CAR_Public/150917.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 186


                            Headlines


3430685 CANADA: Recalls Janod Starfish Fishing Game Products
AETNA INC: New Jersey Court Granted Motion to Dismiss
ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Securities Case
ANDREW AND WILLIAMSON: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella
ANHING CORPORATION: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Lead

APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria
APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Red Apple Slices Due to Listeria
ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Defendants in 2 Securities Class Actions
ASSURANT INC: Continues to Defend Class Actions
AVALON CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

BAY RIDGE: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
BEER AND FOOD: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BLUESTEM BRANDS: Faces "Haight" Suit Over Automated Calls
BLYTH INC: Faces "Kullman" Suit Over Proposed CB Shine Merger
BRECKSVILLE, OH: Faces "McNair" Suit Over Invalid City Ordinance

BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Consolidated Securities Case in Discovery
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Zamir" Action
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Appeals Court Denied "Guzman" Petition
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Cavazos" Action
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Coleman" Action

BUFFA A: Faces "Larry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Ford Class Action Awaits Approval
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Deal in Ford and Rodriguez Case Approved
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Conditional Cert. Granted in "Wright" Action
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in "Sinohui" Class Suit

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Twin City Filed Consolidated Class Action
CEDAR FAIR: Final Approval Hearing in "Ortegon" Action Held
CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: S.D.N.Y. Granted Motion to Transfer
CLEAR SPRINGS: May Conduct Discovery on Absent Class Members
CLEARANCE TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

CUSTOM PRODUCE: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella
CVS HEALTH: Lauriello Class Action Proceeding
CVS HEALTH: Derivative Action Stayed Pending Securities Case
DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
DE'LONGHI CANADA: Recalls Blenders Due to Laceration Hazard

DS SERVICES: Court Disapproves Settlement Agreement in "Appleman"
EASTMAN KODAK: Says ERISA Litigation Is Proceeding
EBAY INC: Removed "Huang" Class Suit to Central Dist. California
EVENFLO: Recalls Multiple Child Seat Models Due to Noncompliance
FGL SPORTS: Recalls Stunt Scooters Due to Fall Hazard

FUTURE SEAFOODS: Recalls Oyster Products Due to Salmonella
GIANT EAGLE: W.D. Pa. Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss "Gabriel"
GREAT LAKES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Tomorrow
GUITAR CENTER: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 15 USC Sec. 1 Claims
GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

HEALTH NET: Supreme Court Requested Plaintiffs to File Response
HOLLYWOOD PARK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Meal Period
HOME DEPOT: Recalls LED Downlights Lights Due to Injury Risk
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Motion for Interlocutory Appeal Allowed
IBERIABANK: "Haas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

ILLINOIS: Dept. of The Lottery Sued Over Failure to Pay Winners
I LOVE: "Velasco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Wages
IOS/PCI: "Raleigh" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
IOWA SELECT: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Misbranding
JJ MAA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Medical Expenses Coverage

KBR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
KEY ENERGY: Hearing on Class Certification Motion Held
KEY ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action
KEY ENERGY: Defending Class Action in Corpus Christi, TX
KEY ENERGY: Collective Action Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice

KEY ENERGY: Defending Class Action in Houston, TX
KEYSTONE: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Fire Risk
KLX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Aguilar" Suit Claims
LIBERTY GLOBAL: Liberty Puerto Rico Continues to Face Class Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide CUT Refund

MASIMO CORPORATION: District Court Granted Joint Request
MASIMO CORPORATION: Motion for Summary Judgment Currently Pending
MATSON INC: To Contest Class Actions on Horizon Lines Merger
MEDISTAT RX: Recalls Sterile Drug Products Due to Contamination
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed AOL Merger

MORGAN STANLEY: Class Action Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
MSE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces DNW Suit Over Sunday Afternoon Games
NUCOR STEEL: Class Certification Denied in N.D. Ohio Case
OFFICE DEPOT: Defendants Need Not Respond to Del. Class Action

OFFICE DEPOT: Motion to Dismiss Florida Lawsuits Granted
OFFICE DEPOT: Heitzenrater Action in Early Stage
OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against Kyle Rivet Action
OKARCHE BAKERY: Recalls Frozen Cookie Dough Due to Allergens
OLLI SALUMERIA: Recalls Salami Products Due to Misbranding

ONE MINUTE: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Undeclared Drugs
ORGANICGIRL PRODUCE: Recalls Baby Spinach Products Due to Cadmium
ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Singh Action Remains at Early Stage
OVER & OVER: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OVERWAITEA FOOD: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella

PAPA JOHN'S: Class Action Trial Has Been Stayed
PEOPLE CREATING: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Unlawful Termination
PILOT TRAVEL: Settlements in Hot Fuel Case Win Final Approval
PORK RIND: Recalls Pork Rind Products Due to Milk and Soy
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Reinstates Unjust Enrichment Claim

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Clark" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
R&T BUSINESS: Faces "Aldana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RESOURCE CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Final Judgment in Class Action

SABRE CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed v. Sabre and 2 GDSs
SAFEWAY: Recalls Cucumbers and In-Store Produced Products
SCHRADER FARMS: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
SOVRAN SELF: Intends to Vigorously Defend Putative Class Action
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Hearing on Cert. Motion on Nov. 30 to Dec. 2

TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Cert. Motion in Quebec Action Has Not Been Set
TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Judicial Expert Appointed by Commercial Court
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Court Certifies "Blair" Class Suit
TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, Action Claims

UNDER ARMOUR: Lawsuits Consolidated in Shareholder Litigation
UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Davis" Trespassing Suit in W.D. Texas
UNIT CORP: Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims Stayed Pending Cert. Bid
VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Case Under Advisement

VICTOR'S CAFE: "Arita" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
VITALIZE LABS: Court Trims Claims in Suit Over E-BOOST
VON BERGENS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WEI'S HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WELLS FARGO: Sued in Cal. Over Real Estate Loan Services Fees

WEST MARINE: District Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
WEST MARINE: To Defend Class Action Lawsuit
WOMEN'S CLINIC: Doesn't Properly Calculate Workers OT, Suit Says
ZULILY INC: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports

* Transport Canada Recalls Ricon Wheelchair Lifts


                            *********


3430685 CANADA: Recalls Janod Starfish Fishing Game Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 10, 2015
Posting date: September 10, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54960

This recall involves the Janod Starfish fishing game for ages 2 to
5 years.  The fishing game user picks up a toy fish using a play
fishing rod with a magnetic worm. The Starfish fishing game has an
orange starfish painted on a starfish-shaped tin with a product
number J08153 printed on the bottom of the container and on the
back of one of the fish pieces. Each set comes with two wooden
fishing rods and several wooden fish with a magnetic button in the
middle. The lid of each tin package contains the word "Janod(R)."

Only the Starfish fishing game was sold in Canada.

The worm attached to the end of the fishing pole may break apart
and expose small parts, posing a choking hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Juratoys U.S. Corp. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
this toy in Canada.

In the United States, Juratoys U.S. Corp. has received
approximately 417 reports of the worm separating and releasing
small parts in a related product, including four reports of
children ingesting a small part. No injuries have been reported.

Approximately 170 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
14,000 units were distributed in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from March 2015 to August 2015 in
Canada and from April 2015 to August 2015 in the United States.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Juratoys U.S. Corp.
              Ft. Lauderdale
              Florida
              UNITED STATES

Importer: 3430685 Canada Inc. d/b/a QHouse Kids
          Ste Anne de Bellevue
          Quebec
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the toy and return it to
the store where purchased for an exchange of the same value
($29.99).

