commenced in the Alberta Court of Queen's
Bench, has been certified to advance claims regarding Alysena(TM)
28, a combination oral contraceptive containing levonorgestrel and
ethinyl estradiol, which was packaged by Laboratorios Leon Farma
SA ("Leon Farma") in Spain and subsequently sold in Canada.  You
are a class member if you are a woman who was prescribed and
ingested Alysena(TM) 28 that was purchased in Canada between
November 19th, 2012 and April 15th, 2013 or are the biological
father of a child born to one of these woman after those dates.

OPTING OUT OF THE CLASS ACTION

If you are a class member, you are automatically included in the
class action, wherever you reside in Canada, unless you opt out.
If you do not opt out, you will be bound by the Court's
determination at trial of whether Leon Farma was negligent in its
packaging of Alysena(TM) 28, whether favorable to you or not, and
you will be bound by any settlement that the Court may
subsequently approve in the best interests of the class as a
whole.  If the Court determines that Leon Farma was negligent, you
may later have to make a claim within a time and manner directed
by the Court to prove any loss and expenses that you incurred, and
you may have to pay some of the money that is awarded to you to
any provincial or other government who paid hospital, medical, and
other costs on your behalf as well as a reasonable fee to the
lawyers who acted on your behalf at the trial.

If you do not opt out, you may be unable to bring or participate
in any other individual or class proceeding against Leon Farma
where you reside in connection with the alleged harm caused by
Alysena(TM) 28 during the time period described above.  If you
wish to opt out, you must send a completed opt out form to Trilogy
Class Action Services by courier, e-mail, fax, or mail, by
October 27, 2015.  You can obtain the opt out form at
www.alysena28classaction.com

LEGAL REPRESENTATION

The Court has appointed Petra Kohler of Strathmore, Alberta as the
representative plaintiff for the class.  You can contact
Ms. Kohler through her lawyers at:

Merchant Law Group LLP
2401 Saskatchewan Drive
Regina, Saskatchewan, S4P 4H8
E.F. Anthony Merchant, Q.C. / Casey R. Churko
1-306-359-7777
http://www.merchantlaw.com

TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THIS CLASS ACTION

This is not an advertisement or solicitation by a lawyer.  The
Court has approved the content of this notice, and it affects your
legal rights.  You should seek independent legal advice to
consider your options.

You can review additional documents related to the class action at
www.alysena28classaction.com

You may also call 1-866-329-7153 or e-mail
inquiry@alysena28classaction.com with inquiries about the class
action and for information on how you may participate further.


LIFE INSURANCE: Illegally Denies Disability Claims, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Scott v. Life Insurance Company of North America and
FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01147-NBF
(W.D. Penn., September 1, 2015), is an action for damages as a
result of the Defendant's alleged unlawful denial of long-term
disability benefit claims.

Life Insurance Company of North America owns and operates an
insurance company, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

FirstHealth of the Carolinas, Inc., is a benefit plan as defined
by ERISA doing business with its principal place of business
located at Pinehurst, North Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
      MORGAN & PAUL, PLLC
      618 Beaver Street, Suite 202
      Sewickley, PA 15143
      Telephone: (412) 259-8375
      Facsimile: (888) 822-9421
      E-mail: gregpaul@morgan-paul.com


LINK PRODUCT: Recalls Beach Toy Sets Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 2, 2015
Posting date: September 2, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54848

This recall involves the Summer Time Beach toy set to use for play
in the sand. The 11 piece set was packaged in a mesh bag and
includes a dump truck, sand molds and hand tools in various
colours.  UPC 67844170171 can be found on the product tag attached
to the mesh bag.

The recalled toy product contains small parts that pose a choking
hazard to small children.

Neither Health Canada nor Link Product Solutions Ltd. has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada related to
the use of this toy product.

Approximately 3,017 units were sold in Canada.
The recalled products were sold from April 1, 2015 to June 9,
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Kinya Industrial Limited
              Shantou City, Guangdong
              CHINA

Importer: Link Product Solutions Limited
          Concord
          Ontario
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and return the toy where it was purchased for a refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Link Product Solutions
Ltd. by telephone at (416) 637-2180 or by email.

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

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

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

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


LORENZO HARDWARE: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silvano Diaz Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lorenzo Hardware, Inc., and Jose Lorenzo,
Case No. 1:15-cv-23292-JAL (S.D. Fla., September 1, 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 hardware store in Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MACY'S INC: Falsely Marketed Hudson's Jeans, "Friedman" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Friedman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Macy's, Inc., Bloomingdale's Inc., Joe's Jeans Inc.,
and Hudson Clothing, LLC, Case No. DC593307 (D. Cal., September 1,
2015), is brought on behalf of all the purchasers of Hudson's
Jeans that were marketed by the Defendants throughout the United
States with the false designation and representation that the
jeans were "Made in U.S.A."

The Jeans at issue were not made in U.S.A. because they were
substantially and partially made, manufactured or produced with
component parts that are manufactured outside of the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MAJOR KITCHEN: "Li" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
He De Li, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Major Kitchen Cabinet Inc., Gui Biao Huang, a.k.a. Bur
Biao Huang or Jack Huang, "John" Huang, "John" Mo, John Doe and
Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-05106 (E.D.N.Y., September 1,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing kitchen cabinets
and furniture to customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


MANTRIA CORP: 3 People Charged Over Green Energy Ponzi Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that three people were charged on
Sept. 3 with running a $54 million Ponzi scheme built on promises
of a green energy technology that would turn trash into fuel and
"carbon-negative" housing developments, neither of which were ever
fully developed, federal prosecutors said.

Troy Wragg, 34, of Georgia; Amanda Knorr, 32, of Pennsylvania; and
Wayde McKelvy, 52, of Colorado were charged with wire and
securities fraud and conspiracy.  It wasn't immediately clear if
they had attorneys who could comment on their behalf.

Prosecutors said the trio lied to investors that their "biochar"
technology and "carbon-negative" housing in Tennessee made
millions, but they had almost no earnings and used the money to
repay earlier investors and for themselves.  The scam allegedly
ran from 2005 until 2009, even after the Securities and Exchange
Commission filed a civil lawsuit against Wragg and Knorr's Mantria
Corp.  They were ordered in 2012 to pay $37 million each.

"The scheme alleged in this indictment offered investors the best
of both worlds -- investing in sustainable and clean energy
products while also making a profit," U.S. Attorney Zane Memeger
said in a news release.  "Unfortunately for the investors, it was
all a hoax and they lost precious savings.  These defendants
preyed on the emotions of their victims and sold them a scam."

The investors got back about $6 million in June as part of a
class-action lawsuit against former Mantria employees, according
to attorney Patrick Howard.  Mr. Wragg and Ms. Knorr were not part
of that suit.

Two months before the SEC civil lawsuit, the company was publicly
recognized for its stated commitment to "help mitigate global
warming" by former President Bill Clinton's Clinton Global
Initiative.  The company was cited for its plans to develop the
biochar technology that it said would sequester carbon dioxide and
reduce emissions in developing countries.  Mr. Wragg appeared on
stage with Clinton at the event in September 2009.

Mr. McKelvy, who prosecutors say has never been licensed to sell
securities, raised money through his Speed of Wealth seminars in
Colorado, Las Vegas and elsewhere, including one that featured a
speech from former Broncos quarterback John Elway.

Mr. McKelvy allegedly told investors that Mantria was the next
Microsoft and that it was "on the cusp of a revolutionary
technology that's going to change the world, and you guys can
benefit from it by putting money in and getting stinkin' wealthy."

Prosecutors say the housing developments that Mantria told
investors would serve as collateral were never finished -- the
sites lacked drinking water and some may have contained unexploded
artillery shells.  Mantria then promised returns of more than 500
percent based on trash-to-fuel technology they said they had
orders to sell.

The company had a site testing the production of biochar in
Dunlap, Tennessee, but prosecutors say the company never had a
patent for the technology to sell the systems and lied about how
much it was producing.

Mr. Wragg was arrested in Georgia and will be arraigned on
Sept. 3; Ms. Knorr will be allowed to turn herself in at a later
date, according to Patricia Hartman, a spokeswoman for Memeger.
She said Mr. McKelvy was jailed in Colorado but had no further
details.


MARSHALL ETC: Court Grants Plaintiff Leave to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the United States District
Court for Southern District of Illinois granted Plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint in the case captioned, BRANDON STEWART,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. MARSHALL ETC, INC., DANIEL MARSHALL, and SHERRI
MARSHALL, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-1000-2-NJR-PME (S.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Brandon Stewart is a former senior technician of
Defendant Marshall Etc., Inc. On September 16, 2014, Plaintiff
initiated class and collective action lawsuit against Defendants
Marshall, Daniel Marshall, and Sherri Marshall seeking to recover
unpaid wages and overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and state law. In the Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges that Marshall "permitted and suffered its senior
technicians and/or other non-supervisory salaried technicians who
were compensated by salary to work overtime without paying them
overtime premium wages in violation of state and federal law".
Plaintiff further asserts that Marshall failed to record and pay
for work performed by the putative class.

On April 9, 2015, the parties notified the Court that they had
reached a settlement on behalf of the putative settlement class.
On June 9, 2015, the Court held a preliminary approval hearing and
heard argument on whether the settlement should be preliminarily
approved. On July 1, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Motion to
Certify Class and Collective Action for Settlement Purposes and
Supplement to Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of FLSA and
Class Action Settlement and a Motion for Leave to File an Amended
Complaint and Memorandum in Support.

In her Preliminary Approval Order dated August 28, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/oG9EEJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosenstengel found
that Rule 23(a)(1), Rule 23(a)(2), Rule 23(a)(3) and Rule 23(a)(2)
are preliminary satisfied. Plaintiff was given until September 4,
2015 to file an amended complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Christopher J. Petri, Esq.
BYRON CARLSON PETRI & KALB, LLC
411 St Louis St
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Tel: (618) 655-0600

Defendants are represented by Amy L. Blaisdell, Esq. --
apb@greensfelder.com -- Stephanie Radliff Hammer, Esq. --
shammer@greensfelder.com -- GREENSFELDER, HEMKER & GALE


MB FINANCIAL: Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Bosch Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Bosch and Susan Bosch, as individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MB Financial Bank, N.A., Cole Taylor
Bank, and Does 1through 50, Case No. BC593289 (D. Cal., September
1, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of contacting
individuals on their cellular telephones and residential-telephone
lines through an artificial or prerecorded voice without first
obtaining their express written consent, invading their right to
privacy.

MB Financial Bank, N.A. operates a bank holding company and the
parent company of Cole Taylor Bank.

Cole Taylor Bank operates a commercial bank headquartered in
Chicago.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
      Abigail A. Zelenski, Esq.
      David Zelenski, Esq.
      JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
      114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818)630-7280
      Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
      E-mail: Michael@jlglawyers.com
              Abigail@jlglawyers.com
              david@jlglawyers.com


MDC PARTNERS: Kessler Topaz Files Securitties Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against MDC
Partners, Inc. MDCA on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between September 24, 2013 and April 27, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

MDC shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

Through its subsidiaries, MDC provides a comprehensive range of
customized marketing, activation, communications and consulting
services.

The complaint alleges that MDC and certain of its senior executive
officers made a series of false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, executive compensation and related party
transactions.  Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that:  (i) the disclosures in MDC's SEC
filings materially understated the Company's executive
compensation; (ii) the disclosures in MDC's financial statements
failed to disclose certain related party transactions; (iii) the
Company's reported goodwill was materially overstated; (iv) the
Company's financial statements were presented in violation of GAAP
and were materially false and misleading; and (v) the Company's
disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting
were materially deficient.

On April 27, 2015, MDC issued a press release disclosing that the
SEC had been conducting a formal investigation into the Company's
reporting of executive compensation and goodwill, and that MDC had
formed a Special Committee of independent directors (the "Special
Committee") to review matters relating to the reimbursement of
expenses purportedly incurred by MDC's Chief Executive Officer
("CEO").  The press release further reported that, following the
Special Committee's investigation, MDC's CEO agreed to repay the
Company $8.6 million, and that the SEC's investigation into the
Company's accounting for goodwill and certain other accounting
practices was believed to be in "an early stage."

Following these disclosures, shares of MDC's stock declined $7.78
per share, or over 27.8 percent, to close on April 28, 2015 at
$20.20 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 - 7706 or (610) 667 - 7706, or via e-mail
at info@ktmc.com. For additional information about this lawsuit,
or to request information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/mdc-partners-inc.

Members of the class may,no later than September 29, 2015,
petition the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims
of other class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class in the action.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check.  For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit www.ktmc.com.


Darren J. Check, Esq.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Rd, Radnor, PA 19087
(888) 299-7706
info@ktmc.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Illegally Denies Disability Claim, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Goldman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Verizon
Wireless Managed Disability Benefits Plan, Case No. 2:15-cv-01846-
TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal., September 1, 2015), is an action for damages
as a results of the Defendant's alleged unlawful denial of long-
term disability benefit claims.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company owns and operates an insurance
company located at One Madison Avenue, New York, New York, 10010-
3690.

Verizon Wireless Managed Disability Benefits Plan is a benefit
plan doing business with its principal place of business located
at One Verizon Way, Basking Ridge, NJ 07920.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory G. Paul, Esq.
      MORGAN & PAUL, PLLC
      131 A Stony Circle
      Santa Rosa, CA 95401
      Telephone: (888) 967-5674
      Facsimile: (888) 822-9421
      E-mail: gregpaul@morgan-paul.com


MF GLOBAL: November 20 PwC Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-07866-VM

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:

All Securities Actions, (DeAngelis v. Corzine), ECF CASE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASSES;
(II) PROPOSED SETTLEMENTS WITH PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP AND THE
INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS; (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS'
FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES; AND (IV) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING

TO: All persons and entities who or which, during the period
beginning on May 20, 2010 through and including November 21, 2011,
purchased or otherwise acquired any MF Global Securities(1) and
were damaged thereby (the PwC and the Individual Defendant
Settlement Classes).

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action for the purposes of settlement only on behalf of the PwC
Settlement Class and the Individual Defendant Settlement Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from
those Settlement Classes by definition as set forth in the full
printed Notice of (I) Certification of Settlement Classes; (II)
Proposed Settlements with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP and the
Individual Defendants;(III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Expenses; and (IV) Settlement Fairness
Hearing (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached proposed partial settlements of the Action (i) with
defendant PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC" for $65,000,000 in
cash (the "PwC Settlement") and (ii) Jon S. Corzine, J. Randy
MacDonald, and Henri J. Steenkamp (collectively, the "Officer
Defendants"), David P. Bolger, Eileen S. Fusco, David Gelber,
Martin J.G. Glynn, Edward L. Goldberg, David I. Schamis, and
Robert S. Sloan (collectively, the "Director Defendants," together
with the Officer Defendants, the Individual Defendants") for
$64,500,000 in cash, that, if approved, will resolve all claims
asserted in the Action against PwC, MFG Global's outside auditor,
and against the Individual Defendants, respectively.  These
proposed Settlements will be considered independently by the Court
and they do not resolve any claims against the other Defendants in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on November 20, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., before
the Honorable Victor Marrero at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 11B of the United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 to
determine: (i) whether the proposed PwC Settlement should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the
proposed Individual Defendant Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (iii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as against PwC and the Releases specified
and described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP dated April 3, 2015 should be granted;
(iv) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice as
against the Individual Defendants and the Releases specified and
described in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the
Individual Defendants and the Releases specified and described in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with the Individual
Defendants dated July 2, 2015 should be granted; (v) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation for the proceeds of the settlements
achieved in the Action is fair reasonable and should be approved;
and (vi) whether the Co-Lead Counsel's application for an award of
attorney's fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses should be
approved.

If you are a member of the PwC or the Individual Defendant
Settlement Class, your rights will be affected by the proposed
settlements and any orders or judgments related to those
settlements, and you may be entitled to share in the PwC and/or
Individual Defendant Settlement Funds.  If you have not yet
received the Notice, the proposed Plan of Allocation and the Proof
of Claim Form (the "Notice Packet") you may obtain copies of those
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re MF
Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Garden City
Group, LLC, P.O. Box 10164, Dublin, OH 43017-3164, or calling
toll-free 1-877-940-5045.  Copies of those documents can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.MFGlobalSecuritiesClassAction.com

Please note, if you are a member of the PwC or the Individual
Defendant Settlement Class, you may also be a member of the
classes certified in connection with the settlement with certain
Underwriter Defendants (the "Underwriter Settlement") and the
settlement with defendant Commerz Markets LLC ("the Commerz
Settlement").  In order to be eligible to receive a payment from
those settlements, which were approved by the Court on June 26,
2015, or from the proposed PwC and Individual Defendant
Settlements, if they are approved, you must submit a Proof of
Claim Form postmarked no later than December 3, 2015(2).  If you
are a member of one or more of these settlement classes and do not
submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of net proceeds of the settlement(s)
obtained on behalf of those class(es) in which you are a member
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court related to the applicable settlement(s).