For additional information, consumers may contact QHouseKids by
telephone toll-free at 1-877-957-3088 or locally (514) 457-3088,
from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday.

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/3dXS3C


AETNA INC: New Jersey Court Granted Motion to Dismiss
-----------------------------------------------------
Aetna Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that the New Jersey District Court has
granted in part the Company's motion to dismiss the class action
proceedings.

The Company said, "We are named as a defendant in several
purported class actions and individual lawsuits arising out of our
practices related to the payment of claims for services rendered
to our members by health care providers with whom we do not have a
contract ("out-of-network providers").   Among other things, these
lawsuits allege that we paid too little to our health plan members
and/or providers for these services, among other reasons, because
of our use of data provided by Ingenix, Inc., a subsidiary of one
of our competitors ("Ingenix"). Other major health insurers are
the subject of similar litigation or have settled similar
litigation."

"Various plaintiffs who are health care providers or medical
associations seek to represent nationwide classes of out-of-
network providers who provided services to our members during the
period from 2001 to the present.  Various plaintiffs who are
members in our health plans seek to represent nationwide classes
of our members who received services from out-of-network providers
during the period from 2001 to the present.  Taken together, these
lawsuits allege that we violated state law, the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
federal antitrust laws, either acting alone or in concert with our
competitors.  The purported classes seek reimbursement of all
unpaid benefits, recalculation and repayment of deductible and
coinsurance amounts, unspecified damages and treble damages,
statutory penalties, injunctive and declaratory relief, plus
interest, costs and attorneys' fees, and seek to disqualify us
from acting as a fiduciary of any benefit plan that is subject to
ERISA.  Individual lawsuits that generally contain similar
allegations and seek similar relief have been brought by health
plan members and out-of-network providers.

"The first class action case was commenced on July 30, 2007.  The
federal Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (the "MDL
Panel") has consolidated these class action cases in the U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey (the "New Jersey
District Court") under the caption In re: Aetna UCR Litigation,
MDL No. 2020 ("MDL 2020").

"In addition, the MDL Panel has transferred the individual
lawsuits to MDL 2020.  On May 9, 2011, the New Jersey District
Court dismissed the physician plaintiffs from MDL 2020 without
prejudice.  The New Jersey District Court's action followed a
ruling by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (the "Florida District Court") that the
physician plaintiffs were enjoined from participating in MDL 2020
due to a prior settlement and release.  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has dismissed the physician
plaintiffs' appeal of the Florida District Court's ruling.

"On December 6, 2012, we entered into an agreement to settle MDL
2020. Under the terms of the proposed nationwide settlement, we
would have been released from claims relating to our out-of-
network reimbursement practices from the beginning of the
applicable settlement class period through August 30, 2013. The
settlement agreement did not contain an admission of wrongdoing.
The medical associations were not parties to the settlement
agreement.

"Under the settlement agreement, we would have paid up to $120
million to fund claims submitted by health plan members and health
care providers who were members of the settlement classes. These
payments also would have funded the legal fees of plaintiffs'
counsel and the costs of administering the settlement. In
connection with the proposed settlement, the Company recorded an
after-tax charge to net income attributable to Aetna of
approximately $78 million in the fourth quarter of 2012.

"The settlement agreement provided us the right to terminate the
agreement under certain conditions related to settlement class
members who opted out of the settlement. Based on a report
provided to the parties by the settlement administrator, the
conditions permitting us to terminate the settlement agreement
were satisfied.

"On March 13, 2014, we notified the New Jersey District Court and
plaintiffs' counsel that we were terminating the settlement
agreement. Various legal and factual developments since the date
of the settlement agreement led us to believe terminating the
settlement agreement was in our best interests. As a result of
this termination, we released the reserve established in
connection with the settlement agreement, net of amounts due to
the settlement administrator, which reduced first quarter 2014
other general and administrative expenses by $67.0 million ($103.0
million pretax).

"On June 30, 2015, the New Jersey District Court granted in part
our motion to dismiss the proceeding. The New Jersey District
Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' RICO and federal
antitrust claims; their ERISA claims that are based on our
disclosures and our purported breach of fiduciary duties; and
certain of their state law claims. The New Jersey District Court
also dismissed with prejudice all claims asserted by several
medical association plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' remaining claims
are for ERISA benefits and breach of contract. We intend to
vigorously defend ourselves against the plaintiffs' remaining
claims."


ALPHATEC HOLDINGS: 9th Cir. Affirmed Dismissal of Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alphatec Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court's decision in all respects and ordered
dismissal of the securities class action.

On August 10, 2010, a purported securities class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between December 19, 2009 and August 5,
2010 against the Company and certain of its directors and officers
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. On February 17, 2011, an amended complaint was filed
against the Company and certain of its directors and officers
adding alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"). HealthpointCapital, Jefferies &
Company, Inc., Canaccord Adams, Inc., Cowen and Company, Inc., and
Lazard Capital Markets LLC are also defendants in this action. The
complaint alleged that the defendants made false or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material facts about the
Company's business, financial condition, operations and prospects,
particularly relating to the Scient'x transaction and the
Company's financial guidance following the closing of the
acquisition. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on
April 18, 2011. The district court granted the motion to dismiss
with leave to amend on March 22, 2012. On April 19, 2012, the lead
plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and violations of
Section 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act against the
same named defendants. On May 3, 2012, the Company filed a motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The district court
granted that motion without leave to amend and entered final
judgment in the Company's favor on March 28, 2013.

On April 17, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The
appellate court heard oral argument on May 5, 2015.  On June 5,
2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in
all respects and ordered dismissal of the case. The mandate issued
on June 30, 2015.


ANDREW AND WILLIAMSON: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the Andrew and Williamson Fresh Produce recall
of cucumbers that may be contaminated with Salmonella Poona,
Safeway is voluntarily recalling made-to-order deli sandwiches
with cucumbers produced by Andrew and Williamson and sold in nine
Safeway and Carrs stores in Alaska.

Sandwiches were sold from August 1 through September 4 from the
full-service sandwich counter. The stores include:

  --- Carrs at 1725 Abbott Rd., Anchorage, AK 99507
  --- Carrs at 1650 W Northern Lights Blvd., Anchorage, AK 99517
  --- Carrs at 5600 Debarr Rd., Anchorage, AK 99504
  --- Carrs at 1340 Gambell St., Anchorage, AK 99501
  --- Carrs at 1501 Huffman Rd., Anchorage, AK 99515
  --- Safeway at 1907 Seward Hwy., Seward, AK 99664
  --- Safeway at 1313 Meals St., Valdez, AK 99686
  --- Safeway at 90 Sterling Hwy., Homer, AK 99603
  --- Safeway at 301 N Santa Claus Ln., North Pole, AK 99705

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

No illnesses have been associated with Safeway or Carrs
sandwiches. We are recalling the sandwiches out of an abundance of
caution.

Customers who purchased the recalled sandwiches from the above-
listed stores should discard or return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

Customers who have questions about the recall can contact Safeway
at 1-877-SAFEWAY or Andrew and Williamson at 1-844-483-3864.


ANHING CORPORATION: Recalls Cookie Products Due to Lead
-------------------------------------------------------
Anhing Corporation of Los Angeles, CA is recalling ABC Cookies
Banh Chu it imported due to an elevated level of lead. ABC Cookies
Banh Chu is made in Vietnam.

Anhing Corporation learned on August 12, 2015, from the California
Department of Public Health (CDPH), that the ABC Cookies contained
lead in excess of the California State requirements and as such
could cause health problems to consumers, particularly infants,
small children, and pregnant women. Anhing Corporation immediately
quarantined the remaining inventory of the ABC Cookies and is
notifying 4 retailers in California who received 4 cartons (total
96 jars) to stop selling and for consumers not to eat these
cookies.

The ABC Cookies Banh Chu is contained in a plastic jar shaped and
painted as a cat's face. The bottle has a red lid that contains a
paper label with a picture of the cookies the name "ABC Cookies
Banh Chu" the Caravelle brand logo, the ingredient declaration,
the net weight, and the name and address of Anhing Corporation.
Each jar contains 7 ounces of cookies.

Recent analysis of the ABC Cookies by CDPH revealed that each
cookie contained a lead level of 0.13 ppm and 13 ppm per labeled
serving size. California considers products to be consumed by
children with a lead level in excess of FDA's provisional total
tolerable intake level (PTTIL) for lead by small children of 6
micrograms to be adulterated. Therefore, sale of these cookies are
prohibited in the State of California.

Anhing Corporation was unaware of the problem when it imported the
product and wants to ensure its products are safe. Therefore, in
in an abundance of caution in addition to its ongoing cooperation
with the CDPH, Anhing Corporation is voluntarily recalling all ABC
Cookies from the marketplace. Consumers in possession of packages
of ABC Cookies should not eat them and should return the cookies
to the place of purchase.

Although the level encountered by CDPH is slightly higher than the
legal level of acceptance pregnant women and parents of children
who may have consumed this cookies should consider consulting
their physician or health care provider to determine whether
further medical testing is necessary. For more information about
lead poisoning, parents and caretakers should contact their local
childhood lead poisoning prevention program or local public health
department.


APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Sliced Apple Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------------
Appeeling Fruit Inc. in Dauberville, Penn. is voluntarily
recalling a limited number of consumer packages of fresh sliced
apples with Best-if-Used-by dates of 09/14/15 and 09/21/15, due to
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

To date, health authorities have not linked any illnesses to this
recall. No other products are affected by this recall.

The recalled product was shipped to retail distribution centers;
wholesalers; and foodservice customers in the states of Florida,
Massachusetts, New York and Pennsylvania between August 31 and
September 2.

Consumers can identify the recalled consumer products by the
brand, UPC codes and Best-if-Used-by dates provided in the table
at the end of this release.

Anyone who has recalled product in their possession should not
consume it, and should either dispose of it properly or return the
recalled product to the place of purchase for a refund. Please
keep proof of product purchase, if available. Consumers with
questions may contact the company's consumer information desk at
1-866-873-0468, or visit its website at
http://www.appeelingfruit.com/disclaimericon.

Appeeling Fruit Inc. has already notified customers who received
the recalled product directly from the company and requested that
they remove it from commerce. The company has also asked its
direct customers to notify their customers of this recall.
Appeeling Fruit is issuing this press release and keeping the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration in formed of its recall process to
assure that consumers are properly alerted.

The recall is being initiated after the company was informed that
an environmental sample taken in the production facility as part
of a routine sampling program tested positive for the bacteria.
None of the final product tested positive, and subsequent test
results from the facility have been negative.

"Many of our customers informed us that the recalled product was
still in refrigerated warehouses and never reached consumers.
Nevertheless, we are issuing this recall to reduce even the
slightest risk to public health." said Steve Cygan, president of
Appeeling Fruit. "We care deeply about the health and safety of
those who enjoy our products."

September 9, 2015 Voluntary Recall

  Product Description     Brand/Label   UPC on bag     Best If
  and Consumer Packaging   on bag       if applicable  Used By
  ----------------------   -----------  -------------  date on
                                                       bag
                                                       -------
  12oz package with        Appeeling    58324 00950    09/21/2015
  fresh, green apple       Fruit
  slices
  12oz. package with       Appeeling    58324 00900    09/21/2015
  fresh, red apple         Fruit
  slices
  Convenience pack of      Appeeling    Bag of 8,      09/21/2015
  8, 2oz. sized bags                    2 oz. Fruit
  of fresh, red apple                   slices
  bags                                  58324 08400
                                        Individual 2 oz.
                                        bags 58324 00400
  2oz. sized bags of       Burger King  n/a&           09/14/2015
  fresh, red apple         (BK) Crown
  slices
  2oz. sized bags of       Snack Fresh  74641 00982    09/21/2015
  fresh, red apple
  slices


APPEELING FRUIT: Recalls Red Apple Slices Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------
Appeeling Fruit Inc. in Dauberville, Penn. has been informed by
one of its customers that some of the Snack Fresh brand, 2 oz.
bagged red apple slices with Best-if-Used-by date 09/21/15 and
production date 310815 that was voluntarily recalled on Wednesday,
September 9 due to the potential of being contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes may have been distributed to schools in
Florida's Palm Beach County School District (product photo is
available at www.appeelingfruit.comdisclaimer icon).

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

According to our customer, Florida's Palm Beach County School
District was notified on September 9th of the recall and
individual schools were notified that morning. Also according to
our customer, 360 cases of the 400 cases that it picked up at our
facility on September 2nd have been retrieved and destroyed, and
more cases are in the process of being returned. For this reason,
it is unclear exactly how much of the remaining 40 cases may have
been distributed in the Florida Palm Beach County School District.
We are issuing this release in an abundance of caution and to
ensure that parents are aware of the recall.

Parents of children in Florida's Palm Beach County School
District: Snack Fresh brand is common in Florida schools; the
recalled 2 oz. bagged Snack Fresh product can be identified by
three sets of numbers on the back of the Snack Fresh bag: 1) the
Best-if-Used-by date is 09/21/15; 2) the UPC code under the black
bars is 74641 00982; and 3) the production date, or first six
numbers under the "Product of USA" stamp is 310815. All three sets
of numbers on the 2 oz. Snack Fresh bag must match these in order
to identify the recalled product.

Anyone who has recalled product in their possession should not
consume it, and should dispose of it properly. Consumers with
questions may contact the company's consumer information desk at
1-866-873-0468, or visit its website at
http://www.appeelingfruit.com/disclaimericon.

To date, health authorities have not informed us of any illnesses
linked to this recall. To our knowledge, no other recalled
products were distributed to schools. A complete list of September
9th recalled products can be found on our website at
www.appeelingfruit.comdisclaimer icon.

The recall was being initiated after the company was informed that
an environmental sample taken in the production facility, as part
of an internal routine sampling program, tested positive for the
bacteria. Subsequent test results from the facility have been
negative.

"Even though the recalled Snack Fresh sliced red apples that went
to Florida Palm Beach County schools was included in our original
September 9 recall announcement, and we know that the school
district promptly notified individual schools that may have
received product, we are issuing this additional notification to
ensure that parents and students know about that recall," said
Steve Cygan, president of Appeeling Fruit. "We are also working
closely with health officials to ensure that the recall is carried
in the most effective and efficient manner possible."


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Defendants in 2 Securities Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Research Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Operating Officer have been
named as defendants in two securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California regarding certain public statements in connection with
the Company's hepatitis B drug research.  Both actions assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seek damages in an unspecified amount.  Two
actions with similar claims under California State law are
currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.  Additionally,
three putative stockholder derivative actions have been filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's
Board of Directors in connection with the facts underlying the
securities claims.  Each of these seven suits seeks damages in
unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive
relief.


ASSURANT INC: Continues to Defend Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------
Assurant, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in class actions in a number of jurisdictions regarding
its lender-placed insurance programs. These cases allege a variety
of claims under a number of legal theories. The plaintiffs seek
premium refunds and other relief. The Company continues to defend
itself vigorously in these class actions. The Company has accrued
an estimated loss for this litigation.