If you are a member of the PwC or the Individual Defendant
Settlement Class and wish to exclude yourself from the class, you
must submit a written request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than October 23, 2015, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice. (The deadline for requesting
exclusion from the Underwriter and Commerz Settlement classes has
passed, as set forth in the notices of those settlements which
were previously disseminated and which can be viewed on the
website noted above.)  If you properly exclude yourself from the
PwC or the Individual Defendant Settlement Class, you will be
excluded from both of those classes and you will also be excluded
from any other classes that may be certified in the Action in
which you would otherwise be a member, you will not be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action with
respect to the PwC or Individual Defendant Settlements or any
classes yet to certified, and you will not be eligible to share in
the proceeds of the PwC or the Individual Defendant Settlements or
any other recoveries that may subsequently be obtained in the
Action.

Any objections to the proposed PwC Settlement, the proposed
Individual Defendant Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation,
or Co-Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of litigation expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered
to Co-Lead Counsel, and if the objection to the PwC Settlement
and/or Individual Defendant Settlement, to designated counsel for
those Defendants such that they are received no later than October
23, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Defendants or
their counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about this
notice or the proposed PwC and Individual Defendant Settlements,
the Plan of Allocation or the fee/expense application should be
directed to Co-Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Underwriter Notice, should
be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
(800) 380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

or

BLEICHMAR FONTI TOUNTAS & AULD LLP
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
(212) 789-1341
bfta@bftalaw.com

Requests for the Underwriter Notice or to be added to the mailing
list for future notices in the Action should be made to:

In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation
c/o Garden City Group, LLC
P.O. Box 10164
Dublin, OH 43017-3164
(877) 940-5045
www.MFGlobalSecuritiesClassAction.com

By Order of the Court

1 The MF Global Securities are: the common stock of MF Global
Holdings Limited ("MF Global") (including shares acquired through
the MF Global Ltd. Amended and Restated 2007 Long Term Incentive
Plan or the MF Global Ltd. Stock Purchase Plan) (CUSIP 55277J108);
MF Global's 9% Convertible Senior Notes due June 20, 2038 issued
on or about June 25, 2008 (CUSIP 55276YAB2); MF Global's 1.875%
Convertible Senior Notes due February 1, 2016 issued on or about
February 7, 2011 (CUSIP 55277JAA6); MF Global's 3.375% Convertible
Senior Notes due August 1, 2018 issued on or about July 28, 2011
(CUSIP 55277JAB4); and MF Global's 6.25% Senior Notes due
August 8, 2016 issued on or about August 1, 2011 (CUSIP
55277JAC2).

2 If you ask to be excluded from the PwC and the Individual
Defendant Settlement Classes, but you are a member of the
Underwriter and/or Commerz Settlement Class(es) you will still be
eligible to participate in the recoveries obtained in connection
with those settlements, but you will not be eligible to
participate in the recoveries obtained from PwC and the Individual
Defendants if those settlements are approved or any subsequent
recoveries achieved.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Texas Assoc. Suit Removed to N.D. Texas Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Texas Association of Fraudulent
Judgment Victims, individually, and on behalf of a putative class
of similarly situated individuals v. Midland Funding LLC, et al.,
Case No. DC-15-03172-G, was removed from the 134th Judicial
District Court of Dallas County, Texas to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The
District Court Clerk assigned 3:15-cv-02861-K to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Gregg D. Stevens, Esq.
      Aimee G. Szygenda, Esq.
      MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
      2711 N. Haskell Ave, Suite 2750, LB 38
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 445-2410
      Facsimile: (214) 445-2450
      E-mail: gstevens@mcglinchey.com
              aszygenda@mcglinchey.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey R. Seewald, Esq.
      MCGLINCHEY STAFFORD, PLLC
      1001 McKinney, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 520-1900
      Facsimile: (713) 520-1025
      E-mail: jseewald@mcglinchey.com


MISSISSIPPI: Court Grants Clarion Ledger's Motion to Intervene
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted in part the
Motion to Intervene and to Vacate Protective Order filed by
Gannett River States Publishing Corporation d/b/a The Clarion
Ledger in the case captioned, MARY TROUPE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
HALEY BARBOUR, ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 3:10-CV-153-HTW-MTP
(S.D. Miss.).

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit on March 10, 2010,
alleging that the State of Mississippi failed to provide intensive
home-and-community-based services for children with mental health
needs. On April 8, 2011, the Department of Justice filed a
Statement of Interest of the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 517 in support of Plaintiffs' claims. On August 29, 2014, the
DOJ and the State reached an agreement, which addressed remedial
measures the State would implement to assess and address the DOJ's
concerns and Plaintiffs' claims. As part of the Agreement, the
State retained the Technical Assistance Collaborative (TAC) to
provide (1) assessments of permanent supportive housing for the
mentally handicapped and (2) assessments of the State's existing
mental health services.

On April 24, 2015, the State filed an unopposed Motion for
Protective Order  in the action, requesting that the Court enter
an order protecting the confidentiality of the TAC Report which
was granted by the court. On June 24, 2015, The Clarion Ledger
filed its Motion to Intervene and to Vacate Protective Order two
months after the Court entered the Protective Order.

In his Order dated August 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Gievh1from Leagle.com, Judge Parker found that the
Clarion Ledger's Motion should be denied to the extent it seeks to
have the Court vacate or modify the Protective Order and denied
themotion to modify the Protective Order. The Court found that the
parties should be given a reasonable opportunity to settle this
case. This complex case has been ongoing for more than five years
and the need for a fair and efficient resolution outweighs the
public's interest in accessing the TAC Report at this time.

Plaintiffs are represented by Naima Garvin, Esq. --
ngarvin@bakerlaw.com -- Ona Wang, Esq. -- owing@bakerlaw.com --
BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP

          - and -

Robert B. McDuff, Esq.
MCDUFF & BYRD,
767 N Congress St
Jackson, MS 39202
Tel: (601)969-0802

Defendants are represented by Shawn Stephen Shurden, Esq., at the
Mississippi Public Service Commission; Harold Edward Pizzetta,
III, Esq., at Office of the Attorney General; and Mary Jo Woods,
Esq., at Mississippi Attorney General's Office.


MONFRIC INC: Montana High Court Affirms Denial of Class Cert.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs James Morrow, Tyrel Wermelskirchen, and Dustin Higgs,
on behalf of others similarly situated, appealed the denial of
their motion for class certification in the Eleventh Judicial
District Court, Flathead County in the case captioned, JAMES
MORROW, TYREL WERMELSKIRCHEN, DUSTIN HIGGS, and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. MONFRIC, INC., a
California Corporation, Defendant and Appellee, Case No. DA 14-
0464 (Mont.).

Plaintiffs filed a wage and hour action and moved for
certification of a proposed class including all laborers, skilled
tradesmen, and craftsmen who worked for Monfric or its
subcontractors and who were not paid prevailing wages during the
construction and rehabilitation of Glacier Manor and Treasure
State Plaza. Plaintiffs identified 28 persons they claim were
underpaid on the projects, seven of whom were named plaintiffs and
class representatives. Monfric objected to the inclusion of four
class members, contending that they were not laborers. The
district court denied the class certification because Plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate numerosity of the proposed class.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied class certification on the grounds that
the proposed class was not sufficiently numerous.

Justice Laurie McKinnon of the Supreme Court of Montana in the
Opinion and Order dated July 7, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/kc7kMLfrom Leagle.com, affirmed the district court's
judgment finding that it did not abuse its discretion when it
concluded that Plaintiffs had failed to establish, as required by
M. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1), that their proposed class was so numerous
as to make joinder of its remaining members in a single action
impracticable. Plaintiffs' failure to demonstrate the prerequisite
was fatal to their motion for class certification.

Plaintiffs are represented by Lawrence A. Anderson, Esq.

Defendant is represented by Angela K. Jacobs, Esq. --
toddhammer@attorneysmontana.com -- Marcel A. Quinn, Esq. --
marcelquinn@attorneysmontana.com -- HAMMER, JACOBS & QUINN, PLLC


MONTANA: Dist. Court Rejects Class Cert., TRO Bids in "Mascarena"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Thomas Mascarena, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BERKEBILE,
Warden of the Crossroads Correctional Center, BRANDY SHERRARD,
Classification Coordinator, CAMILLE WANDLER, Unit Manager, TIMOTHY
ALLRED, Board of Pardons and Parole, Officer BURDITT,
Institutional Probation and Parole Office, MIKE BATISTA, Director
of the Department of Corrections; KARI KINTON, D.O.C., Contract
Manager, STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Defendants,  Case No. CV-15-50-
GF-BMM (D. Mont.), Plaintiffs Jeremiah Worm, Karl Kenfield, Jeremy
Seminole, and Thomas Mascarena signed and filed a joint motion to
proceed without paying the filing fee, a proposed complaint, and a
proposed order for a preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order on April 9, 2015. Plaintiffs alleged that they
were wrongfully denied eligibility for pre-release programs by the
Crossroads Institutional Screening Committee.  Plaintiffs were
inmates at the Crossroads Correctional Center and they proceeded
without counsel. Judge Johnston denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

On June 16, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston
entered Findings and Recommendations in the matter recommending
that the Court deny Plaintiffs' request for class certification,
Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction and that defendant State of Montana should
be dismissed from this action.

District Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court
for the District of Montana in the Order and Recommendation dated
July 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/REiZrDfrom Leagle.com,
adopted in full Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations
dated June 16, 2015. The Court denied Plaintiffs' class
certification and request for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction, finding that Plaintiffs failed to meet the
requirements for preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining
order.


MONTANA: Dist. Court Rejects Class Cert., TRO Bids in "Kenfield"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kal Kenfield, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden
of the Crossroads Correctional Center, BRANDY SHERRARD,
Classification Coordinator, CAMILLE WANDLER, Unit Manager, TIMOTHY
ALLRED, Board of Pardons and Parole, Officer BURDITT,
Institutional Probation and Parole Office, MIKE BATISTA, Director
of the Department of Corrections; KARI KINTON, D.O.C., Contract
Manager, STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-48-GF-
BMM (D. Mont.), Plaintiffs Jeremiah Worm, Karl Kenfield, Jeremy
Seminole, and Thomas Mascarena signed and filed a joint motion to
proceed without paying the filing fee, a proposed complaint, and a
proposed order for a preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order on April 9, 2015. Plaintiffs alleged that they
were wrongfully denied eligibility for pre-release programs by the
Crossroads Institutional Screening Committee.  Plaintiffs were
inmates at the Crossroads Correctional Center and they proceeded
without counsel. Judge Johnston denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

On June 16, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston
entered Findings and Recommendations in the matter recommending
that the Court deny Plaintiffs' request for class certification,
Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction and that defendant State of Montana should
be dismissed from this action.

District Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court
for the District of Montana in the Order and Recommendation dated
July 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/CzU9SEfrom Leagle.com,
granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, adopted in full Judge
Johnston's Findings and Recommendations dated June 16, 2015. The
Court denied Plaintiffs' class certification and request for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction finding no
clear error and Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations.


MONTANA: Dist. Court Rejects Class Cert., TRO Bids in "Seminole"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Jeremy Seminole, Plaintiff, v. DAVID
BERKEBILE, Warden of the Crossroads Correctional Center, BRANDY
SHERRARD, Classification Coordinator, CAMILLE WANDLER, Unit
Manager, TIMOTHY ALLRED, Board of Pardons and Parole, Officer
BURDITT, Institutional Probation and Parole Office, MIKE BATISTA,
Director of the Department of Corrections; KARI KINTON, D.O.C.,
Contract Manager, STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Defendants, Case No.
CV 15-49-GF-BMM (D. Mont.), Plaintiffs Jeremiah Worm, Karl
Kenfield, Jeremy Seminole, and Thomas Mascarena signed and filed a
joint motion to proceed without paying the filing fee, a proposed
complaint, and a proposed order for a preliminary injunction and
temporary restraining order on April 9, 2015. Plaintiffs alleged
that they were wrongfully denied eligibility for pre-release
programs by the Crossroads Institutional Screening Committee.
Plaintiffs were inmates at the Crossroads Correctional Center and
they proceeded without counsel. Judge Johnston denied without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

On June 16, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston
entered Findings and Recommendations in the matter recommending
that the Court deny Plaintiffs' request for class certification,
Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction and that defendant State of Montana should
be dismissed from this action.

District Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court
for the District of Montana in the Order and Recommendation dated
July 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/T3BZnwfrom Leagle.com,
adopted in full Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations
dated June 16, 2015. The Court denied Plaintiffs' class
certification and request for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction finding that Plaintiffs failed to meet the
requirements for preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining
order.


MONTANA: Dist. Court Rejects Class Cert., TRO Bids in "Worm"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEREMIAH WORM, Plaintiff, v. DAVID BERKEBILE, Warden
of the Crossroads Correctional Center, BRANDY SHERRARD,
Classification Coordinator, CAMILLE WANDLER, Unit Manager, TIMOTHY
ALLRED, Board of Pardons and Parole, Officer BURDITT,
Institutional Probation and Parole Office, MIKE BATISTA, Director
of the Department of Corrections; KARI KINTON, D.O.C., Contract
Manager, STATE OF MONTANA, et al., Defendants, Case No. CV 15-31-
GF-BMM (D. Mont.), Plaintiffs Jeremiah Worm, Karl Kenfield, Jeremy
Seminole, and Thomas Mascarena signed and filed a joint motion to
proceed without paying the filing fee, a proposed complaint, and a
proposed order for a preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order on April 9, 2015. Plaintiffs alleged that they
were wrongfully denied eligibility for pre-release programs by the
Crossroads Institutional Screening Committee.  Plaintiffs were
inmates at the Crossroads Correctional Center and they proceeded
without counsel. Judge Johnston denied without prejudice the
Plaintiffs' motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

On June 16, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge John Johnston
entered Findings and Recommendations in the matter recommending
that the Court deny Plaintiffs' request for class certification,
Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order and
preliminary injunction and that defendant State of Montana should
be dismissed from this action.

District Judge Brian Morris of the United States District Court
for the District of Montana in the Order and Recommendation dated
July 6, 2015 available at http://is.gd/1YfOV7from Leagle.com,
granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, adopted in full Judge
Johnston's Findings and Recommendations dated June 16, 2015. The
Court denied Plaintiffs' class certification and request for a
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction finding no
clear error and Judge Johnston's Findings and Recommendations.


NATIONAL BUSINESS: November 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
If you received a facsimile advertisement from National Business
Capital, Inc. between April 10, 2008 and April 10, 2012, you could
get a payment from a class action settlement.

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit against
National Business Capital, Inc. which claims that National
Business Capital, Inc. violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act ("TCPA") by sending or causing to be sent certain facsimile
advertisements.

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
authorized this notice.  Before any money is distributed to
eligible individuals, the Court will conduct a hearing to decide
whether to approve the settlement.

WHO'S INCLUDED?
You are a Class Member and could get benefits if you received a
facsimile advertisement(s) that was sent or caused to be sent by
National Business Capital, Inc. between April 10, 2008 to
April 10, 2012.

If you're not sure you are included, you can get more
information, including a detailed notice, at
www.nationalbusinessclassaction.net or by calling toll free
800-699-6964.

WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?
The lawsuit is about whether, from April 10, 2008 through
April 10, 2012, National Business Capital, Inc. sent or caused to
be sent facsimile advertisements to persons in the United States
without consent and/or without required opt out language.
National Business Capital, Inc. denies it did anything wrong.  The
Court did not decide which side was right.  But both sides agreed
to the settlement to resolve the case and compensate the eligible
fax advertisement recipients.  The two sides disagree on how much
money could have been awarded if the Plaintiff had won at a trial.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?
National Business Capital, Inc. agreed to create a Settlement Fund
of $225,000 from which Class Members who send in valid Claim Forms
will receive compensation.  A Settlement Agreement and more
comprehensive notice, describing the proposed settlement in more
detail, are available at www.nationalbusinessclassaction.net

Your share of the Settlement Fund will depend on the number of
valid Claim Forms that Class Members send in and how many fax
advertisements sent or caused to be sent by National Business
Capital, Inc. you received.  The Defendant has agreed to pay no
greater than $225,000 into a Settlement Fund a total of which
shall be used for the payment of all Valid Claims, attorneys' fees
and costs, and an incentive payment to the Class Representative.
More information concerning these payments is available on the
detailed notice at www.nationalbusinessclassaction.net

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR A PAYMENT?
A detailed notice and Claim Form contain all of the information
you need to make a claim.  Just visit
www.nationalbusinessclassaction.net to get the detailed notice and
claim form.  Claim forms must be postmarked by September 24, 2015.

WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS?
If you don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must
exclude yourself by mailing an exclusion request postmarked by
September 24, 2015 or you won't be able to sue, or continue to
sue, National Business Capital, Inc. about the legal claims in
this case.  If you exclude yourself, you can't get money from this
Settlement.  If you stay in the Settlement, you may object to it
by mailing an objection postmarked by September 24, 2015.  The
detailed notice explains how to exclude yourself or object.

The Court will hold a hearing in this case (3081 Main Street, LLC
d/b/a New England Wine and Spirits. v. National Business Capital,
Inc., Civil Action No. 3:12 CV 00531 (JAM)) on November 3, 2015 at
10:00 a.m., to consider whether to approve the Settlement
Agreement.  You may ask to appear at the hearing, but you don't
have to.  For more information, please visit
www.nationalbusinessclassaction.net, call toll free
800-699-6964, or write to National Business Capital, Inc.
Settlement, PO Box 12985, Birmingham, AL 35202-2985.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Controls Trade of Sunday Games, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Infirmary, LLC and Davenport's Family Restaurant, Inc. v.
National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises, LLC, DirecTv
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-06729 (September 1, 2015), seeks
to enjoin the ongoing unreasonable restraint of trade that
Defendants have implemented through DirecTV's exclusive
arrangement to broadcast all Sunday afternoon out-of-market games.

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan M. Thomas, Esq.
      BAHADORI & THOMAS, LLP
      2 Park Plaza, Suite 450
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (949) 954-8164
      Facsimile: (949) 954-8163
      E-mail: bmt@bahadorilaw.com

         - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      Roger A. Sachar Jr., Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 564-1637
      Facsimile: (212) 564-1656
      E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com
              RSachar@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com

         - and -

      Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      520 3rd Street, Suite 108
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Telephone: (415) 968-8999
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: Seeks Review of Data Breach Suit Decision
--------------------------------------------------------
Veronica Jackson, Esq. -- vdjackson@mcguirewoods.com -- Andrew
Konia, Esq. -- akonia@mcguirewoods.com -- Clare Lewis, Esq --
clewis@mcguirewoods.com -- Jessica Morrison, Esq. --
jmorrison@mcguirewoods.com -- and Andrew Phillips, Esq. --
aphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- in an article for JD Supra Business
Advisory, wrote that the following are some of the bedrock
questions luxury retailer Neiman Marcus has asked the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals to consider en banc following a three
judge panel's bombshell opinion in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group:
Does a data breach of a retailer's payment-card information
automatically confer Article III standing on affected customers?
Is the mere possibility that some criminal element may use
pilfered information to commit future fraud or identity theft
sufficient to confer customers standing to assert a class action?
Are a retailer's customer service efforts following a data breach
-- arguably subsequent remedial measures -- proper evidence of the
customers' injury?

Before Remijas, the answer to each of these questions -- based on
opinions from the Third Circuit and numerous federal district
courts finding a lack of standing in data breach cases -- was
unequivocally "No."  Remijas, however, is a potential game changer
on several key fronts because it is the first Circuit Court
opinion to find:

Customers need not wait until hackers commit identity theft or
credit-card fraud to acquire standing because there is an
"objectively reasonable likelihood" injury will occur;

Plaintiffs who have not suffered actual fraud or identity theft
are nonetheless injured because they must spend time and money
replacing cards, monitoring their credit score and otherwise
"sorting things out";

A retailer's offer of credit monitoring and identity-theft
protection to customers following data breach was "telling"
evidence that risk of harm was not "ephemeral."

For any company regularly compiling or retaining customer data,
the potential ramifications of Remijas are harrowing.  As Neiman
Marcus pointed out in its petition for en banc review, in Clapper
v. Amnesty Int'l USA, the U.S. Supreme Court held Article III
standing for possible future injuries only exists where the
threatened injury was "certainly impending."  Remijas use of an
"objectively reasonable likelihood" standard potentially lowers
the crucial standing bar announced in Clapper.  Moreover, Neiman
Marcus argues, Remijas creates a circuit split with the Third
Circuit which failed to find standing in Reilly v. Ceridian Corp.
-- a similar data breach class action.

Neiman Marcus also took issue with the Court's finding that the
cost of "sorting things out" following a data breach -- including
protection of credit monitoring services -- could constitute a
compensable injury where there was no allegation that any class
representative or member had actually suffered identity theft or
unreimbursed fraud.  On this last point, Neiman Marcus was
particularly troubled by the Court's use of the retailer's offer
of credit-monitoring services and identity-theft insurance --
offers made as a "customer service measure" -- as evidence that
its customers suffered injury.  As Neiman Marcus points out, it
made those offers to a much larger subset of customers than were
actually impacted by the breach.  Moreover, allowing the store's
post-data breach purchase of credit monitoring and identity-theft
insurance for potentially affected customers to serve as evidence
of its customers' compensable injuries perversely disincentives
companies from taking similar steps in the future.

Although petitions for en banc rehearing are not routinely
granted, the panel's apparent deviation from recent Supreme Court
standing jurisprudence, and the potential conflict with the Third
Circuit, may prove compelling reasons for the Seventh Circuit to
grant the petition.  Pursuant to federal appellate court rules,
Plaintiffs are not permitted to respond to a petition for en banc
review unless requested by the Court.  However, the Court
typically allows a response before granting such a petition.
Thus, if the Court sees potential merit in the petition, the most
likely next step would be to invite a response from Plaintiffs.
On the other hand, if the Court is wholly unswayed, it could deny
the petition outright.

While allowing Remijas to stand would not be a death blow to
Neiman Marcus's case -- it still has strong defenses to class
certification only hinted at in the briefing thus far -- it would
significantly increase the likelihood of future data breach
plaintiffs surviving a motion to dismiss and, consequently, spike
the frequency and expense of data breach class-action litigation
for defendants.  McGuireWoods LLP data privacy and class action
attorneys will continue to closely monitor this important case.


NETWORK ALIGNMENT: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Smith v. Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:15-cv-01740-DLR (D. Ariz., September 1, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for unlawful failure to pay overtime wages
in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Network Alignment & Brakes, Inc. operates multiple automotive
service stores that provide A/C repair and maintenance, alignment,
brake repair and maintenance, diagnostics, diesel service and
repair, emissions, factory scheduled maintenance, full automotive
service, general repair, lift & lowering kits, oil change,
performance and general tune-ups, radiator service, transmission
fluid exchange, and transmission repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trey Dayes, Esq.
      Sean Davis, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
      Phoenix, AR 85012
      Telephone: (602) 288-1610 ext. 301
      E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com


NEW HAVEN, CO: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Troy Adams, et al. v. City of New Haven, Connecticut, Case No.
3:15-cv-01311 (D. Conn., September 1, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

City of New Haven, Connecticut is a municipality in the State of
Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan K. Mechak, Esq.
      Michael R. Willats, Esq.
      WOODLEY & McGILLIVARY LLP
      1101 Vermont Ave, NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Telephone:  (202) 833-8855
      Facsimile: (202) 452-1090
      E-mail: mkm@wmlaborlaw.com
              mrw@wmlaborlaw.com

         - and -

      Eric Chester, Esq.
      FERGUSON, DOYLE, & CHESTER P.C.
      35 Marshall Road
      Rocky Hill, CT 06067
      Telephone: (860) 529-4762
      Facsimile: (860) 529-0339
      E-mail: ericchester@fdclawoffice.com


OREGON: Court Narrows Claims in Class Suit Against TriMet
---------------------------------------------------------
Defendants filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to All
State Law Claims and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to Max
Operators' FLSA Overtime Claims in the case captioned, ALLEN
MARGULIES et al., Plaintiffs, v. TRI-COUNTY METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT OF OREGON, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-CV-
00475-PK (D. Ore.).

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

In the motion, TriMet contended that summary judgment was
appropriate because the parties operated under the Working and
Wage Agreement (WWA) and, because public policy of the State of
Oregon favored such agreements for public employees, the court
should conclude that the WWA defined the circumstances under which
TriMet must pay wages and overtime under ORS 653.268 and that
summary judgment was appropriate because the MAX operators have
been fully compensated for their working hours consistent with the
requirements of the FLSA, the Portal to Portal Act, and the terms
of the WWA.

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak of the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon in the Opinion and Order dated June 30,
2015 available at http://is.gd/bEL79Jfrom Leagle.com, granted in
part TriMet's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to All State
Law Claims as it applied to Start-End Travel Time, Routinely Late
Time, and the licensing and certification aspect of Medical
Examination Time and denied in part as it applied to Split-Shift
Travel Time, Pre-Departure Time, Meeting Time, and Medical
Examination Time related to compulsory examinations during the
workday. The Court also granted in part Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment as to MAX Operators' FLSA Claims as it applied to Start-
End Travel Time, Routinely Late Time, the categories of Meeting
Time related to travel and waiting, and the licensing and
certification aspect of Medical Examination Time and denied in
part as it applied to Split-Shift Travel Time, Pre-Departure Time,
the category of Meeting Time related to payroll corrections, and
Medical Examination Time related to compulsory examinations during
the workday. The Court denied as moot Trimet's motion to strike.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joel B. Young, Esq. & Steven G.
Tidrick, Esq. - THE TIDRICK LAW FIRM, The Tidrick Law Firm, 2039
Shattuck Avenue #308, Berkeley, CA 94704, Tel: (510)788-5100;
Paul L. Breed, Esq. - plb@plbreed.net -- PAUL L. BREED, PC

Defendant is represented by Douglas E. Smith, Esq. -
desmith@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.


OZARK COUNTY, MO: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Detention
---------------------------------------------------------
Giacomo Bologna, writing for Springfield News-Leader, reported
that a lawsuit says the city of Ozark and Christian County arrest
and then detain people for up to 24 hours with the sole intention
of punishing them.

The lawyer behind the suit says that this has been an accepted
practice within Christian County and throughout the state of
Missouri for years but is unconstitutional.

The lawsuit seeks to establish class-action status for the issue
and estimated that there are 90 to 2,000 people who could belong
to the class. The suit stems from the arrests of two Ozark women
several months ago.

According to a police report provided by the city of Ozark, at 10
p.m. on March 8, police were dispatched to an Ozark apartment
following a report of "screaming, slamming doors, and someone
mentioned something about a baseball bat," although the scene was
quiet when police arrived. Eventually, the report said officers
entered the apartment where they found a water pipe, a marijuana
"roach," a half-full bottle of vodka, and Hannah Mosier and
Lindsey McMeekin, who were 18 and 24 at the time of the incident.

Both women told police they had drank alcohol and smoked marijuana
that day and were charged with possession of drug paraphernalia,
the report says, and Mosier was also charged with being a minor in
possession of alcohol.

After Mosier and McMeekin were issued citations, police took them
to the Christian County Jail where they "were released to the
detention staff for a 24 hour hold."

The lawsuit says this 24-hold was a violation of Mosier and
McMeekin's Fourth Amendment rights, because they were not being
investigated for further crimes. The suit also says there was "no
intention to hold them for the purpose of determining probable
cause and (officers) did not allow them to post bond."

The lawsuit also cites Sgt. Scott Stopka of the Ozark Police
Department as a defendant. According to the police report, Stopka
was not one of the officers who arrested Mosier and McMeekin, but
he did approve the incident report form.

Mosier and McMeekin's lawyer, Brandon Potter, said he has been
speaking with other attorneys in the area and has been hearing
similar stories of police abusing 24-hour holds. Potter said he
expects the lawsuit to grow in scope to include the city of Nixa.

Potter said the statute of limitations for this potential class-
action lawsuit is five years.

Missouri has a specific statute addressing detainment by police:

"All persons arrested and confined in any jail ... shall be
discharged from said custody within twenty-four hours from the
time of such arrest, unless they shall be charged with a criminal
offense by the oath of some credible person, and be held by
warrant to answer to such offense."

This Missouri law has been discussed in federal court before.

In 1996, a judge who heard U.S. v. Roberts in the Western Missouri
district court ruled and called the 24-hour hold statute "not a
sword in the hands of the police, but rather a shield for the
citizen."

"The statute does not create an investigative tool for Missouri
police officers or an independent basis for arrest; rather, it
sets a limit on the amount of time the police may detain a
suspect, whose arrest is otherwise lawful, while determining
whether there is enough evidence of a crime to present the suspect
to a judge or prosecutor to begin criminal proceedings," the judge
wrote.

Lyndle Spencer, who became the chief deputy of the Sheriff's
Department after Brad Cole won the election, said he was unaware
of the lawsuit, but he said the practice alleged in the lawsuit
does not currently take place at the Christian County jail.

"We don't do 24-hour holds without investigative purpose," Spencer
said.

The 24-hour hold of Mosier and McMeekin had taken place during the
tenure of disgraced former sheriff Joey Kyle, before he pleaded
guilty to embezzlement and aiding a fraud scheme in May.

The News-Leader previously reported that shortly after becoming
interim sheriff in June, Dwight McNiel reviewed the 24-hour hold
policy. At the time, McNiel said in a press release that there was
a new policy in place to "eliminate the incarceration of arrestees
on municipal ordinance violations."

McNiel declined to comment on the lawsuit but said ending those
type of detentions was a "substantial change in policy" that he
enacted the first day he assumed office.

Dave Collignon, city attorney of Ozark, said the city of Ozark has
not filed a response to the lawsuit yet. However, Collignon said
that he has been in contact with Potter as recently as.

"This is going to take a considerable amount of time," Collignon
said, explaining that the before the lawsuit can proceed, the
class of people allegedly harmed by the 24-hour holds has to be
certified.

Steve Ijames, the interim Ozark police chief, said he is aware of
the lawsuit but declined to comment on it. He said the policies of
the Ozark police department are compliant with state law.

Ijames was appointed interim chief after Lyle Hodges resigned
following publicity of a report investigating his department for
nepotism, favoritism, ineffective management and alleged
misconduct.

Hodges is now suing the city of Ozark, saying he was forced to
resign against his will.

Statue 544.170 of the Missouri Revised Statutes:

   (1) All persons arrested and confined in any jail or other
place of confinement by any peace officer, without warrant or
other process, for any alleged breach of the peace or other
criminal offense, or on suspicion thereof, shall be discharged
from said custody within twenty-four hours from the time of such
arrest, unless they shall be charged with a criminal offense by
the oath of some credible person, and be held by warrant to answer
to such offense.

   (2) In any confinement to which the provisions of this section
apply, the confinee shall be permitted at any reasonable time to
consult with counsel or other persons acting on the confinee's
behalf.

   (3) Any person who violates the provisions of this section, by
refusing to release any person who is entitled to release pursuant
to this section, or by refusing to permit a confinee to consult
with counsel or other persons, or who transfers any such confinees
to the custody or control of another, or to another place, or who
falsely charges such person, with intent to avoid the provisions
of this section, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.


PELHAM, AL: 11th Cir. Rules in Firefighters' Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ed Carnes, Jill Pryor and Higginbo Tham of the United States
Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's
first order granting partial summary judgment to firefighters on
their claim regarding sick and vacation leave, and vacated the
second order regarding the proper conversion rate for unused sick
leave upon retirement and remanded for further proceedings in the
case captioned, KENNETH CAMP, MICHAEL TODD McCARVER, PATRICK
SMITH, STEPHEN KIEL, RANDAL BEARDEN, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CITY
OF PELHAM, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 14-14804 (11th Cir.).