AVALON CORRECTIONAL: Faces "Reed" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toya Y. Reed v. Avalon Correctional Services, Inc., avalon
Staffing, L.L.C., Avalon TX Corrections, L.L.C., Case No. 1:15-cv-
00789 (W.D. Tex., September 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate federal reintegration programs on behalf of
the United States Bureau of Prisons in Texas, Wyoming, and
Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edmond S. Moreland Jr., Esq.
      MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
      13590 Ranch Road 12
      Wimberley, TX 78676
      Telephone: (512) 782-0567
      Facsimile: (512) 782-0605
      E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com


BAY RIDGE: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Wang, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Bay Ridge Medical Imaging, P.C. and Shahrokh
Abiri, Case No. 605817 (D.N.Y., September 8, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate five medical imaging facilities within the
State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric S. Tilton, Esq.
      TILTON BELDNER, LLP
      626 Rxr Plaza
      Uniondale, NY 11556
      Telephone: (631) 6295291
      Facsimile: (516) 3243170
      E-mail: etilton@tiltonbeldner.com

         - and -

      Daniel Markowitz
      Jeffrey K. Brown
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 8739550
      E-mail: dmarkowitz@leedsbrownlaw.com


BEER AND FOOD: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Jackson, individually and on behalf of aggrieved employees
v. Beer and Food Management, LLC, et al., Case No. BC584065 (D.
Cal., September 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Beer and Food Management, LLC owns and operates a bar and
restaurant located at 2141 Sunset Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90026.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark H. Wagner, Esq.
      WAGNER LEGAL GROUP
      2001 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 210
      Santa Monica, CA 90403
      Telephone: (310) 857-5293
      E-mail: mark@wagnerlegalgroup.com


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Faces "Haight" Suit Over Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Haight, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Bluestem Brands, Inc., d/b/a Fingerhut, Case
No. 2015CH13359 (D. Ill., September 9, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of placing calls to debtors cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Bluestem Brands, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates an
online retailer and national catalog business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander H. Burke, Esq.
      Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
      BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
      155 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 9020
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 729-5288
      Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
      E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
              dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com

         - and -

      Scott D. Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S. Ocean Drive, Ste. 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


BLYTH INC: Faces "Kullman" Suit Over Proposed CB Shine Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Kullman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Blyth, Inc., et al., Case No. 11479 (D. Del.,
September 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders
of Blyth, Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Blyth by CB
Shine Holdings, LLC for unfair consideration and through an unfair
process.

Blyth, Inc. is a multi-channel company primarily focused on the
direct-to-consumer market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN
      A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 501-9000
      E-mail: kerr@browerpiven.com


BRECKSVILLE, OH: Faces "McNair" Suit Over Invalid City Ordinance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eben O. McNair IV v. The City of Brecksville, et al., Case No. CV
15 850799 (D. Ohio, September 8, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged unlawful practice of collecting or attempting
to collect tax under an invalid Ordinance, "The 4890 Tax".

The City of Brecksville is a municipal corporation, organized
under the laws of the State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Belovich, Esq.
      ROBERT S. BELOVICH ATTORNEY LLC
      9100 South Hills Blvd., Suite 325
      Broadview Heights, OH 44147
      Telephone: (440) 503-8770
      E-mail: rsb@belovichlaw.com

         - and -

      Anand N. Misra, Esq.
      THE MISRA LAW FIRM, LLC
      3659 Green Road, Suite 100
      Beachwood, OH 44122
      Telephone: (216) 752-3330
      E-mail: misraan@misralaw.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Consolidated Securities Case in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Consolidated
Securities Class Action is now in discovery.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July
6, 2012. A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the
same court by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar
allegations against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine.
The Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming
from May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012.

On July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein against the
same defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and
class period. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek
unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.
On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
with leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to
Ashford University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation
process and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied
the motion to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning
Ashford University's persistence rates. The plaintiff did not file
an amended complaint by the October 31, 2013 deadline and
therefore the case is now in discovery. On August 6, 2014, the
plaintiff filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted by the Court on January 15, 2015.

The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise.
Based on information available to the Company at present, it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Zamir" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has not
yet responded to the complaint and anticipates that an amended
complaint will be filed in September 2015 in the case, Zamir v.
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectibility of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys'
fees.

On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.

The Company has not yet responded to the complaint and anticipates
that an amended complaint will be filed in September 2015.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action.
However, the outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this
point because of the many questions of fact and law that may
arise. Based on information available to the Company at present,
it cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Appeals Court Denied "Guzman" Petition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Guzman
v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., the plaintiff filed a petition for
permission to appeal the denial of class certification with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was
denied by the Court of Appeals.

In January 2011, Betty Guzman filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company, Ashford University and University of the Rockies in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
The complaint is captioned Guzman v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc.,
et al. and generally alleges that the defendants engaged in
misrepresentation and other unlawful behavior in their efforts to
recruit and retain students. The complaint asserts a putative
class period of March 1, 2005 through the present.

In March 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was granted by the Court with leave to amend in
October 2011.

In January 2012, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period, and the
defendants filed another motion to dismiss. In May 2012, the Court
granted University of the Rockies' motion to dismiss and granted
in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by the
Company and Ashford University. The Court also granted the
plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

In August 2012, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint
asserting similar claims and the same class period. The second
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary relief, disgorgement
of all profits, various other equitable relief, and attorneys'
fees. The defendants filed a motion to strike portions of the
second amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in
part.

On April 30, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which was denied by the Court on March 26, 2015. On
April 9, 2015, the plaintiff filed a petition for permission to
appeal the denial of class certification with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which was denied by the
Court of Appeals on June 9, 2015.

The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise. At
present, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
for this action based on the information available to the Company.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Cavazos" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case,
Cavazos v. Ashford University, the Company has not yet responded
to the complaint.

On June 22, 2015, Diamond Cavazos filed a purported class action
against Ashford University in the Superior Court of the State of
California in San Diego. The complaint is captioned Diamond
Cavazos v. Ashford University, LLC and generally alleges various
wage and hour claims under California law for failure to pay
overtime, failure to pay minimum wages and failure to provide rest
and meal breaks. The lawsuit seeks back pay, the cost of benefits,
penalties and interest on behalf of the putative class members, as
well as other equitable relief and attorneys' fees. The Company
has not yet responded to the complaint and intends to vigorously
defend against it.

The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise.
Based on information available to the Company at present, it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Has Not Yet Responded to "Coleman" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case,
Coleman et al. v. Ashford University, the Company has not yet
responded to the complaint.

On June 4, 2015, Brandy Coleman and a group of seven other former
employees filed a purported class action against Ashford
University in the Superior Court of the State of California in San
Diego. The complaint is captioned Brandy Coleman v. Ashford
University, LLC and generally alleges violations of the California
WARN Act for back pay and benefits associated with the termination
of the plaintiffs' employment in May 2015. The lawsuit seeks
unpaid wages, penalties and interest on behalf of the putative
class members, as well as other equitable relief and attorneys'
fees. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint and
intends to vigorously defend against it.

The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise.
Based on information available to the Company at present, it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.


BUFFA A: Faces "Larry" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Candido Larry Jr., David Quiterio, Isahid Hernandez, Justice
William Quiles, Nelson Rodriguez, Terrel Stallings, Yair Lopez,
Amy Hernandez, Ana Hernandez, and Sherly Hernandez, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Buffa A LLC d/b/a
Calexico, Anthony J. Fauci, Jesse Vendley, Brian Vendley, and
Peter Oleyer, Case No. 1:15-cv-07108 (S.D.N.Y., September 9,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant located at 153
Rivington Street, New York, New York 10002.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Ford Class Action Awaits Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the settlement in the
class action lawsuit by Franchesca Ford currently awaits the
Court's approval.