The case was filed as a class action alleging that the City's
scheduling of firefighters' work violated the FLSA and that the
City breached the Civil Service Law by failing to award
firefighters sick, vacation, and holiday time in a comparable
manner to standard employees. In their complaint, the firefighters
sought both damages and injunctive relief. In March 2012, the
magistrate judge filed reports recommending that the district
court certify an FLSA collective action and a Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 class action pertaining to the state law
claims. The City objected to the magistrate judge's reports and
recommendations. The district court then adopted the magistrate
judge's reports and recommendations and conditionally certified a
collective action under the FLSA and a class under Rule 23 based
on the state law claims. With regard to the claim regarding
vacation and sick leave, the district court granted the
firefighters partial summary judgment, holding that the City
violated the Civil Service Law by failing to award them sick and
vacation leave in a comparable manner to that of standard
employees.

The district court was then left with the firefighters' claims
that the City had failed to follow its Civil Service Law because
it did not award firefighters sick leave "in a comparable manner"
to standard employees and that it should have used an eight-hour
rate to convert unused sick leave to days of service credit for
purposes of calculating retired firefighters' pension benefits.
The district court ordered the City to credit currently employed
class members the 6,762 additional sick leave hours calculated by
their damages expert and to pay damages to the retired class
members equal to the pension benefits they would have received
using an eight-hour conversion rate for unused sick leave.

On appeal, the Pelham appealed the district court's orders (1)
granting partial summary judgment to current and retired City
firefighters on their claim that the City incorrectly calculated
their sick and vacation leave under the City's civil service law;
and (2) ordering the City to convert the firefighters' unused sick
leave to creditable service upon retirement using an eight-hour
work day.

In the Per Curiam dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/dqL0Dyfrom Leagle.com, Judges Barnes, Pryor and Tham
concluded that a day of sick and vacation leave is not required to
be eight hours for every employee, without regard to her work
schedule. The district court correctly held that the City violated
the Civil Service Law by failing to calculate the firefighters'
sick and vacation leave in a manner comparable to that of standard
employees. The Court is unpersuaded by the firefighters' argument
that using a 10.6 hour day devalues the firefighters' sick leave.


PHILADELPHIA AUTO BODY: Settlement Agreement Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part the
parties' joint motion for approval of the Settlement Agreement in
the case captioned, GILBERT MABRY, Plaintiff, v. TINA HILDEBRANDT,
d/b/a PHILADELPHIA AUTO BODY and ED HILDEBRANDT, d/b/a
PHILADELPHIA AUTO BODY, Defendants, Case No. 14-5525 (E.D. Pa.).

On September 26, 2014, Gilbert Mabry suedhis former employers,
Tina Hildebrandt and Ed Hildebrandt, doing business as
Philadelphia Auto Body.  Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) by terminating
Plaintiff because Plaintiff complained that he was not being paid
overtime compensation (Count I); that Defendants failed to pay
Plaintiff overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA (Count
II); that Defendants violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(Count III); and that Defendants violated Pennsylvania wage and
collection laws (Count IV). Plaintiff sought back pay from the
date of his termination through the date of the verdict. Using the
settlement date as the "verdict" date, Plaintiff was alleging
approximately $21,000.00 in damages and the total amount claimed
was roughly $9,000.00.

A settlement conference was held before the Honorable Lynne A.
Sitarski, United States Magistrate Judge on February 4, 2015. On
July 14, 2015, Defendants filed an unopposed motion to file the
settlement agreement for the Court's approval under seal. The
Court denied the motion, holding that Defendants' motion failed to
"overcome the strong presumption of access in a FLSA wage-
settlement matter.

In the motion, the parties jointly moved for approval of the
Settlement Agreement. Defendants continue to deny liability.

In the Memorandum dated August 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/PyjpnVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Jones held that since
the Defendants continue to deny liability, resolution thru
settlement can cure the dispute instead of a trial to avoid
difficualt and expensive trial. The Court found that the
compensation terms of the settlement are fair and reasonable and
approves the the Settlement Agreement, excepting the entirety of
the confidentiality clauses found in section five of the
Settlement Agreement and the requested 40% of recovery given that
the total amount recovered is significantly less than the lodestar
method would permit.

Gilbert Mabry is represented by:

Jeremy M. Cerutti, Esq.
Mark T. Sottile, Esq.
Ari Risson Karpf, Esq.
KARPF, KARPF & CERUTTI, P.C.
3331 Street Rd
Bensalem, PA 19020
Tel: (215)639-0801

Defendants are represented by Adam R. Roseman, Esq. --
aroseman@morganlewis.com -- Jeffrey Alan Sturgeon, Esq. --
jsturgeon@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS


PFIZER INC: Counsel Contends Plaintiffs' Expert Not Qualified
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
after being postponed for several months, a Daubert hearing in the
Zoloft MDL kicked off again with counsel for Pfizer claiming the
plaintiffs' causation expert was unqualified to offer opinions in
the case and used improper methodology to arrive at his
conclusions that Zoloft causes cardiac birth defects.

In addition to claiming expert Nicholas Jewell's conclusions were
not peer-reviewed and based on bad science, one of Zoloft's
lawyers, Mark Cheffo -- markcheffo@quinnemanuel.com -- told the
court that in the time since the MDL's last Daubert hearing --
which allows parties in a case to challenge expert testimony
before the start of trial and is named for the 1993 U.S. Supreme
Court case Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals -- new studies
have surfaced, including some from the American Heart Association
and the New England Journal of Medicine, indicating that "a causal
relationship between Zoloft and birth defects does not exist."

Mr. Cheffo said in drawing his conclusions that Zoloft presented
an increased risk of causing cardiac birth defects when taken by
pregnant women, Dr. Jewell, a professor of biostatistics at the
University of California, Berkeley, was trying to "fit a square
peg in a round hole."

Mr. Cheffo also claimed Dr. Jewell was unqualified in his capacity
as a causation expert because he is a statistician, not a medical
doctor.  He further attacked Mr. Jewell's opinions for being
overly broad.  Mr. Cheffo said Mr. Jewell also relied on a study
that actually reported there was no significant relationship
between selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) -- the
class of drug Zoloft belongs to -- and causing birth defects.  He
also presented statements in which Dr. Jewell seemingly questioned
the relationship between Zoloft and birth defects.

Finally, Mr. Cheffo said that on Aug. 14, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration said the recommended label on Zoloft should include
the phrase, "There is no increased risk of cardiac malformation."
However, an attorney for the plaintiffs, Joseph J. Zonies --
jzonies@rplaw.com -- said in his rebuttal that Pfizer was cherry-
picking parts of Jewell's conclusions and presented his statements
out of context.

Mr. Zonies claimed Dr. Jewell operated using sound methodology and
drew from peer-reviewed studies in developing his report.
Zonies also took issue with the American Heart Association's
study, claiming it relied on only two prior studies out of many to
come to its conclusions.  In that vein, Mr. Zonies questioned how
Pfizer could "come up here and excoriate Dr. Jewell."

Finally, Mr. Zonies summed up his argument by telling the court
that Pfizer didn't take into account all the factors within the
studies it cited, providing an incomplete picture.

Prior to the latest Daubert hearing, there was a focus in the case
on the propriety of a defense witness reaching out to study
authors.

Pfizer's expert, Dr. Stephen E. Kimmel, wrote in a report that one
of the two independent studies that purportedly showed Zoloft
increases the risk of heart defects in newborns contained
incorrect data.  Dr. Kimmel explained he contacted the author,
Dr. Allen Mitchell, to inform him of discrepancies in the article,
which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine, and
Mitchell agreed -- in an email chain Kimmel attached to his report
-- that the study should be corrected.

Pfizer's experts and attorneys had reached out to study authors on
other occasions, which the plaintiffs claimed were the basis for
Pfizer's expert witnesses' opinions in the case and not subject to
peer review because of their "ex parte" nature.

"The [plaintiffs steering committee's] characterization of such
communications as 'ex parte' and 'non-peer-reviewed' is nothing
more than rhetorical flourish," Pfizer said in its court papers.
"There is no rule of law or procedure that requires such
communications to be bilateral and correspondence with study
authors is not typically peer-reviewed.  Plaintiffs are, of
course, as free to reach out to study authors as Pfizer's
attorneys and experts."

The presiding judge in the MDL is U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe
of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  As of June 1, the MDL
had roughly 550 cases.  However, in the time leading up to the
hearing, dozens of cases in the MDL had been dismissed without
prejudice.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Dykes"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, CAROLYN DYKES, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:15CV110(JCC/MSN) (E.D. Va., January 28,
2015), Plaintiff Carolyn Dykes, a consumer, filed this putative
class action against Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC (PRA), a
debt collector, pursuant to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). PRA allegedly purchased a debt in the amount of $3,886.67
that arose from Plaintiff's consumer credit card issued by non-
party Capital One Bank (USA), N.A. Plaintiff amended her complaint
once as a matter of right. In the amended complaint, Plaintiff
claimed that PRA's collection letters were false, deceptive, or
misleading in violation of sections 1692e and 1692e(11) of the
FDCPA, mainly because they were written almost entirely in
Spanish. Plaintiff asked for statutory damages, actual damages,
costs, and declaratory relief.

PRA filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim.

District Judge James C. Cacheris of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in the Memorandum
Opinion dated June 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/i7Stucfrom
Leagle.com, denied PRA's Motion to Dismiss accepting Plaintiff's
allegations that PRA's collection letters were objectively
unreasonable and deceptive from the viewpoint of the least
sophisticated consumer.

Carolyn Dykes is represented by:

     Thomas Ray Breeden, Esq.
     THOMAS R. BREEDEN PC
     10326 Lomond Dr
     Manassas, VA 20109
     Tel: (703)392-6992

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is represented by David Neal
Anthony, Esq. -- david.anthony@troutmansanders.com -- Harrison
Scott Kelly, Esq. -- scott.kelly@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN
SANDERS LLP


PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Joint Status Report in "Gardner" Due Nov. 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Prudential Company of America filed a Motion to Dismiss or
Stay Based On Class Injunction Or, Alternatively, Transfer  in the
case captioned, FAYE E. GARDNER LIVING INSURANCE TRUST and GORDON
L. SKARSGARD, Plaintiffs, v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 14-423 JH/SCY.

Plaintiffs brought claims of negligence, breach of contract,
breach of the warranties of good faith and fair dealing, and
insurance bad faith against Defendant, The Prudential Insurance
Company of America, which issued a life insurance policy contract,
No. 61276340, to Faye E. Gardner on September 19, 1990. Plaintiffs
alleged that premiums were paid in accordance with the policy, to
wit, a "seven-payment life policy, premiums $40,000/year for seven
years, checks to G.L. Skarsgard, Trustee."  Plaintiffs alleged
that despite the fact that the premium payments were made in
accordance with these requirements, Prudential wrongfully refused
to pay a $661,732 death benefit upon the death of Faye E. Gardner
on July 27, 2011.

In the motion, the Defendant argued that Plaintiffs' claims
against it are barred by the Final Order and Judgment entered by
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in
the class action In re The Prudential Insurance Company of America
Sales Practice Litigation, Master Docket No. 95-4707 (DRD). As a
result, Defendant asked the Court to dismiss or stay the case
until the New Jersey district court ruled on whether Plaintiffs'
claims were barred, or in the alternative, to transfer the case to
the District of New Jersey in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1404(a).

District Judge Judith C. Herrera of the United States District
Court for the District of New mexico in the Memorandum Opinion and
Order dated July 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/HqOFz7from
Leagle.com, granted Defendant's motion and stayed the case until
such time as the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey determines whether or not Plaintiffs' claims in the
case are barred by the March 17, 1997, Final Order and Judgment in
In re The Prudential Insurance Company of America Sales Practice
Litigation, Master Docket No. 95-4707 (DRD).

The Court directed the parties to file a Joint Status Report
regarding the District of New Jersey's progress in making the
above determination not later than November 1, 2015.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daymon B. Ely, Esq.
     William G. Gilstrap, II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF DAYMON ELY
     1228 Central Ave SW
     Albuquerque, NM 87102
     Tel:(505)248-0370

Defendant is represented by Ross L. Crown, Esq. --
Rcrown@LRRLaw.com -- LEWIS ROCA ROTHGERBER LLP


PROVIDENT LIFE: 6th Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in "Leonor"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment
and denial of penalty interest in the case captioned, LOUIS
LEONOR, Plaintiff-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, v. PROVIDENT LIFE AND
ACCIDENT COMPANY; PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants-
Appellants/Cross-Appellees, Case No. 14-2120, 14-2152 (6th Cir.).

The case stemmed from a dispute over three disability income
insurance policies issued to Louis Leonor, a dentist licensed in
Michigan. Leonor suffered an injury that prevented him from
performing dental procedures. Each policy provided total
disability benefits in the event that Leonor became unable to
perform the important duties of his Occupation, or words to this
effect. Paul Revere Life Insurance Company issued policy number
0102450113 (the 0113 policy) to Leonor on April 24, 1990. The
district court granted summary judgment to Leonor on his contract
claim concluding that Leonor was Totally Disabled under the policy
because he was unable to perform duties that had taken up two-
thirds of the time spent in his pre-injury occupation.

On appeal, appellant argued that the district court had failed to
address their argument that, as a matter of grammar, "the
important duties" has necessarily the same meaning as "all the
important duties and that it erred by finding the phrase "the
important duties" ambiguous.

Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Russel of the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit in the Memorandum Opinion dated June 24,
2015 available at http://is.gd/FVfVeFfrom Leagle.com, affirmed
the district court's grant of summary judgment to Leonor on his
contract claim, reversed the district court's denial of penalty
interest to Leonor under M.C.L. Sec. 500.2006(4), and remanded
with instructions to modify the award to include penalty interest
under that statute.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael Max Jacob, Esq. --
jacob@youngbasile.com -- Jeffrey D. Wilson, Esq. --
wilson@youngbasile.com -- YOUNG BASILE

Defendants are represented by K. Scott Hamilton, Esq. -- -
khamilton@dickinsonwright.com -- DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC


QUAIL VALLEY: "Angel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Angel, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Quail Valley Club, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-14308-RLR (S.D. Fla.,
September 1, 2015), seeks to recover from unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Quail Valley Club, LLC owns and operates a golf club in Vero
Beach, Indian River County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar R. Jones, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


REMY INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Garcia, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Remy International, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
01385-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind., September 1, 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.

Remy International, Inc. is a supplier of original equipment and
aftermarket starters and alternators for heavy-duty vehicles in
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William N. Riley, Esq.
      James A. Piatt, Esq.
      RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 633-5270
      Facsimile: (317) 426-3348
      E-mail: wriley@rwp-law.com
              jpiatt@rwp-law.com


REPUBLIC SERVICES: Court Grants Motion to Quash Subpoena
--------------------------------------------------------
Defendants brought a motion to quash a subpoena issued by
Plaintiffs to Pelopidas, LLC, a non-party public relations company
hired by Defendants' attorney, or in the alternative, to grant a
protective order against disclosure of the materials in question
in the case, KIRBY PEMBERTON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REPUBLIC
SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:14-CV-01421 AGF
(E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Defendants in
federal district court on August 15, 2014, asserting negligence
and nuisance claims arising out of the odor, pollution, and
emissions allegedly emanating from the Landfill. In response,
Defendants produced 15 documents, along with a privilege log,
while withholding 81 purportedly privileged documents and videos.
As required by Local Rule 37-3.04(A), the parties conferred in
good faith, but were unable to reach an accord with regard to the
disputed materials.

In the motion, Defendants argued that the withheld materials were
protected by the attorney-client privilege or, in the alternative,
the work product doctrine. Regarding the attorney-client
privilege, Defendants asserted that an attorney-client
relationship existed between counsel, Pelopidas, and Defendants,
and that Pelopidas' services were necessary to aid counsel in
their rendering of legal advice to Defendants.

District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri in the Memorandum and
Order dated June 23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/gRhfZGfrom
Leagle.com, granted Defendants' motion to quash Plaintiffs'
subpoena directed at Pelopidas finding that the materials were
protected by the work product doctrine, and Plaintiffs have not
met their burden to overcome the protection provided by that
doctrine.

Plaintiffs are represented by Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq. --
ccoslett@bm.net -- David F. Sorensen, Esq. -- dsorensen@bm.net --
Nicholas Urban, Esq. -- nurban@bm.net -- BERGER AND MONTAGUE,
P.C.,

          - and -

     Daniel P. Finney, Jr., Esq.
     FINNEY LAW OFFICE
     1735 South Big Bend Boulevard
     St. Louis, MO 63117
     Tel: (314)888-5198

Defendants are represented by Allyson Elisabeth Cunningham, Esq.
-- acunningham@lathropgage.com -- Matthew A. Jacober, Esq. --
mjacober@lathropgage.com -- Patricia L. Silva, Esq. --
psilva@lathropgage.com -- Robert G. Rooney, Esq. --
rrooney@lathropgage.com -- William Garland Beck, Esq. --
bbeck@lathropgage.com -- Mara H. Cohara, Esq. --
mcohara@lathropgage.com -- LATHROP AND GAGE, LLP


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Goldberg Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against root9B Technologies Inc. ("root9B" or the "Company")
(OTC: RTNB), for alleged violations of the federal securities
laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between
December 1, 2014 and June 15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), have until August 24, 2015 to serve as lead plaintiff in
the class action.

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

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

root9B is a provider of cyber security solutions to large and
medium sized companies. According to the complaint, on June 15,
2015, a SeekingAlpha.com article claimed that: (a) root9B was
created by insiders with a long history of penny-stock wipeouts
and fraud allegations; (b) root9B's "cyber" business is miniscule
and imploding and largely appears to be an old employee training
program which the Company resells; and (c) insiders enriched
themselves with root9B through related-party transactions, abusive
compensation, and the unloading of failing investments at
overvalued prices. When the truth was revealed, the stock dropped
causing investors harm.

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

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

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


SAFEWAY: Recalls In-Store Products That Contain Cucumbers
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall
Warning Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Safeway
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Safeway is recalling field cucumbers and various in-store produced
products that contain cucumbers purchased from Safeway due to
possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled products described below.

This recall applies to fresh field cucumbers sold in bulk,
unwrapped and various in-store produced products that contain
cucumbers, such as Greek salad, vegetable trays, sushi and
sandwiches purchased from Safeway on or before September 6, 2015.
Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected products
should check with their Safeway store.

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

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

Currently, the CFIA is not aware of any reported illnesses in
Canada associated with the consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall by Andrew and Williamson
Fresh Produce ("A&W") of San Diego, California, and may be
associated with an outbreak in the United States. The Canadian
Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

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

  Brand   Common name      Size       Code(s) on       UPC
  name    -----------      ----       product       ---
  -----                               ----------
  None    Field cucumbers  Variable   Purchased from   PLU 4062
          (bulk, unwrapped)           Safeway on or
                                      before September
                                      6, 2015
  Safeway Various in-store Variable   Purchased from   Various
          produced products           Safeway on or
          that contain                before September
          cucumbers (Greek            6, 2015
          salad, vegetable
          trays, sushi and
          sandwiches)

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/c4F5C2


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Narrows Claims in "Miller" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. filed a motion to
dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) in the case
captioned, SCOTT MILLER, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-4076 (D.N.J.).

Plaintiff Scott Miller brought an action on behalf of himself and
similarly situated individuals, alleging misrepresentations
relating to Samsung's Series 3 Chromebook laptop. Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint alleges seven causes of action: (1) violation of
the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and in the alternative, the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and Florida's
misleading advertising statute,; (2) violation of the New Jersey
Truth in Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act; (3) common
law fraud and misrepresentation; (4) breach of implied warranties
in violation of N.J.S.A. Sec. 12A:2-314 et seq., and in the
alternative, Fla. Stat. Sec. 672.314 et seq.; (5) declaratory
judgment under N.J.S.A. Sec. 2A:16-51 et seq., and in the
alternative, Fla. Stat. Sec. 86.011 et seq.; (6) breach of express
warranty in violation of N.J.S.A. Sec. 12A:2-313, and in the
alternative, Fla. Stat. Sec. 672.313(b); and (7) equitable class
relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2).

In the motion, Defendant argued that Plaintiff lacked
constitutional standing to assert claims under New Jersey laws
because Plaintiff did not claim to reside in New Jersey or claim
to have suffered any injury in New Jersey.

District Judge Esther Salas of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey in the Opinion and Order dated June
29, 2015 available at http://is.gd/BWeQHJfrom Leagle.com, granted
without prejudice as to Counts 2, 4, 6 and 7 Samsung's motion to
dismiss Paintiff's Amended Complaint and denied with respect to
the remainin counts Samsung's motion to dismiss.

Scott Miller is represented by:

     Michael John Debenedictis, Esq.
     DEBENEDICTIS & DEBENEDICTIS LLC
     41 S Haddon Ave.
     Haddonfield, NJ 08033
     Tel: (856)795-2101

Samsung Electronics America is Michael R. Mcdonald, Esq. --
mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com -- Jennifer Marino Thibodaux, Esq. --
jthibodaux@gibbonslaw.com -- GIBBONS, PC


SAN DIEGO, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Medical Test of Children
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Moran, writing for The San Diego Union-Tribune, reported that
a class-action lawsuit was filed against San Diego County over the
decades-long practice of giving invasive medical exams at the
Polinsky Children's Center to children who had been taken away
from their parents.

The exams -- which the county has argued are medical assessments
to guard against contagious diseases -- are given to all children
taken to the facility. Critics say the exams amounted to an
unconstitutional search for evidence against parents, who were
deceived in the process, and the county has changed its practices
amid years of litigation.

The latest complaint was filed in federal court on behalf of a 2-
year-old boy, identified only by initials D.C., who was given the
exam in 2014. The suit is seeking class action status to represent
all children taken to Polinsky since 1995, which could include
tens of thousands of children, lawyers who filed the case said.

The practice of giving the exams violated the constitutional
rights against illegal searches and the due process rights of
parents, the suit says.

The county settled one lawsuit brought by Steven and Joanna
Swartwood, whose children were given the exams, for $1.1 million,
so the county's potential liability in a class action could be
substantial.

Donnie Cox, the lawyer who won that settlement and filed the class
action suit, said it was too early to say how much the county
might have to pay. He said that the county has been notified that
the exams were not legal since a federal appeals court ruling in
1999.

"They've been on notice they can't do these exams for years," he
said.

The center is where children who are removed from their home
because of suspected abuse or neglect are taken.

The new class action suit repeats the arguments from the Swartwood
lawsuit that contended the exams violated the constitutional
rights of parents and children.

As part of the settlement, the county did not formally admit
liability but agreed to a court order requiring changes to the
procedures and to the layout of the Polinsky center to allow
parents to be present during the exams.

Cox said it's unclear if those changes have been fully put in
place. Mike Workman, a spokesman for the government, said the
county has made "all the changes to the exams we agreed to as part
of the settlement."

Cox contended the exams, which included checking the genitals and
anuses of children, were nothing other than attempts to gather
evidence of abuse against parents. The county did not allow
parents to be present during the exams and also did not fully
inform them of what the exams were for.

In 2014 a federal judge ruled in that suit that the exams were
"investigatory" and the county's consent form for parents was
intentionally misleading.

The county estimates the Polinsky Center takes in 300 children a
month, meaning that the total number of children included in the
class could exceed 50,000.

The lawsuit filed also seeks an injunction stopping the county
from administering the exams without consent of the parents, and
without a court order or warrant.

The suit was filed on behalf of a child who was removed from his
mother's custody in 2014 on suspicions he had been injured. A
doctor at Children's Hospital had examined the child and seen a
mark less than a quarter inch in size, which triggered the child's
removal and transport to Polinsky Center, it says.

The next day the child was given the exam, which included the
genital and anal checks, without the mother's knowledge or
consent, the lawsuit says. The mother, Katy Evans, is suing the
county and social workers in a separate case, claiming they
unlawfully removed the child from her care, then lying about the
reasons behind the removal.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Treatment of Captive Orcas
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman filed a consolidated complaint against SeaWorld
Entertainment Inc. joining three separate complaints previously
filed by consumers. The complaint includes more recent evidence of
what attorneys allege to be the misrepresented and undisclosed
truth about the conditions and treatment of SeaWorld's captive
orcas.

The complaint follows SeaWorld's unsuccessful effort to have the
Multi-District Litigation (MDL) panel consolidate the action in
Orlando, Florida.

SeaWorld has 45 days to respond to the filing of this complaint

Hagens Berman originally filed a lawsuit on behalf of Plaintiff
Holly Hall in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California challenging SeaWorld's misrepresentations and material
omissions concerning the treatment and conditions of its captive
killer whales. During its signature Shamu shows and in its massive
global marketing campaign SeaWorld states that it "cares for,"
"protects" and "nourishes" its captive orcas, according to the
complaint. "The deceptive and false illusion carefully scripted by
SeaWorld and created for the public has concealed not only the
mistreatment of these animals, but also concealed orca behavior
that evidences how their captivity at SeaWorld is harmful to their
welfare," the complaint reads.

Consumers who have purchased tickets, memberships or SeaWorld orca
experiences over the past four years at any of the three SeaWorld
locations -- San Diego, Orlando and San Antonio -- may contact
Hagens Berman by emailing SeaWorld@hbsslaw.com or by calling 206-
623-7292. Additional information about the investigation is
available at http://www.hbsslaw.com/seaworld.To join this class
action, consumers do not need to live in a state in which SeaWorld
operates.

The complaint states, SeaWorld's "orcas in the care of man" mantra
is an "illusion [that] masks the ugly truth about unhealthy and
despairing lives of these whales. This is a truth that, if known
to the purchasing public at the time families make the decision to
visit SeaWorld, buy a membership, or pay for an 'exclusive park
experience,' would lead many of them to seek entertainment
elsewhere."

"We have spent months researching this issue and talking with
world experts. Simply put, we believe that SeaWorld must finally
tell the truth about the treatment and condition of its captive
orcas and compensate those consumers that it has deceived," Berman
said. "It's clear that the true condition of these orcas is not
revealed to the public. Plaintiffs in this case would not have
patronized SeaWorld had they known the disturbing truth."

Plaintiffs Holly Hall, Paul Danner, Valerie Simo, Joyce Kuhl, and
Elaine Browne purchased tickets to SeaWorld and its killer whale
shows, and say they would not have purchased tickets had the true
conditions and treatment of SeaWorld's orcas been disclosed.

According to the consolidated complaint, SeaWorld confines its
orcas to unhealthy, small tanks; forces apart orca families
unnaturally, and calves from mothers in particular, for profit;
forces unnatural breeding, including inbreeding, upon its captive
orcas; uses pharmaceutical products to drug its orcas to handle
the stresses caused by their confinement. As the complaint
alleges, captivity at SeaWorld causes the orcas physical injury,
including significant teeth damage, repeat sunburns, collapsed
dorsal fins, and a shorter, more miserable life.

SeaWorld's alleged misconduct violates, among other laws,
California's Unfair Competition Laws and Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, California false advertising laws, Florida's Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practice law, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Consumer Protection Act, and offends the common law prohibitions
on deceit and unjust enrichment.

Consumers who have purchased tickets, memberships or SeaWorld
experiences involving orcas over the past four years at any of the
three SeaWorld locations -- San Diego, San Antonio or Orlando --
may contact Hagens Berman by emailing SeaWorld@hbsslaw.com or by
calling 206-623-7292. Find out more about the class-action lawsuit
against SeaWorld.

                        About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is a consumer-rights class-action
law firm with offices in nine cities. The firm has been named to
the National Law Journal's Plaintiffs' Hot List eight times. More
about the law firm and its successes can be found at
www.hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at
@ClassActionLaw

  Reed Kathrein, Esq.
  Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
  1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101
  Tel. (206) 623-7292
  Fax. (206) 623-0594
  http://www.hbsslaw.com/


SILVER WHEATON: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Silver Wheaton Corp. and certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Central
District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Silver Wheaton securities
between March 30, 2011 and July 6, 2015 inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Silver Wheaton securities
during the Class Period, you have until September 7, 2015 to ask
the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy
of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To
discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Silver Wheaton is a precious metal streaming company. In exchange
for upfront payments, the Company purchases the by-product of
silver or gold production of mines that SLW does not own or
operate. SLW derives approximately 60% of its revenue from the
sale of silver and 40% of its revenue from the sale of gold.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, prospects and performance. Specifically, during the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) SLW's financial statements
contained errors concerning income tax owed from  income generated
by its foreign subsidiaries; (2) the Company lacked adequate
internal controls over its financial reporting; and (3) as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's financial statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On July 6, 2015, the Company issued a press release, announcing,
among other things, that the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") is
taking the position that the transfer pricing provisions of the
Income Tax Act (Canada) relating to income earned by foreign
subsidiaries outside of Canada should be applied such that SLW's
taxable income should be increased approximately $567 million for
the period between 2005 and 2010.

On this news, the Company's shares fell $2.08 per share, or almost
12%, to close at $15.46 per share on July 7, 2015.

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

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


SIRIUS XM: Settles Wage & Hour Class Suit With Unpaid Interns
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Hoey, Esq. -- bhoey@kelleydrye.com -- at Kelley Drye &
Warren LLP, in an article for JD Supra Business Advisory, wrote
that Sirius XM Radio Inc. settled a wage & hour class action with
a class of 1,852 unpaid interns that claimed the company violated
federal and state labor laws by failing to compensate them for the
work they performed during their internships.  The reported
settlement amount -- $1.3 million --  demonstrates that the class
action lawsuits brought by unpaid interns can prove costly for
companies that do not properly structure their internship
programs.

The plaintiffs in the case, Tierney v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No.
14-cv-02926 (S.D.N.Y), were "interns" that received no
compensation for the hours they worked during their internships.
The suit alleged that they were in fact "employees" entitled to
minimum wage and overtime compensation.  To support this claim,
the plaintiffs asserted that they performed tasks necessary to
Sirius XM's operations, such as running errands, placing orders,
obtaining breakfast items for Sirius XM employees, and compiling
data.  Furthermore, the plaintiffs asserted, Sirius XM did not
provide them with any academic or vocational training during their
internships. The plaintiffs sought compensation for unpaid wages,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

This settlement comes in the shadow of the guidance provided by
the Second Circuit in Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. et
al., Nos. 13-4478 & 13-4481 (2d Cir. 2015) and Wang v. Hearst
Corp., No. 13-4480-cv (2d Cir. 2015).  Plaintiffs in those cases
were also unpaid interns claiming they worked for many hours
during their internships for which they should have been paid. The
Second Circuit made it harder to certify a class of interns,
holding that the question of intern classification is a "highly
specialized inquiry." Although it may be harder for putative
plaintiff interns to bring their claims on a class-wide basis,
class certification of interns is still possible under the proper
circumstances. Importantly, the Second Circuit provided employers
with guidance on how they can design and maintain a legal unpaid
internship program: in determining whether or not an "intern" is
actually an "employee" subject to minimum wage and overtime laws,
the question to be asked is "whether the intern or the employer is
the primary beneficiary of the relationship."  While unpaid
interns may gain exposure, contacts, and experience during their
internships, the bottom line is that, in order for an unpaid
internship program to pass muster, the interns must be educated
during the internship.

The Sirius XM settlement should serve as another warning to
employers that use unpaid interns, as these positions continue to
be in the "eye" of the plaintiffs class action bar. The settlement
figure in the Sirius XM case show why these claims are popular.
Assuming that the settlement passes the scrutiny of a fairness
hearing, the plaintiffs' attorneys will collect fees of
approximately $300,000, while the 1,853 class members will be paid
an average of slightly less than $538 each, paid proportionally
based upon the number of "internship sessions" that the person
participated in between 2008 and 2015.

What to take away -- Remember that Employers who teach their
interns and provide them with real training will continue to be
able to maintain unpaid internship programs.

On the other hand, if interns are treated as free labor and do not
receive any real training or education, they may be found to
actually be an employee entitled to minimum wage and overtime
compensation.


SKECHERS USA: Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in "Brown"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aldonia Brown fell and twisted her left ankle while wearing Shape-
ups tennis shoes.  Brown filed several claims against Skechers
U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A. Inc. II, and Skechers Fitness Group.
Brown's case has been consolidated in federal district court in
Kentucky along with over 1,000 cases for purposes of determining
preliminary matters as part of multidistrict litigation.

Skechers moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Brown's
claims were time-barred by a one-year statute of limitations. In
response, Brown argued that the statute of limitations did
not begin to run until she reasonably suspected that her injuries
stemmed from Skecher's Shape-ups.

Magistrate Judge Thomas B. Russel of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Kentucky in the Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated June 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Tr9mRpfrom Leagle.com, granted Defendant's motion
for summary judgment because Brown had not responded to Skechers'
argument that her breach of warranty and other claims were barred
by the Court's previous settlement of the class action claims
brought by Plaintiff Tamara Grabowski.

The case captioned is IN RE: SKECHERS TONING SHOE PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION. ALDONIA BROWN, v. SKECHERS U.S.A., INC., et
al, Case No. 3:11-MD-2308, Case No. 3:13-CV-1075-TBR (W.D. Ky.).