On January 27, 2014, former store employee Franchesca Ford filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San
Francisco County Superior Court, California (the "Ford
Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-
situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the
Company in California who were employed during the period January
27, 2010 to the present. She alleges violations of California
state wage and hour laws governing vacation pay, meal and rest
period pay, wages due upon termination, and waiting time
penalties, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to California state court.

On May 22, 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the
lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the
plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment. The settlement currently awaits the Court's approval.

The Company has accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable
losses associated with this claim.

"We currently believe that the final resolution of this action
will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Deal in Ford and Rodriguez Case Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the Court has entered
an order preliminarily approving the settlement in the class
action lawsuit filed by Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez.

On March 24, 2014, Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego
Division. The plaintiffs claim to represent other similarly-
situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background
checks with the Company in California and across the United States
from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer
Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act.

On September 23, 2014, the Company reached an agreement to settle
the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in
the plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment.

On July 7, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. The Company has accrued for all probable
and reasonably estimable losses associated with this claim.

"We currently believe that the final resolution of this action
will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Conditional Cert. Granted in "Wright" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the Court granted
conditional certification of a collective group, in the case filed
by Wiley Wright.

On October 17, 2014, former store employee Wiley Wright filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York, claiming to
represent other similarly-situated salaried exempt current and
former employees of the Company in the state of New York during
the period October 17, 2008, as well as similarly-situated
salaried exempt current and former employees throughout the
remainder of the United States during the period October 17, 2011
to the present. The lawsuit alleges that current and former
Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers were unlawfully
classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more
than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff
seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

On December 12, 2014, plaintiff moved for conditional
certification of the putative class of employees; the Company
filed its response to this motion on January 19, 2015.

On July 16, 2015, the Court granted conditional certification of a
collective group that included only the Assistant Managers and
Senior Assistant Managers who worked in the four New York stores
where plaintiff worked during his employment with the Company,
while permitting plaintiff to obtain further discovery from the
Company relating to his original motion.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently
believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in "Sinohui" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the Company's
investigation is ongoing in the class action lawsuit filed by
Richard Sinohui.

On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui
filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui
Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated
current and former General Managers of the Company in California
during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit
alleges current and former California General Managers were
unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and
worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay,
paid rest periods and paid meal periods, in violation of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial
Welfare Commission. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in
damages.

On December 5, 2012, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned
the court to remand the Sinohui Litigation to California state
court.

On February 26, 2015, the Court overruled the plaintiff's motion
to remand. The Company's investigation is ongoing. The parties are
engaged in discovery.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently
believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Twin City Filed Consolidated Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that a consolidated class
action complaint was filed by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust
in the Litigation Related to a Merger agreement.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had
entered into the Merger Agreement, four putative shareholder class
actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County,
Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company against
the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub, in
connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby. The first purported class action, styled
Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al. (the "Coyne Action"), was
filed on January 21, 2014. The second, styled John Solak v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the "Solak Action"), was filed on
January 22, 2014. The third, styled Irene Dixon v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the "Dixon Action"), was filed on
January 24, 2014, and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The
fourth, styled Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement
System v. Frank, et al. (the "LMPERS Action"), was filed on
January 31, 2014, and additionally names as defendants, Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.
(collectively, Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions shall be referred
to as the "Shareholder Actions").

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an
inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the
Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement
that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to
consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a
conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions
further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of
interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted
members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and
annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the
"Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which
allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions.

Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and
abetted the Board's breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and
Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such
breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that
Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The
LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P.
and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions.
The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of
the transactions, damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs,
and other unspecified relief.

On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an
amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"), and on January
30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an amended
complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together, the "Amended
Complaints"). The Amended Complaints incorporated all of the
allegations in the original complaints, added allegations that the
Board-approved Statement omitted certain material information, in
further violation of the Board's fiduciary duties, and requested
an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly-omitted
material information. The Solak Amended Complaint also added
allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in
allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management
to lead the sales process.

On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were
consolidated into one action. The Company has accrued for all
probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this
claim. The Company believes the consolidated lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously. While no assurance can
be given as to the ultimate outcome of the consolidated matter, we
currently believe that the final resolution of the action will not
have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

On July 21, 2015 a consolidated class action complaint was filed
by Twin City Pipe Trades Pension Trust that continued to assert
claims against CEC and its former directors; added The Goldman
Sachs Group ("Goldman Sachs") as a defendant; and removed all
Apollo entities as defendants ("Consolidated Class Action
Petition"). The Consolidated Class Action Petition alleges that
the Company's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company's stockholders in connection with their consideration and
approval of the Merger Agreement by, among other things,
conducting a deficient sales process, agreeing to an inadequate
tender price, agreeing to certain provisions in the Merger
Agreement, and filing materially deficient disclosures regarding
the transaction. The Consolidated Class Action Petition also
alleges that two members of the Company's board who also served as
the senior managers of the Company had material conflicts of
interest and that Goldman Sachs aided and abetted the board's
breaches as a result of various conflicts of interest facing the
bank.

The Company believes the Consolidated Class Action Petition is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final
resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.


CEDAR FAIR: Final Approval Hearing in "Ortegon" Action Held
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cedar Fair, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that in the case, Ortegon,
et al vs. Cedar Fair, L.P., Cedar Fair Management Company, et al.,
the final approval hearing was scheduled for September 4, 2015.

The Partnership and Cedar Fair Management, Inc. are defendants in
a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California for Santa Clara County on October 3, 2013 by Frank
Ortegon-Ramirez seeking damages and injunctive relief for claims
related to certain employment and pay practices at our parks in
California, including those related to certain check-out, time
reporting, discharge and pay statement practices.  The defendants
filed an answer on November 21, 2013 denying the allegations in
the complaint and requesting a dismissal of all claims.

On November 12, 2014, the Partnership participated in a mediation
relating to the claims alleged in the lawsuit.  Following this
mediation, the Partnership negotiated a $4.75 million settlement
with the named Plaintiff on a class wide basis which is subject to
final court approval.

On May 15, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
proposed settlement and the final approval hearing was scheduled
for September 4, 2015.

The Partnership believes the liability recorded as of June 28,
2015 is adequate and does not expect the terms of the negotiated
settlement or final briefing to materially affect its financial
results in future periods.


CHANNELADVISOR CORPORATION: S.D.N.Y. Granted Motion to Transfer
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChannelAdvisor Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, In re
ChannelAdvisor Securities Litigation, the S.D.N.Y. granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

The Company said, "On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice
filed a purported class action complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), Dice v.
ChannelAdvisor Corporation et al., alleging violations of the
federal securities laws against us and certain of our executive
officers. Plaintiff Dice alleges that the defendants engaged in a
fraudulent scheme to artificially inflate the price of our common
stock by making false and misleading statements to investors
concerning our financial guidance for the fourth quarter of 2014.
On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a purported
class action complaint in the S.D.NY., Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor
Corporation et al., in which Plaintiff Gracia brings the same
claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action
brought by Plaintiff Dice."

On May 5, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. consolidated the Dice and Gracia
actions, captioned the actions as In re ChannelAdvisor Securities
Litigation, and appointed Plaintiff Dice as lead plaintiff for the
putative class. On July 2, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

"We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter
vigorously," the Company said.