Plaintiffs are represented by Joshua Cash, Esq. --
joshua.cash@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN &
DICKEN LLP & Ronald E. Johnson, Jr., Esq. --
rjohnson@pschachter.com -- SCHACHTER HENDY & JOHNSON, PSC

Defendants are represented by Anthony M. Zelli, Esq. --
Anthony.zelli@dinsmore.com -- DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP, Brian D.
Nolan, ESq. -- bnolan@nolanolson.com -- NOLAN, OLSON LAW FIRM,
Cory Eichelberger, Esq. Darrell D. Dennis, Esq. -- LEWIS BRISBOIS
BISGAARD & SMITH, LLP, Jeffrey A. Barker, Esq. -- jbarker.omm.com
-- Jeffrey R. Schmieler, Esq. -- jchmieler@omm.com -- Joanna K.
Chan, Esq. -- kchan@onn.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP


SONY CORP: Settlement of Vita Advertising Suit Includes $25 GCs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Spino, writing for Cinelinx, reported that you may have
forgotten you ever filled out a settlement agreement for the
Vita's "false advertising," but the time has come to collect your
shares. Find out more after the jump.

A while ago Sony got sued for falsely advertising the Vita. They
stated numerous things about the Vita that never came to life with
the actual unit, so a class action lawsuit stepped in. Sony lost
the battle and agreed to pay out settlements.

Those settlements included $25 in gift cards (or check), or
several game bundles of old games. You were allowed to select one
of the many different options and were told to wait further
notice.

Well settlement confirmations seem to be heading to emails now. If
you picked the $25 gift card, you should get an emails regarding
your approval and a code to enter on the PlayStation Store. The
code is good for a $25 credit to use on the store. Other users
should get confirmation of their settlement being approved and
shipped to them, but they may not arrive for a little while
longer.

If you are weary of scams, the official email should come from
"playstationvita.us.com" and the title should read "RE: Cash Back
or Merchandise Offer from Sony Computer Entertainment America
LLC."

If you haven't recieved it yet be sure to check your spam folders
and other folders that it may get stuck in. Otherwise you can
contact the settlement administrator at 1-800-410-5484 regarding
your settlement.

This case was purely for the advertising of the PlayStation Vita
and was only for early owners. This is not to be confused with a
similar class action lawsuit regarding the data breach of PSN.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA AUTO: CA Affirms Denial of Attorney's Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William W. Bedworth of the California Court of Appeals,
Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed the trial court's order
denying plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and costs from
defendant Southern California Auto Sales, Inc. (SCAS) in the case
captioned, ROBERT BENSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA AUTO SALES, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents,
Case No. G050484 (Cal. App. Ct.).

Robert Benson purchased a used Infiniti from SCAS on October 1,
2011. He alleged that he subsequently learned the car had a
damaged frame. He also alleged the car's price on the contract he
signed was $1,496 higher than the advertised price ($24,995) and
the contract falsely stated he did not make a deferred down
payment, when he actually did. Benson's counsel sent SCAS letters
demanding rescission of the purchase contract, return of his car
payments, a $5,000 penalty, and incidental damages in an
unspecified amount and proposed settlement with terms: (1) SCAS
pay the "damages" portion of the other letter, (2) pay all court
costs, (2) pay $38,500; and (3) pay $2,850 to finalize the
settlement and return the car.

SCAS denied the allegations and offered to settle the matter as
follows: (1) rescission of the contract, (2) return of the vehicle
to SCAS, (3) refund of all car payments, (4) satisfaction of the
debt to the finance company, (5) $2,500 for incidental and
attorney fees, (6) waiver of any claim for mileage, (7) execution
of a mutual settlement; and (8) release agreement. Benson replied
to SCAS's offer by demanding a total of almost $30,000 to settle
the case, in addition to rescinding the contract. Benson filed his
first amended complaint pursuant to stipulation on November 22,
2013, listing 10 causes of action. In addition to a CLRA
violation, the complaint alleged violation of the Automobile Sales
Finance Act (ASFA), unfair competition and false advertising
claims, Vehicle Code violations, negligent and intentional
misrepresentation, and violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act.

Benson's counsel asked for $171,915 in fees and $10,358 in costs,
for a total of $182,273 citing the CLRA and the ASFA as their
basis. The trial court denied the motion, explaining that Benson
could not maintain a cause of action for damages under the CLRA
because SCAS offered him "an appropriate correction, repair,
replacement or other remedy" back in January 2013.

On appeal, Benson contends the trial court erred in deciding SCAS
had offered him an appropriate correction under the CLRA, and
further that he was entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing
party.

In the Opinion dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/XrvYYwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bedsworth did not find
that the trial court abused its discretion in the case and that
under the circumstances of the case CLRA fees and costs are not
available. When a merchant offered an appropriate correction in
response to a consumer's notice, then a plaintiff cannot collect
attorney fees for such a suit.

Plaintiff is represented by:

Christopher P. Barry, Esq.
Lacee B. Smith, Esq.
ROSNER, BARRY & BABBITT
10085 Carroll Canyon Rd,
San Diego, CA 92131
Tel: (800)466-5366

Defendants are represented by Jenos Firouznam-Heidari, Esq. --
JHeidari@madisonharbor.com -- MADISON HARBOR, ALC


SWIRE OILFIELD: Faces "McCain" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry McCain, individually and for others similarly situated v.
Swire Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02526 (S.D. Tex.,
September 1, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Swire Oilfield Services, LLC is a supplier of specialist offshore
cargo carrying units to the global energy industry and is a
leading supplier of modular systems, offshore aviation services,
and fluid management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      David I. Moulton, 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

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com


SYRINGA MOBILE: Class Suit Will Advance Again
---------------------------------------------
Terri Harber, writing for DailyNews.com, reported that second
District Court Judge John Stegner has set new hearing dates for
settlement of a class action suit that could ultimately provide
Syringa Mobile Home Park residents relief after water and
wastewater problems during late 2013 and early 2014 left them
without potable water for more than 90 days.

"We're moving forward," said Maureen Laflin, attorney leading the
University of Idaho Legal Aid Clinic, after the hearing.


TAILING LLC: "York" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark York, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Tailing, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00234 (S.D. Tex., September 1,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Tailing, LLC provides third party inspection and construction
management to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      David I. Moulton, 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

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, L.L.P.
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com


TAMKO BUILDING: Case Dismissed, Parties Directed to Arbitrate
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for Eastern District of California granted Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration and dismissed Plaintiffs' claims without
prejudice in the case captioned, ROBERT and LINDA HOEKMAN, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TAMKO BUILDING PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:14-CV-01581-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.).

On July 3, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint against
Defendant seeking declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief for
violations of California Business and Professions Code Sections
17200 and 17500; a violation of the California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act; and negligence, negligent design, and negligence per
se. Plaintiffs allege that Tamko used less than the required
amount of asphalt in its shingles, resulting in their premature
deterioration. Plaintiffs further contend that Tamko knew or
should have known of this defect, despite representations
indicating that the product met industry standards.

On September 15, 2014, Defendant filed the motion to compel
arbitration and dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint arguing that
Plaintiffs' Complaint should be dismissed because, by retaining
the Tamko shingles, Plaintiffs agreed to the mandatory arbitration
clause that was printed on the packaging as part of the Limited
Warranty. Plaintiffs argue that they did not learn of the Limited
Warranty until after they contacted Defendant about the damaged
shingles in August 2013. They assert that, had they known about
the Limited Warranty's provisions, they would not have had
Defendant's shingles installed at their home.

In his Order dated August 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/XnbGlCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Nunley held holds that
the terms of the arbitration provision were presented in such a
way as to create an enforceable agreement when the shingles were
received and retained by Plaintiffs' contractors and Plaintiffs'
alleged lack of actual notice is not enough to overturn the valid
arbitration agreement. The Court compelled the parties to
arbitrate the action.

Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel K. Bryson, Esq. --
dan@wbmllp.com -- Scott C. Harris, Esq. -- scott@wbmllp.com --
WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP & David M. Birka-White, Esq. --
dbw@birka-white.com -- BIRKA-WHITE LAW OFFICES

Tamko Building Products, Inc. is represented by Charles Stephen
Painter, Esq. -- cpainter@ericksenarbuthnot.com -- ERICKSEN
ARBUTHNOT, Geoffrey M. Wyatt, Esq. -- geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com
-- Jessica D. Miller, Esq. -- jessica.miller@skadden.com -- John
H. Beisner, Esq. -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS,
SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP


TARGET CORP: Court Grants Motion for Summary Judgment in "Neal"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ANGELA NEAL, Plaintiff, v. TARGET
CORPORATION, HOME NICHES, INC., WALSAY, INC. and XIAMEN YEKI
HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS & TOURIST ARTICLES CORP., LTD., Defendants.
TARGET CORPORATION, Cross-Claim Plaintiff, v. HOME NICHES, INC.,
WALSAY, INC., and XIAMEN YEKI HOUSEHOLD PRODUCTS & TOURIST
ARTICLES CORP., LTD., Cross-Claim Defendants, Case No. 13-C-5907
(N.D. Ill.), Defendants moved for partial summary judgment and
Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend her complaint to add
punitive damages claims against non-manufacturer defendants

On July 17, 2013, plaintiff Angela Neal sued Target Corporation,
Home Niches, Inc., and Walsay Inc., in Cook County Circuit Court
for alleged strict and negligent product liability and sought
damages to compensate her and her son for the injuries he
sustained.  The defendants removed the action to federal court on
August 19, 2013.

Target sought summary judgment on Counts II, III, V, and VI
against Home Niches and Walsay. Counts II and V alleged express
indemnification against Home Niches and Walsay respectively. And
Counts III and VI alleged breach of contract against Home Niches
and Walsay respectively.

Plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to punitive damages based
upon the evidence.

District Judge John Robert Blakey of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois in the Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated July 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/2Nj7AKfrom Leagle.com, granted Target's motion for
partial summary judgment and granted Plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael John Kedzie, Esq.
      KEDZIE LAW OFFICES, PC
     134 N LaSalle Blvd #525
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312)634-6900

Defendants are represented by Robert Michael Burke, Esq. --
burker@jbltd.com -- Helena Maria Jorgensen, Esq. --
jorgensenh@jbltd.com -- Michael Joseph Linneman, Esq. --
linnemanm@jbltd.com -- Michael J. Lizzadro, Esq. --
lizzadrom@jbltd.com -- William Alzugaray, Esq. --
alzugarayw@jbltd.com -- JOHNSON & BELL, LTD


TB ISLE: "Theogene" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Theogene v. TB Isle Resort LP, Case No. 1:15-cv-23300-UU
(S.D. Fla., September 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

TB Isle Resort LP owns and operates a hotel in Miami Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd W. Shulby, Esq.
      TODD W. SHULBY, PA
      2800 Weston Road, Suite 101
      Weston, FL 33331
      Telephone: (954) 530-2236
      Facsimile: (954) 530-6628
      E-mail: tshulby@shulbylaw.com


TEN THOUSAND: Recalls Striped Scarf Products Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 3, 2015
Posting date: September 3, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54912

This recall involves the striped scarf by Sasha. This black, pink,
orange, yellow and red striped scarf is made from 60% cotton and
40% silk, is 180 cm x 50 cm and can be identified by the SKU
#6804120.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the scarf does not meet the requirements for textile
flammability under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act.

Neither Ten Thousand Villages Canada nor Health Canada has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to
Canadians related to the use of this product.

Approximately 263 units of the recalled scarves were sold
exclusively at Ten Thousand Villages stores across Canada.

The recalled scarves were sold from September 2012 to August 2015.

Manufactured in India.

Distributor: Ten Thousand Villages Canada
             New Hamburg
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should stop using this recalled scarf and return it to
Ten Thousand Villages Canada for a refund.

For additional information, consumers may contact Ten Thousand
Villages Canada, toll-free at 1-877-289-3247 between 8 a.m. and 4
p.m. EST Monday through Friday or email the firm.

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/MkPM6k


TINTING OF CORAL: Faces "Concha" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Concha, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Tinting of Coral Springs, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-
61838-JIC (S.D. Fla., September 1, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Tinting of Coral Springs, Inc. owns and operates an auto glass
services company that regularly transacts business within Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Markel, Esq.
      THE MARKEL LAW FIRM
      777 Brickell Avenue Suite 500
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 458-1282
      Facsimile: (800)-407-1718
      E-mail: David.Markel@markel-law.com


TOURNAMENT PLAYERS: Dismissal in Bartenders' Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
Kim Hardy filed an interlocutory appeal in the case captioned, KIM
HARDY, v. TOURNAMENT PLAYERS CLUB AT SOUTHWIND, INC. D/B/A "TPC
SOUTHWIND", ET AL, Case No. W2014-002286-COA-R9-CV (Tenn. App.
Ct.).

In March 2014, Hardy, a food server/bartender, filed an action
alleging, in relevant part, that Defendants violated Tennessee
Code Annotated Sec. 50-2-107 by failing to pay her and other
similarly situated employees all of the gratuities that they
earned. Plaintiff further alleged that Defendants caused the
gratuities to be shared with non-tipped employees.  Defendants
filed a motion to dismiss in April 2014. The trial court dismissed
Plaintiff's claim under Sec. 50-2-107 upon determining that the
section did not permit a private cause of action in light of
amendments to Sec. 50-2-101 in 2013.

On appeal, Hardy argued that the trial court erred by construing
the amendment to section 101 as precluding a private right of
action under section 107. She asserted that section 101, which
applied to "workshops and factories," was not relevant to a claim
under section 107, which commonly is referred to as "the Tip
Statute." She contended that the General Assembly chose not to
amend section 107 when it amended section 101, and that sub-
section (d) in section 101 applied only to section 101, not to the
entire Tennessee Wage Regulation Act.
0
Judge Arnold B. Goldin of the Court of Appeals of Tennessee in the
Opinion dated July 2, 2015 available at http://is.gd/n7W3JHfrom
Leagle.com, reversed dismissal of Ms. Hardy's claims under
Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. 50-2-107 and remanded the matter to
the trial court for the collection of costs and further
proceedings.

Plaintiff is represented by Bruce S. Kramer, Esq. --
bkramer@appersoncrump.com -- Amy E. Strickland, Esq. --
astrickland@appersoncrump.com -- Patrick H. Morris, Esq. --
pmorris@appersoncrump.com -- APPERSON CRUMP

Defendant is represented by Todd P. Photopulos, Esq. --
todd.photopulos@butlersnow.com --  Diana M. Comes, Esq., BUTLER
SNOW


TRANSWOOD INC: Faces "Santos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Santos, individually and for others similarly situated v.
Transwood, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00753 (W.D. Tex., September 1,
2015, is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay its
field coordinators overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

TransWood, Inc. provides support services to the oil and energy
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      David I. Moulton, 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


TWO HARBORS: October 5 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
TO: ALL STOCKHOLDERS OF TWO HARBORS INVESTMENT CORP. WHO WERE
ENTITLED TO VOTE AT THE ANNUAL MEETING OF STOCKHOLDERS ON MAY 14,
2015.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an order of the Circuit Court
for Baltimore City, Maryland, dated July 16, 2015 that a hearing
will take place before the Honorable Lawrence Fletcher Hill,
Judge of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, on October 5, 2015,
at 2:00 p.m. at the Clarence M. Mitchell Jr. Courthouse, 110
N. Calvert Street, Baltimore, Maryland 21202, Room 113, for the
purposes of determining among other things, whether the proposed
settlement of a lawsuit alleging class claims is fair, reasonable,
and adequate; whether an Order and Final Judgment approving the
proposed settlement should be entered; and whether the application
for attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses by plaintiff's
counsel is reasonable and should be approved.  If approved, the
settlement will resolve a lawsuit brought against Two Harbors
Investment Corp (the "Company") and members of the Company's board
of directors captioned Orlando v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.,
Case No. 24-C-15-001765 (Cir. Ct. Baltimore City, Md.) and will
bar any similar suits.  The allegations relate to the Company's
disclosures relating to its Second Restated 2009 Equity Incentive
Plan as described in the Company's March 26, 2015 proxy statement.
A more complete description of the litigation and the proposed
settlement can be found on the Company's website:
http://investor.twoharborsinvestment.com

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Certifies Class of California Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that ruling in a
case with implications for the entire on-demand economy, a federal
judge on Sept. 1 certified a class of Uber Technologies Inc.
drivers seeking employee status and reimbursement for withheld
tips.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of
California found the drivers' situations are similar enough that
the threshold question -- whether drivers are employees or
independent contractors -- can be answered on a classwide basis.
He certified a class of California drivers who have worked for
Uber since 2009, and will allow the class to proceed with claims
that Uber illegally kept drivers' tips.