CLEAR SPRINGS: May Conduct Discovery on Absent Class Members
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Anthony E. Porcelli of the United States District
Court for Middle District of Florida approved Defendants' Proposed
Absent Class Member Interrogatories in the case captioned, SHELENE
JEAN-LOUIS, JUDES PETIT-FRERE, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CLEAR SPRINGS FARMING, LLC, a
Foreign Limited Liability Company, FLORIDA GOLD CITRUS, INC., a
Florida Profit Corporation, JACK GREEN JR., individually, and
HOWARD LEASING, INC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company,
Defendant, Case No. 8:13-CV-3084-T-30AEP.

The case comes before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for
Protective Order Regarding Class Member Discovery, Plaintiffs'
Memorandum of Law on Absent Class Member Discovery, and
Defendants' Memorandum Regarding, and in Response to, Plaintiffs'
Memorandum of Law on Absent Class Member Discovery.

In the interim, the Honorable James S. Moody, Jr. denied
Plaintiff's motion to bifurcate and lifted any stay regarding
damages discovery. Pursuant to the Court's June 24, 2015 Order, a
hearing was noticed for August 6, 2015, to cover the unaddressed
aspects of damages discovery. At the hearing, the Court heard
argument on Defendants' request to serve interrogatories on absent
class members, as well as the appropriateness of discovery
relating to class member immigration status.

In his Order dated August 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/S3DqPRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Porcelli concluded that
the requested absent class member discovery is appropriate and
does not find that the request is a tactic designed to take undue
advantage of class members or reduce the size of the class.
Instead, the proposed interrogatories are helpful to the proper
presentation and correct adjudication of the principal suit in
that they are designed to elicit information regarding damages
mitigation information this Court has already deemed simple and
relevant to Plaintiffs' prayer for compensatory damages. While the
Court may ultimately be bridled in levying sanctions for absent
class member noncompliance, it nevertheless concludes that
Defendants are entitled to serve the proposed interrogatories
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiffs are represented by Bradley Paul Rothman, Esq. --
brothman@weldonrothman.com -- WELDON & ROTHMAN, PL, Michelle E.
Nadeau, Esq. -- mnadeau@ksblaw.com -- Ryan D. Barack, Esq. --
lbarack@ksblaw.com -- KWALL SHOWERS BARACK & CHILSON, P.A.

Defendants are represented byAmanda G. Chafin, Esq. --
Amanda.chafin@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY, PC, Doris
M. Del Castillo, Esq. -- ddelcastillo@constangy.com -- John W.
Campbell, Esq. -- jcampbell@constangy.com -- James Morgan Craig,
Esq. -- jcraig@constangy.com -- CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLP


CLEARANCE TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allen Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Clearance Technology Group, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-
02094-JSM-AEP (M.D. Fla., September 9, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Clearance Technology Group, LLC is a Florida corporation that is
engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 224-0431
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              jriley@wfclaw.com


CUSTOM PRODUCE: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella
---------------------------------------------------
Custom Produce Sales ("Custom Produce") of  Parlier, California is
voluntarily recalling all cucumbers sold under the Fat Boy(R)
label starting August 1, 2015 because they may be contaminated
with Salmonella and are covered by an ongoing recall.  No other
Fat Boy(R) products are covered by this recall.  Unlabeled
cucumbers packed into a black reusable plastic container (RPC) and
were sold in Nevada, as of August 1, 2015 are also covered by this
recall.

Custom Produce is currently working with health authorities on
this recall, which is associated with an outbreak of Salmonella
Poona, with 341 illnesses, including 2 deaths, being reporting in
as many as 30 states. Custom Produce has contacted all customers
who may have received this product.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems.  Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain.  In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms),
endocarditis, and arthritis.

Fat Boy(R) cucumbers were produced in Baja California and
distributed in the states of California, Colorado, Illinois, Iowa,
Nevada, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Texas.

These cucumbers are shipped in a black, green, red and craft
colored carton which reads "Fat Boy Fresh Produce.".  This variety
is often referred to as a "Slicer" or "American" cucumber.  It has
a dark green color.  It typically has a length of 7 to 10 inches
and a diameter of 1.75 to 2.5 inches.

Consumers who have purchased Fat Boy(R) brand cucumbers are urged
not to consume them and to return them to the place of purchase or
to dispose of them.  Consumers with questions may contact Custom
Produce by visiting the company website at
www.customproducesales.comdisclaimer icon  or by calling the
company at 559-254-5860.

Fat Boy cucumbers were packed into the following:

Cucumber Carton 24's Fat Boy Label
Cucumber Carton Super Select Fat Boy Label
Cucumber Carton 6 count Fat Boy Label
Cucumber Carton 5 # Fat Boy Label
Possible Fat Boy Lot Codes: 93968, 94506, 94550, 94522, 94513,
93991

Reusable Plastic Containers (RPC):
Lot Code:  (01) 1 0851821 22000 2 (10) 99
Item #  552678329


CVS HEALTH: Lauriello Class Action Proceeding
---------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Lauriello class
action is proceeding.

On September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the
trial court's August 15, 2012 Order, and the case is proceeding.


Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in
October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly
on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark
and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that
provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled
lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion
in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on
allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for
the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed.

A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur,
also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others,
Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999
settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action,
but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the
Lauriello action.

Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an
Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedures
23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order
appointed class representatives and class counsel.

On September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the
trial court's August 15, 2012 Order, and the case is proceeding.


CVS HEALTH: Derivative Action Stayed Pending Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CVS Health Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the derivative action
is stayed pending further developments in the securities class
action.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island
by Richard Medoff, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS
Health Corporation stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009.
The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants
and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public
disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and
allegations of insider trading.

In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed by Mark
Wuotila in December 2009 in the same court against the directors
and certain officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which has
remained stayed pending developments in the related securities
class action, includes allegations of, among other things,
securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties
and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase
of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase
program.

In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. The
derivative action is stayed pending further developments in the
class action.


DAIMLER TRUCKS: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 3
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015394TC
ID number: 2015394
Manufacturer recall number: FL-686

On certain buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the lift
platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean
against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the
vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at
risk of injury. Correction: Ricon Corporation repair facilities
will inspect lift platforms, link arms and bearings for cracks,
damage or misalignment and repair as necessary. Note: This recall
supersedes recall 2014-338. Vehicles repaired under the previous
recall will require re-inspection and potential repair.

  Make              Model                 Model year(s) affected
  ----              -----                 ----------------------
  FREIGHTLINER      FB-65 COMMERCIAL      2006
  CUSTOM CHASSIS    BUS CHASSIS
  THOMAS BUILT      MINOTOUR NON-SCHOOL   2006
                    BUS


DE'LONGHI CANADA: Recalls Blenders Due to Laceration Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 9, 2015
Posting date: September 9, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Appliances
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Laceration Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54914

The recall involves the Kenwood blender Blend-X PRO BLM800, type
number BLM80 and date code from 14x01 to 15x22 ("x" is a letter,
for example 14T01) which can be found on the rating label on the
underside of this product. The UPC code for the product is
5011423178646. The blender is ETL certified with control number
3099477.

The product consists of a glass goblet with a plastic lid and a
power unit with a motor and user control panel. A rotating knob is
used to set blade speeds and the user can choose one of six pre-
set cycles (buttons). A blade assembly is screwed onto the bottom
of the goblet and is placed onto the power unit to connect the
blade shaft to the motor. The colour of the product is gray.

The lower blade of the blade assembly may break during use in
particular conditions of high stress which may pose a laceration
hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Kenwood Limited has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product in Canada. Additionally, no consumer incidents or injuries
related to the use of the product have been reported in the United
States.