"Despite Uber's argument to the contrary, there are numerous
legally significant questions in this litigation that will have
answers common to each class member that are apt to drive the
resolution of the litigation," Judge Chen wrote in a 68-page order
issued less than a month after hearing arguments.

Judge Chen denied certification for plaintiffs' demand to be
reimbursed for driving expenses, such as gas and car maintenance.
Plaintiffs had suggested the court determine damages using the
Internal Revenue Service's mileage reimbursement rate, but Judge
Chen found that solution could force absent class members to
forfeit their right to be paid for other expenses.

Judge Chen also denied certification with respect to drivers that
signed up with Uber in summer 2014 or later, which Uber contends
will drastically cut down the class size.  Those drivers may be
bound by Uber's arbitration clause, he wrote, and will require the
court to address individual issues to determine whether their
claims can proceed in court.

Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represents Uber
drivers, said her team is "extremely pleased" with the ruling.

"This decision is a major victory for Uber drivers," she wrote in
an emailed statement.  "It will allow thousands of Uber drivers to
participate in this case to challenge their misclassification as
independent contractors, as well as to attempt to recover the tips
that Uber advertised to customers are included in the fare, but
are not in fact distributed to the drivers."

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr., who
represents Uber, said in an emailed statement that his team is
likely to appeal.

"We are pleased the district court rejected the 'megaclass'
plaintiffs asked it to endorse," he wrote, "but decisions from the
Supreme Court, Ninth Circuit and other courts have made it clear
that no class whatsoever can be certified here."

Mr. Boutrous had argued that the amount of control Uber exercises
over its drivers varies so greatly by individual that class
treatment is impossible.  But Judge Chen pointed out that argument
doesn't square with Uber's other main argument -- that every
single driver is an independent contractor.

"It appears that at least one of these arguments cannot be
entirely accurate," Judge Chen wrote, "and for the purposes of
resolving this motion the court concludes that a number of Uber's
class certification arguments are problematic."

Judge Chen laid out the key factors for determining employee
status under S.G. Borello & Sons v. Department of Industrial
Relations, a 1989 California Supreme Court case involving pickle
farmers.

Factors that show how much control Uber has over its drivers --
including whether Uber dictates its drivers' schedules and routes,
how it sets their pay, whether it lets them use competing car-
service apps, and whether it can terminate them without cause --
tend to be uniform for all drivers, Judge Chen wrote.

"Indeed, every (or nearly every) consideration under the
California common-law test of employment can be adjudicated with
common proof on a classwide basis," Judge Chen wrote.  "Some may
favor plaintiffs' position on the merits, while others support
Uber's.  But all favor certification."

He also repeated criticism of 400 Uber driver declarations
Mr. Boutrous used in an attempt to show most Uber drivers want to
remain independent contractors.  The declarations, taken from a
potential class of 160,000 drivers, do nothing to support Uber's
claim that "some innumerable legion of drivers" want to remain as
contractors, Judge Chen wrote.  He also expressed concern that the
drivers who submitted declarations did not understand the legal
differences between being an employee or a contractor, and
mistakenly thought they would give up their independence if they
had employee status.

The judge also provided a warning to Ms. Liss-Riordan, who has
become something of a nemesis to on-demand companies, with worker
suits pending against Lyft Inc., Try Caviar and Postmates Inc.

"Uber professes concern that Ms. Liss-Riordan is inadequate to
serve as class counsel here because she is overextended given all
of the multitude of cases she is currently prosecuting against
Uber and similar firms," Judge Chen wrote.  "The court shares
Uber's concern at least in theory, and advises Ms. Liss-Riordan to
focus considerable time and attention on this case now that it has
been certified."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiff Dismisses Rape Case in India
---------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that a suit seeking
to hold Uber Technologies Inc. liable for an alleged rape in
Delhi, India, has been dismissed by the plaintiff, according to
documents filed on Sept. 1 in San Francisco federal court.

Lawyers for Uber and the plaintiff declined comment or didn't
return messages seeking the terms under which the matter was
dismissed.  The parties were ordered into mediation in April.

San Diego-based Yuhl Carr and New York-based Wigdor represented
the plaintiff and filed the original complaint in late January of
this year, alleging the woman was raped by an Uber driver.  In
March, Uber responded by hiring a team from Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher that included San Francisco-based partner and former
federal prosecutor Michael Li-Ming Wong and Los Angeles-based
partner and co-chair of the firm's transnational litigation group
Perlette Michele Jura.

Douglas Wigdor, founding partner of Mr. Wigdor, declined to
comment.  Yuhl Carr's Eric Yuhl and Gibson's Michael Wong did not
return calls for comment.

The Jane Doe plaintiff sued Uber for negligence and fraud,
claiming that her rape could have been prevented if Uber improved
its background checks.  The complaint, which lobbed harsh
criticism at Uber for failing to protect its users, alleged that
the plaintiff was raped by Uber driver Shiv Kumar Yadav on Dec. 5,
2014.

According to a Reuters article at the time, Mr. Yadav had a
criminal history, including at least two separate accusations of
rape and an earlier arrest three years prior for alleged sexual
assault.  The complaint attacked Uber for failing to notice that
Mr. Yadav allegedly used forged documents and an unverified name
and address to sign up for his driver's account.

Attorneys for Uber argued that the plaintiff did not sue the
correct company, since Uber's operations in Delhi are controlled
by Netherlands-based Uber B.V.


UNITED STATES: Settlement in Suit v. SSA Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia approved the Settlement
Agreement and Consent Judgment in the case, EPHRAIM GREENBERG,
individually on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, in her
official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, and THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants,  Case No. 13-1837 (D.D.C.).

On November 21, 2013, Plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit
against the Social Security Administration and Acting Commissioner
Carolyn W. Colvin, in her official capacity. They alleged that the
application of a statutory provision known as the Windfall
Elimination Provision (WEP), implemented by the Social Security
Administration (SSA), unlawfully reduced his and other similarly
situated claimants' SSA benefits. The parties quickly began
settlement negotiations and submitted to the Court a proposed
Settlement Agreement, which was preliminarily approved on April 8,
2015.

On June 30, 2015, the parties jointly moved for final approval of
the Settlement Agreement and requested a ruling from the bench so
that the Social Security Administration could calculate the monies
to be paid to Class Members.

Judge Collyer, in the Memorandum Opinion dated July 1, 2015
available at http://is.gd/95pU5xfrom Leagle.com, granted the
parties' request for final approval of the class action
settlement. The Court also granted in part Class Counsel's Motion
for Attorney Fees, and ordered that Class Counsel was entitled to
attorney fees in the amount of 20% of each payment of past-due
benefits made by SSA as a result of this class action case.

SSA estimates that there are "somewhat more than" 1,000 Class
Members who will potentially be entitled to reimbursements of
roughly $22 million (approximately $20,000 per person).

Plaintiff is represented by Elizabeth C. Johnson, Esq. --
ejohnson@kelleydrye.com -- Joseph Dale Wilson, III, Esq. --
jwilson@kelleydrye.com -- Ira T. Kasdan, Esq. --
ikasdab@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN L.L.P.

Defendants are represented by Fred Elmore Haynes, Esq. & Robin
Michelle Meriweather, Esq., U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE


UNITED STATES: Ordered to Release Immigrant Children in Detention
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Cavaliere, writing for Reuters, reported that a U.S.
federal judge on ordered the government to swiftly release
immigrant children held at detention centers, affirming a July
ruling that said some minors who crossed the border illegally were
being detained in violation of a long-standing settlement.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles gave
the administration of President Barack Obama until Oct. 23 to
comply with her order to release hundreds of unauthorized
immigrant children, and in some cases their mothers, "without
unnecessary delay."

Gee's ruling comes amid debate by U.S. presidential candidates
over illegal immigration and follows an influx of immigrants from
Central America across the U.S.-Mexico border.

More than 68,000 children traveling without a parent entered the
country. The federal government has held unaccompanied children,
or children caught with a parent, in special facilities.

The federal government has also taken steps to release
unaccompanied immigrant children from border detention centers,
often to a family member living in the United States.

Gee ruled the Department of Homeland Security was keeping children
at detention centers in violation of a 1997 class-action
settlement that said juveniles under the age of 18 cannot be held
for more than 72 hours.

If a parent was caught with his or her child, authorities could
justify keeping the adult in custody if the person is a
"significant flight risk" or poses a safety concern, the ruling
said.

The ruling was seen as a defeat for U.S. immigration authorities,
who in court filings argued releasing undocumented immigrant
children encourages families in Central America to undertake the
dangerous journey north.

U.S. officials are holding 1,400 parents and children at three
centers, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Gee called conditions a the family detention centers - two in
Texas, one in Pennsylvania - "deplorable" and said in some cases
children were kept in crowded rooms for days without places to
sleep.

The government said it was "disappointed" with the decision and
was efforting to move children and their mothers through family
immigration detention centers as quickly as possible.

The government is expected to appeal ruling. The agency could not
be immediately reached for comment.


VOLVO: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 2, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 23
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015388TC
ID number: 2015388
Manufacturer recall number: R39574

On certain vehicles with an automatic stop-start function, in
certain stop and go driving situations, the starter motor fuse may
become overloaded (blown fuse). This could lead to the inability
to restart the engine following an engine shutdown by the start-
stop system, increasing the risk of crash causing injury in a
traffic situation. Correction: Dealers will replace the starter
motor fuse with a higher amperage rated fuse.

  Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----      ----------------------
  VOLVO    S80        2016, 2016
  VOLVO    S60        2016
  VOLVO    XC70       2016
  VOLVO    XC60       2016


WAL-MART STORES: December 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If, during the period May 2, 2010 through July 16, 2015 you
purchased, or were given as a gift, a product purchased from
Wal-Mart or Sam's Club and received a refund or credit for the
returned product but the amount of sales tax refunded or credited
was less than the full amount of sales tax paid at the time the
product was purchased, a class action settlement may affect your
rights.

You are hereby notified that a settlement has been reached in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in
a class action lawsuit entitled Shaun Brandewie, et al. v. Wal-
Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:14-CV-965.  This notice is summary
only.  You should read the full notice for complete information.
You can get a copy of the full notice as directed below.

WHO'S INCLUDED?

The Court has decided that for settlement purposes, any individual
person who purchased, or was given as a gift a product purchased
from a Wal-Mart or Sam's Club in the U.S. or online from
Walmart.com or Samsclub.com for delivery in the U.S., returned the
product, and the amount of sales tax refunded or credited was less
than initially paid between May 2, 2010 and July 16, 2015 is
considered a Settlement Class Member.  This makes you a member of
the "Settlement Class".

WHAT IS THIS SETTLEMENT ABOUT?

The lawsuit claims that Wal-Mart at times gave a refund or credit
on a product purchased from a Wal-Mart Retail Location, Sam's Club
Retail Location, or online from walmart.com or Samsclub.com, and
the amount of sales tax refunded or credited was less than the
full amount of sales tax paid at the time the product was
purchased.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

The settlement provides for both injunctive and monetary relief.
For monetary relief, Walmart has agreed to pay $5 million to pay
for claims, attorneys' fees and expenses, incentive awards to
class members, and administration of the settlement proceeds.  To
qualify for a payment from the settlement, you must submit an
online Claim Form.  To file a Claim Form, visit the settlement
website www.WalmartSalesTaxSettlement.com  Your online claim must
be submitted no later than December 1, 2015.  See the full notice
for more details.


WHAT ARE MY LEGAL RIGHTS?

1. If you do not want a payment and do not want to be legally
bound by the terms of the settlement, you must exclude yourself by
sending a letter saying that you want to be excluded from
Brandewie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.  Your request for exclusion
must be mailed to the Claims Administrator, postmarked no later
than December 18, 2015.  If you do not exclude yourself you will
remain a Settlement Class Member and will be eligible to submit a
claim for money benefits.  Regardless of whether you submit a
Claim Form, if you do not specifically exclude yourself, you will
be bound by the Proposed Settlement which contains a release of
claims against Wal-Mart.  See the full notice for more details.

2. If you're a Settlement Class Member, and have not excluded
yourself from the settlement, you can object to the settlement if
you don't like any part of it.  To object, you must send a letter
to the Court and the Parties saying that you object to the
settlement in Brandewie et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case
Number 1:14-CV-00965.  This objection must be received no later
than November 18, 2015.  See the full notice on the website for
more details.

WHEN IS THE FAIRNESS HEARING?

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at 12:00 p.m. on
December 17, 2015, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio, Carl B. Stokes, U.S. CourtHouse, 801
West Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113, Courtroom 18A.  At this
hearing, the Court will consider whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate.  After the hearing, the Court will decide
whether to approve the settlement.

For more information, including to obtain a copy of the full
notice, call 1-844-239-6705, or visit the Settlement website at
www.WalmartSalesTaxSettlement.com or write to:

     Brandewie v. Wal-Mart Stores Claims Administrator
     c/o Class Action Administration, Inc.
     PO Box 6878
     Broomfield, CO 80021


WALT DISNEY: Judge Refuses to Junk Animation Wage-Fixing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reported that a federal judge
has refused to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that the Walt Disney
Co., DreamWorks Animation, Sony ImageWorks and other companies
violated antitrust laws by conspiring to set animation wages via
non-poaching agreements.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said that the plaintiffs "have
sufficiently alleged facts showing that defendants reached an
agreement to conspire."

She wrote that the plaintiffs "have alleged that the defendants
systematically shared information, agreed not to solicit each
other's employees and that the purpose of the information sharing
and no-poach scheme was to suppress wages."

The lawsuit was filed by former DreamWorks Animation senior
character effects artist Robert Nitsch, former ImageMovers Digital
production engineer David Wentworth and digital artist Georgia
Cano, who held jobs at Rhythm & Hues, Walt Disney Feature
Animation and ImageMovers Digital.

In April, she threw out their complaint, citing the statute of
limitations. But in her most recent ruling, Koh said that the
plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged "affirmative acts" of
concealment in their revised complaint, sufficient to toll the
statute of limitations.

The workers contend that the roots of the anti-poaching agreements
go back to the mid-1980s, when George Lucas and Ed Catmull, the
president of Steve Jobs' newly formed company Pixar, agreed to not
raid each other's employees.

Other companies then joined the conspiracy, the suit contends,
with agreements on such things as cold calling and notifying each
other when making an offer to an employee of another company. The
lawsuit cited emails between Catmull and human resources
personnel, and it also claimed that Jobs and Jeffrey Katzenberg,
the CEO of DreamWorks Animation, "personally discussed DreamWorks
joining the conspiracy."

Also named as defendants in the suit were ImageMovers, Blue Sky
Studios, Lucasfilm and Pixar.

Lucasfilm and Pixar were already targets of a Justice Department
antitrust lawsuit in 2010, along with Apple, Google, Adobe
Systems, Intel Corp. and Intuit, in which the government contended
that their "no solicitation" agreements prevented highly skilled
employees from commanding better wages and job opportunities. The
companies settled the litigation by agreeing to end such practices
for a period of five years.

But a class-action civil suit was filed in 2011, and during the
litigation, emails were disclosed that appeared to link other
companies to the "no poaching" agreements, including Disney and
DreamWorks Animation, which were not named defendants in either
that lawsuit or the Justice Department action. In a settlement Koh
approved last May, Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to pay $9 million,
and Intuit agreed to pay $11 million.


WEATHERFORD INT'L: November 3 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

GLENN FREEDMAN, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff,
v. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL LTD., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 12-CV-2121 (LAK)

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL LTD. COMMON STOCK IN THE UNITED STATES
BETWEEN MARCH 2, 2011 AND JULY 24, 2012 INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD"), AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS")

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the Court, that the Class
Representatives in the above-captioned class action (the
"Action"), on behalf of themselves and the certified Class, have
reached a proposed Settlement of the Action with Weatherford
International Ltd. ("Weatherford" or the "Company") (n/k/a
Weatherford International plc), Andrew P. Becnel, and Bernard J.
Duroc-Danner (collectively, the "Individual Defendants" and,
together with Weatherford, the "Defendants").  The Settlement
provides for a total payment of $120,000,000 in cash (the
"Settlement Amount") for the benefit of the Class that, if
approved, will resolve all claims in the Action against Defendants
and grant the releases specified and described in the Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, dated June 30, 2015 (the
"Stipulation").

A hearing will be held on November 3, 2015 at 4:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan in Courtroom 21B of the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, to determine, among other things, whether: (1) the
proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation; (3) the proposed Plan
of Allocation for the distribution of the Settlement Amount and
any interest thereon, less any Court-awarded attorneys' fees,
Notice and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and other costs, fees,
or expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund")
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) Class Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
litigation expenses should be granted.  The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice.
You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to
receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT
FUND.  If you have not yet received the full printed Notice of
Proposed Class Action Settlement and Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses (the "Settlement Notice") and a Proof of Claim and
Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator or visiting its
website at:

Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd., et al.
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 10177
Dublin, OH 43017-3177
(855) 382-6459
www.Weatherford2012SecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim form postmarked or received no later than December 9,
2015.

If you previously submitted a valid and timely request for
exclusion from the Class in connection with the Notice of Pendency
of Class Action ("Class Notice") and you wish to remain excluded,
no further action is required.  However, if you previously
submitted such a request for exclusion from the Class in
connection with the Class Notice and you want to opt-back into the
Class now for the purpose of being eligible to receive a payment
from the Net Settlement Fund, you may do so.  In order to opt-back
into the Class, you must submit a request to opt-back into the
Class in writing such that it is received no later than
October 13, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Settlement Notice.  If you previously submitted a request for
exclusion from the Class in connection with the Class Notice and
do not opt-back into the Class in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Settlement Notice, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you
will not be eligible to share in the Net Settlement Fund.

If you did not previously submit a request for exclusion and do
not want a payment from the Settlement, you may exclude yourself
from the Class now.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you must
submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Settlement Notice such that it is
received no later than October 13, 2015.  If you are a Class
Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be
bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and payment of
expenses must be filed with the Court and mailed to Class Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
October 13, 2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Settlement Notice.

Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Settlement Notice
and Proof of Claim form, may be directed to Class Counsel:

Ira A. Schochet, Esq.
LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com
(888) 219-6877

Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI TOUNTAS & AULD LLP
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
www.bftalaw.com
(888) 879-9418

Dated:  August 21, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


WESTERN RANGE: Doesn't Properly Pay Shepherds, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Rodolfo Llacua, Esliper Huaman and those similarly situated v.
Western Range Association, et al., Case No. 15-cv-01889 (D. Colo.,
September 1, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's alleged
conspiracy to fix wages for shepherd labor and strip shepherds.

Western Range Association is a non-profit corporation for the
sheep industry with its principal place of business at 1245 E.
Brickyard Road, Suite # 190, Salt Lake City, UT 84106.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander Hood, Esq.
      TOWARDS JUSTICE
      ATTORNEY AND DIRECTOR OF LITIGATION
      1535 High St., Suite 300
      Denver, CO 80218
      Telephone: (720) 239-2606
      Facsimile: (303) 957-2289
      E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org


* Circuits Split on Class Action Certification Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carl Goldfarb, writing for Daily Business Review, reported that a
federal court of appeals decision recently created a sharp circuit
split regarding the requirements for certifying class actions in
cases involving consumer purchases of inexpensive items where
consumers are not likely to have retained their receipts.

On one side is the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, which has adopted a strict rule against relying solely on
affidavits by putative class member to self-identify as members of
the class. On the other side is the Seventh Circuit, which
recently issued a detailed critique of the Third Circuit's
analysis and rejected its holding regarding the requirements for
ascertaining class membership.

Somewhere in between, but far closer to the Third Circuit, is the
Eleventh Circuit, which earlier this summer followed the Third
Circuit but arguably in a more nuanced opinion and became the
second federal court of appeals to adopt a more stringent
interpretation of the requirement that class membership be readily
ascertainable.

This circuit split may well be outcome determinative in some
cases, especially indirect purchaser antitrust claims and claims
under state consumer protection laws.

Even though Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 does not mention
ascertainability, courts have long considered it to be an implicit
Rule 23 requirement. Traditionally, courts considered a class
ascertainable if plaintiffs specified an objective measure for
determining class membership.

Courts have found a class was not ascertainable if the criteria
for determining class membership were too imprecise (e.g.
residents active in the peace movement) or required a subjective
analysis (e.g. individuals who felt discouraged from applying for
government energy assistance).

In a series of cases culminating in Carrera v. Bayer, (2013), the
Third Circuit tightened its requirements for ascertainability,
which it held required both objective criteria and an
"administratively feasible" way to apply those criteria without
"individualized fact-finding or mini-trials." The court "cautioned
against approving a method that would amount to no more than
ascertaining by potential class members' say so."

Low-Value Class

The court said requiring defendants "to accept as true absent
persons' declarations that they are members of the class, without
further indicia of reliability, would have serious due process
implications." The court dismissed the argument that the due
process clause was not implicated provided defendants' total
liability would not depend on the accuracy of the affidavits,
holding that fraudulent affidavits might prejudice actual class
members by diluting the recovery.

The Third Circuit also asserted that if class members' recovery
would be materially diluted, those class members could argue they
were not adequately represented and so not bound by the resolution
of the case, to the detriment of defendants.

In Mullins v. Direct Digital, (July 28, 2015), a unanimous panel
of the Seventh Circuit, repudiated the Third Circuit's
ascertainability analysis, saying the Third Circuit's "stringent
version of ascertainabilty" does not further any interest that is
not already adequately protected by the Rule 23's explicit
requirements but "effectively bars low-value consumer class
actions, at least where plaintiffs do not have document proof of
purchase."

The court concluded that administrative feasibility concerns
should be addressed under Rule23(b)(3)'s requirement that the
class device be "superior to other available methods for fairly
and efficiently adjudicating the controversy." That provision, the
court said, requires a comparative analysis, taking into account
both the costs and benefits of the class device.

The court noted that "in many cases where the heightened
ascertainability requirement will be hardest to satisfy, there
realistically is no other alternative to class treatment."

Thus, the Seventh Circuit said courts should consider creative
alternatives, and refuse to certify such classes on manageability
grounds only as a last resort.

The court found defendants had a due process right to challenge
class membership where it would impact their total damages, but
said that defendants could do so as part of a back-end claims
process, and that there was no reason class members could not
self-identify by affidavit provided defendants could challenge
those affidavits at the appropriate time.
Self-Identification

Finally, the court said the Third Circuit's concern for absent
class members was misplaced because absent certification they
would recover nothing because in these cases "only a lunatic or a
fanatic" would litigate the claim individually, and that absent
class members could be bound by the decision.

In Karhu v. Vital Pharmaceuticals, (June 9, 2015), the Eleventh
Circuit followed the Third Circuit's lead in Carrera and denied
certification of a proposed class of consumers who purchased
defendant's dietary supplement. The district court rejected
reliance on self-identifying affidavits by putative class members
as susceptible to fraud and mistakes and violative of defendants'
due process rights.

The Eleventh Circuit endorsed the district court's analysis in an
unpublished decision that is not binding precedent but may be
cited as persuasive authority. The Eleventh Circuit said a class
must be ascertainable based on "objective criteria" using "a
manageable process that does not require much, if any, individual
inquiry."

While it did not definitively prohibit self-identification via
affidavit, the Eleventh Circuit noted the same concerns as the
district court and said: "A plaintiff proposing ascertainment via
self-identification, then must establish how the self-
identification method proposed will avoid the potential problems
just described." The Eleventh Circuit also endorsed the Third
Circuit's analysis regarding the impact of reliance on self-
identifying affidavits on defendants' due process rights.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Beverly Martin argued that self-
certification should suffice if: each class member's claim is
relatively small because then it is less likely consumers will
submit fraudulent affidavits and there is no nonoffending product
with a confusingly similar name because then it is less likely
that consumers will submit good faith but erroneous declarations.

"To hold otherwise," Martin wrote, "rejecting affidavits as a
legitimate means of class identification in every case--would make
it considerably more difficult for consumers to bring class
actions on small-dollar products where consumers and companies are
unlikely to keep or retain records of purchases."


* KCC Named Best Class Action Claims Admin. by The Recorder
-----------------------------------------------------------
ALM's Best of Chicagoand The Recorder have recognized KCC
www.kccllc.com, a Computershare company, as "The Best Claims
Administrator" and "Best Class Action Claims Administrator" in
their reader's choice rankings. A leading administrative-support
services provider for the legal and financial industries, KCC won
"Best Claims Administrator" by Best of Chicago for the third
consecutive year.

From data technology products and banking services to law firm
marketing and legal research -- Best of Chicago and The Recorder's
readers rankings showcase the firms who prevailed among their
competitors by providing essentials to compete in today's legal
market.

"We are pleased to be recognized by Best of Chicagoand The
Recorder's reader's choice rankings," said KCC Chief Operating
Officer, James Le.  "This award motivates us to continue to
provide industry-leading technology solutions and outstanding
service to legal and financial professionals."

KCC streamlines the administrative process of corporate
restructuring, class action, mass tort, lien resolution and legal
document management through innovative solutions and industry
expertise. Founded in 2001 by former attorneys, KCC focuses on
clients' needs from the perspective of legal professionals.

ALM is a leading provider of specialized business news, research
and information, focused primarily on the legal and commercial
real estate sectors.

About KCCKCC www.kccllc.com, a Computershare company, provides
administrative-support services that help legal professionals
realize time and cost efficiencies. With an integrated suite of
corporate restructuring, class action, mass tort, strategic
communication and legal document management solutions, KCC
alleviates the administrative challenges of today's legal
processes and procedures. KCC has gained client and industry
recognition for its industry expertise, professional-level client
service and proprietary technologies.

About ComputershareComputershare (asx:CPU) is a global market
leader in transfer agency and share registration, employee equity
plans, proxy solicitation and stakeholder communications. We also
specialize in corporate trust, mortgage, bankruptcy, class action
and utility administration, and a range of other diversified
financial and governance services.

Founded in 1978, Computershare is renowned for its expertise in
high integrity data management, high volume transaction processing
and reconciliations, payments and stakeholder engagement. Many of
the world's leading organizations use us to streamline and
maximize the value of relationships with their investors,
employees, creditors and customers.

Computershare is represented in all major financial markets and
has over 15,000 employees worldwide.

For more information, visit www.computershare.com

For more information, please contact:

Rachel Hamilton-Wilkes
KCC
310-751-1817
RHamiltonWilkes@kccllc.com


* Mazie Slater Partners Face Ethics Charges
-------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reported that
two prominent New Jersey litigators are facings ethics charges for
their alleged actions in class action cases involving their former
law firm.

The District VC Ethics Committee filed the complaints against
David Mazie and Eric Katz, of Roseland's Mazie Slater Katz &
Freeman on May 26, and served the two attorneys Aug. 6.

The complaints both contain charges involving two contentious
class actions that involved their former firm, what is now
Roseland-based Nagel Rice: Drazin v. Horizon Blue Cross Blue
Shield of New Jersey and Kirsch v. Delta Dental of New Jersey.
Mazie also faces allegations stemming from a third case, a
malpractice suit filed against him by a former client, Dawn
Levine.

All of the suits and complaints are somewhat related, stemming
from Mazie and Katz's acrimonious split with their former partner,
Bruce Nagel, now of Nagel Rice. Mazie Slater was formed in 2006,
when Mazie led a defection from Nagel, Rice & Mazie, taking a
number of cases with him that led to disputes over counsel fees.

In the Drazin matter, an insurance coverage class action involving
eating disorders, Mazie is charged with violating R.P.C. 1.7(a)(2)
for seeking an "indefinite" adjournment of the case until a fee
dispute could be resolved between his firm and Nagel's, according
to the complaint, which accuses Mazie of placing his own interests
and those of his firm's above those of his client.

Also involving the Drazin matter, Katz is charged with violating
R.P.C. 3.2 after he made an objection to a proposed settlement in
a related coverage case, DeVito v. Aetna. The complaint says Katz
appeared before U.S. District Judge Faith Hochberg of the District
of New Jersey on Dec. 28, 2008, with no client and, using
"gestural theatrics, lambasted the settlement as a 'very poor
settlement' and certainly not one that he would ever even
consider."

Katz, according to the complaint, called the DeVito settlement "'a
sham -- a sweetheart deal designed to get the Nagel Rice firm a
fee in turn for selling out the class.'" Hochberg, the complaint
says, ruled that Katz's comments "'defamed the honorable attorneys
who negotiated that settlement.'"

In the Kirsch matter, both Mazie and Katz are alleged to have
violated R.P.C. 1.9(a) by filing a lawsuit against a former
client, Dr. Gary Krugman, a dentist in Newark.

The underlying 2006 class action, Kirsch v. Delta Dental, was one
of several putative class actions lodged over insurers' alleged
practice of paying health-care provider's claims slowly, only
partially or not at all.

In 2011, the plaintiffs and Parsippany-based Delta Dental reached
a settlement that required the carrier to change its practices but
included no monetary damages for the plaintiffs, according to
court documents. The agreement provided that Mazie Slater would
receive $525,000 in counsel fees. Months later, Krugman objected,
saying the carrier already had implemented many of the reforms and
that the counsel fees were too high. U.S. District Judge Stanley
Chesler approved the settlement in February 2012.

Mazie and Katz responded by filing a suit against Krugman,
alleging that his objection constituted tortious interference with
the firm's settlement agreement with Delta Dental and tortious
interference with their prospective economic advantage in
receiving its fee award, according to the complaint. That lawsuit
was later dismissed.

Krugman later filed a legal malpractice claim against Mazie Slater
that was dismissed by a trial judge in a decision that was upheld
by the Appellate Division. Nagel, representing Krugman in the
malpractice suit, said the Appellate Division ruling is currently
on appeal to the state Supreme Court.

The third matter referenced in the ethics complaint against Mazie
involves a malpractice suit filed against Mazie Slater by former
client Levine, who had been the lead plaintiff in a Drazin-related
class action against Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield alleging that
the carrier's limited coverage of bulimia and anorexia violated
the Employment Retirement Income Security Act.

Mazie filed the suit shortly before he left Nagel Rice and took
the case with him. He rebuffed Nagel's suggestion that they work
together on a single suit, the Law Journal reported in 2013.
Levine filed the malpractice claim alleging that Mazie's refusal
to cooperate with Nagel caused her to lose out on $20,000 in
incentive payments to class representatives. She also alleged
fraud, claiming Mazie failed to disclose his lack of experience
with class actions.

Levine's malpractice suit was settled for no money in November
2013, according to court documents. Levine's attorney, Rosemarie
Arnold, who runs a firm in Fort Lee, could not be reached for
comment.

The ethics complaint alleges Mazie violated R.P.C. 3.2 and R.P.C.
8.4(d) by accusing Nagel of perjury.

"At the time respondent accused Mr. Nagel of committing perjury,
respondent had no facts or evidence to substantiate that claim,"
the complaint says.

Although Mazie and Katz have not filed a formal answer, their
attorney, Shalom Stone of Brown Moskowitz & Kallen in Summit, said
the complaints are without merit.

"David Mazie and Eric Katz are highly respected attorneys, and the
allegations against them are completely baseless," said Stone, of
Brown Moskowitz & Kallen in Summit. "The grievance was filed by
Bruce Nagel, their disgruntled former partner."

Nagel acknowledged filing the grievance and said he "was obligated
to file it" because of Mazie and Katz's alleged conduct.

As to the count against Mazie regarding the Drazin litigation,
Stone said Mazie, under the direction of a client, requested that
the court resolve one issue before determining another.

"There was no delay in the proceedings," Stone said.

On the allegations against Mazie involving Krugman, Stone said
Mazie had no involvement in that suit.

As to the Levine suit, Stone said, "Mr. Mazie has a good-faith
basis to believe and allege that Mr. Nagel had committed perjury,
and this will be borne out at the hearing."

Regarding the allegation against Katz in the Drazin matter, Stone
said Katz "properly appeared before the court representing a
number of class member-objectors. His factual and legal arguments
comprehensively addressed that the proposed class action
settlement was neither fair nor reasonable."

Stone said the allegations involving the Krugman suit also should
be disregarded.

"Dr. Krugman is Mr. Nagel's neighbor, and was enlisted by Nagel to
object to the Kirsch class action settlement," Stone said. "Dr.
Krugman was never Katz's client, let alone a former client, and
Mr. Katz never met or spoke to him."

Nagel said Krugman is "a neighbor and friend," but added that
Krugman approached him.

"I was asked by my client to represent him," Nagel said.


                            *********

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  * * *