Approximately 367 units were sold in Canada and 150 units were
distributed in the United States.

The recalled product was sold from August 2014 to July 2015 in
Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: De'Longhi-Kenwood Appliances Dong Guan Company Ltd.
              Guandong Province
              CHINA

Distributor:  De'Longhi Canada Inc.
              Mississauga
              Ontario
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blender and
contact Kenwood Ltd. for a free replacement blade.

For more information, consumers may contact Kenwood Ltd. by
telephone at 1-866-367-4561 or by visiting the firm's website and
click on "Recall Information" at the top of the page.  Consumers
may also submit product information to determine if their unit is
affected by visiting the Kenwood Ltd. Safety Information page.

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/gcvkfs


DS SERVICES: Court Disapproves Settlement Agreement in "Appleman"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan A. Lenard of the United States District Court
for Southern District of Florida denied Plaintiff Craig Appleman's
Unopposed Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement in the case
captioned, CRAIG APPLEMAN, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DS SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case Nos. 14-62275-CIV-LENARD/GOODMAN.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff, a former Costco Sales
Representative, filed his Complaint on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated seeking back-pay for unpaid overtime.
Opt-in plaintiffs William Ortiz and Candy Gumaer joined the suit.
The parties engaged in settlement negotiations and agreed to the
terms set forth in the Agreement, attempting to resolve the matter
as to the entire purported class. The class is defined as "all
individuals employed by Defendant DS Services of America, Inc.
from October 3, 2012 to the date of Approval (the Class Period)
who worked as Costco Sales Representatives at any time during the
Class Period.

The parties have attempted to resolve the rights of over 300
potential opt-in plaintiffs without those potential plaintiffs
being joined in this action or being able to object to the terms
of the Agreement. Seemingly, the parties have attempted to resolve
their case as if it were a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23
"class action," not an FLSA "collective action."

In her Order dated August 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/zUJk7Bfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lenard held that in
roder to resolve the collective acton by settlement, the parties
should first seek conditional approval of the proposed class and
proffer an adequate notice procedure to allow potential opt-in
plaintiffs to join the action. Only then may they seek to resolve
the rights of the greater class of workers by settlement.

Plaintiffs are represented by Anthony J. Pantuso, III, Esq. --
apantuso@quinn-lawfirm.com -- THE QUINN LAW FIRM, Richard Hayber,
Esq. -- rhayber@hayberlawfirm.com -- HAYBER LAW FIRM LLC & David
Alan Netburn, Esq. -- dnetburn@rolnicknetburn.com -- ROLNICK &
NETBURN

DS Services of America, Inc. is represented by Catherine Dacre,
Esq. -- cdacre@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Suzanne Ashelle,
Esq. -- ssinger@rumberger.com -- Dorothy Gonzalez Negrin, Esq. --
dnegrin@rumberger.com -- SINGER, RUMBERGER, KIRK & COLDWELL, P.A.


EASTMAN KODAK: Says ERISA Litigation Is Proceeding
--------------------------------------------------
The case In re Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation is proceeding,
Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On January 19, 2012, the Company and its U.S. subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for relief (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under
chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27,
2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action suits were
filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against
the committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan ('SOP') and
Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain former and
current executives of the Company. The suits have been
consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman
Kodak ERISA Litigation. The allegations concern the decline in the
Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP.
Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable
plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was denied on
December 17, 2014 and the case is proceeding. On behalf of the
defendants in this case, the Company believes that the case is
without merit and will vigorously defend the defendants on their
behalf.


EBAY INC: Removed "Huang" Class Suit to Central Dist. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Bernard Huang and Ed Kim, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. EBay
Inc., Intuit Inc. and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No.
BC586353, was removed from the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:15-cv-04104-MMC to the proceeding.

The claims arise out of the alleged agreement between eBay and
Intuit not to recruit each other's software engineers.

The Defendant EBay Inc. is represented by:

      Thomas P. Brown, Esq.
      PAUL HASTINGS LLP
      55 Second Street
      Twenty-Fourth Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105-3441
      Telephone: (415) 856-7000
      Facsimile: (415) 856-7100
      E-mail: tombrown@paulhastings.com

The Defendant Intuit Inc. is represented by:

      Robert A. Mittelstaedt, Esq.
      Craig E. Stewart, Esq.
      David Kiernan, Esq.
      JONES DAY
      555 California Street, 26th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 626-3939
      Facsimile: (415) 875-5700
      E-mail: ramittelstaedt@JonesDay.com
              cestewart@JonesDay.com
              dkiernan@JonesDay.com


EVENFLO: Recalls Multiple Child Seat Models Due to Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 9, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Child Car Seat
Notification type: Safety TC
System: Other
Units affected: 51848
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015397TC
ID number: 2015397

Certain child/booster seats may not comply with the requirements
of the Canada Motor Vehicle Restraint Systems and Booster Seats
Safety Regulations (RSSR). The installation diagram label affixed
to the booster seat may contain errors, the handle is shown in
position 4 for traveling on the diagram when it should be in
position 1. Correction: A production change has been undertaken to
remedy this non-compliance condition. No corrective recall action
is required.

  Make        Model         Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----         ----------------------
  EVENFLO     EMBRACE 35    2011, 2011


FGL SPORTS: Recalls Stunt Scooters Due to Fall Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 10, 2015
Posting date: September 10, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54952

This recall involves the SIMS 2015 Pro Model Stunt Scooter with
model number 281015016 and UPC 883701948341.

The black scooter has red handlebars and red wheels. The SIMS
brand name can be found on the foot section of the scooter.

Only model year 2015 is included in this recall.

The handlebars may not hold the front wheel securely in place,
posing a fall hazard.

FGL Sports has received five reports of the wheel turning
independently to the handlebars. No injuries were reported.

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

Approximately 987 units of the affected scooters were sold at
Sport Chek, Sports Experts and Intersport across Canada.

The recalled scooters were sold between March 2015 and June 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Goodmen Australia PTY. Limited
              Shanghai
              CHINA

Distributor: FGL Sports Ltd.
             Calgary
             Alberta
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the affected SIMS scooter
and return them to their local Sport Chek, Sports Experts or
Intersport for a repair.

For more information, consumers may contact FGL Sports by
telephone at (403) 717-1400 extension 1861, Monday through Friday,
from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. MT, 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/unkeYU


FUTURE SEAFOODS: Recalls Oyster Products Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 14, 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: Future Seafoods Inc.
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Future Seafoods Inc. is recalling oysters from the marketplace due
to possible Salmonella contamination. Consumers should not consume
the recalled product described below.

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

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.

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

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

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size     Code(s) on product   UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----     ------------------   ---
  Future       Oysters       Various  Harvest / Process    None
  Seafoods                            date: 09/08/15
  Inc.                                Harvest area: PE9B


GIANT EAGLE: W.D. Pa. Judge Grants Motion to Dismiss "Gabriel"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States
District Court for Western District of Pennsylvania adopted the
Report & Recommendation as the opinion of the court and granted
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, ANDREW M. GABRIEL on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
GIANT EAGLE, INC., MARCKISOTTO MARKETS INC. doing business as
"EDGEWOOD GIANT EAGLE" or doing business as "GIANT EAGLE" or doing
business as "GIANT EAGLE PHARMACY #24", SHAKESPEARE STREET
ASSOCIATES GP LLC, doing business as "GIANT EAGLE" or doing
business as "SHAKESPEARE GIANT EAGLE" or doing business as "GIANT
EAGLE PHARMACY #17" and CVS PHARMACY, INC., doing business as
"CVS" or doing business as "CVS STORE #4091" Defendants, Case No.
14-0980.

Plaintiff Andrew M. Gabriel brings the action on behalf of himself
and other individuals whose identity protected health information
was used in a fraudulent and unauthorized manner to create
fraudulent prescriptions in order to obtain controlled substances
at the pharmacies of defendants Giant Eagle, Inc., Marckisotto
Markets, Inc., Shakespeare Street Associates GP LLC, and CVS
Pharmacy, Inc.  Defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.  The case was referred to a United States
Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings in accordance with the
Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1), and Rules 72.C
and 72.D of the Local Rules of Court for Magistrate Judges. On
July 9, 2015, the magistrate judge issued a report and
recommendation (R&R) in which she recommended that defendants'
motions to dismiss the third amended complaint be granted in their
entirety with prejudice.

Plaintiff objects to the R&R and reiterates his arguments made in
connection with his original opposition to the motion to dismiss.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated August 19, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/gl0Ywufrom Leagle.com, Judge Conti held that
plaintiff failed to set forth factual allegations in the complaint
sufficient for the District court to infer that there is a
plausible prima facie case with respect to the claims alleged, or
lacked standing to do so and to to allege any compensable injury
or damages, and the alleged harm was neither compensable nor
proximately caused by defendants.

Andrew Gabriel is represented by Brian Samuel Malkin, Esq. --
bmalkin@ferencelaw.com -- FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC

Defendant are represented by Bernard D. Marcus, Esq. --
marcus@marcus-shapira.com -- James S. Larrimer, Esq. --
larrimer@marcus-shapira.com -- Stephen S. Zubrow, Esq. --
zubrow@marcus-shapira.com -- MARCUS & SHAPIRA


GREAT LAKES: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Tomorrow
-------------------------------------------------------
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the final
approval hearing in a class action settlement is scheduled for
September 18, 2015.

On March 19, 2013, the Company and three of its current and former
executives were sued in a securities class action in the Northern
District of Illinois captioned United Union of Roofers,
Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02115. The
lawsuit, which was brought on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's securities between August 7, 2012 and March 14, 2013,
primarily alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements regarding the recognition of revenue in the demolition
segment and with regard to the Company's internal control over
financial reporting. This suit was filed following the Company's
announcement on March 14, 2013 that it would restate its second
and third quarter 2012 financial statements.

Two additional, similar lawsuits captioned Boozer v. Great Lakes
Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-02339, and
Connors v. Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Corporation et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-02450, were filed in the Northern District of Illinois on
March 28, 2013, and April 2, 2013, respectively. These three
actions were consolidated and recaptioned In re Great Lakes Dredge
& Dock Corporation Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-02115,
on June 10, 2013. The plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint on August 9, 2013, which the defendants moved to dismiss
on October 8, 2013.

After briefing and oral argument by the parties, the court entered
an order on October 21, 2014 denying that motion to dismiss. The
parties agreed to a settlement, which is expected to be paid by
insurance. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June
12, 2015, and the final approval hearing is scheduled for
September 18, 2015.


GUITAR CENTER: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 15 USC Sec. 1 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Carlos T. Bea of the United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district court
dismissing plaintiffs' claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act,
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1.

The appellate case is captioned, IN RE: MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS AND
EQUIPMENT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, JOSHUA RAMSEY; DAVID GIAMBUSSO;
DWAYNE WIGGINS; JASON PARADISE; KATE MACWILLIAMSON; NIRANJAN
PARIKH; PAULA JENNINGS; RYAN J. BIGG; MARK O'LEARY; CYNTHIA
SEPULVEDA; RUSSELL D. MELTON; JERRY JOST; KEVIN GAGNEPAIN; JOSH
PEARSON; JOHN PEARSON; MARY PEARSON; COLBY GILES; DAVID KEEL;
WILLIAM S. POFF; ALLEN HALE; DANIEL T. SMITH; GERALD LOGSDON;
AUGUSTIN CERVANTES; BENN FELTHEIMER; BRYAN ROACH; BRANDON
ARMSTRONG; RICHARD TABAS; ALLEN HALE; KENNETH MANYIN; RUSSELL D.
MELTON; JON BANDISH; MARK O'LEARY; ALEX TELLER; SCOTT COOK; JOSHUA
SEILER; JOHAN EDWARD RIGOR; WALTER WITHERSPOON; ROBERT LESKO;
SUZANNE ONDRE; LISA PRITCHETT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF MUSIC MERCHANTS, INC.; GUITAR CENTER, INC.; GUITAR
CENTER STORES, INC.; FENDER MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS CORP.; YAMAHA
CORPORATION OF AMERICA; GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION; HOSHINO,
U.S.A., INC.; KAMAN MUSIC CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case
No. 12-56674.

Plaintiffs, a putative class, purchased guitars and guitar
amplifiers from defendant Guitar Center, Inc., the largest retail
seller of musical instruments in the United States. In their
present complaint, plaintiffs allege that between 2004 and 2009,
Guitar Center and the manufacturer defendants -- along with
defendant trade association National Association of Music
Merchants (NAMM) -- conspired to implement and enforce minimum
advertised-price policies (MAP policies) that fixed the minimum
price at which any retailer could advertise the manufacturers'
guitars and guitar amplifiers. According to plaintiffs, these MAP
policies tended to raise retail prices and restrain competition.
Plaintiffs allege that each manufacturer agreed with Guitar Center
to adopt MAP policies and that the manufacturers agreed among
themselves to adopt the MAP policies proposed by Guitar Center.
Plaintiffs claim that the collection of agreements violates Sec. 1
of the Sherman Act and the antitrust laws of Massachusetts and
California.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' first consolidated class-
action complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Defendants argued that plaintiffs' allegations were insufficiently
detailed to satisfy the requirements of specificity and
plausibility that the Supreme Court outlined in the case, Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 557 (2007).

The district court granted the motion to dismiss in part but
permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed
the operative complaint. Defendants again moved to dismiss the
complaint for its failure to state a claim. The district court
granted defendants' motion and dismissed plaintiffs' Sec. 1 claim
with prejudice for failure to satisfy the pleading standard set
forth in Twombly.

On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that (1) defendants shared a common
motive to conspire; (2) the manufacturer defendants acted against
their self-interest; (3) the manufacturer defendants
simultaneously adopted substantially similar MAP policies; (4) the
FTC's investigation and consent decree; (5) the defendants'
participation in NAMM; and (6) retail prices for guitars and
guitar amplifiers rose during the class period as the number of
units sold fell.

In his Opinion dated August 25, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/1vPMnQfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bea found that the
Plaintiffs have failed to allege enough nonconclusory facts to
support the plausible inference that any agreement among the
manufacturers was made.

Judge Bea was joined by Circuit Judges Harry Pregerson, and
Richard C. Tallman on the appellate court panel.

Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel C. Girard, Esq. --
dcg@GirardGibbs.com -- Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. --
ecp@GirardGibbs.com -- Amanda Steiner, Esq. -- as@GirardGibbs.com
& Scott M. Grzenczyk Esq. -- smg@GirardGibbs.com -- GIRARD GIBBS
LLP

Defendants are represented by Margaret M. Zwisler, Esq. --
margaret.zwisler@lw.com -- J. Scott Ballenger, Esq. --
scott.ballenger@lw.com -- Christopher S. Yates, Esq. --
chris.yates@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP


GRANDE COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
DJ Neill, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Grande Communications Networks LLC d/b/a Grande
Communications, and Karen Broach d/b/a Broadband Staffing
Solutions, Case No. 1:15-cv-00792 (W.D. Tex., September 9, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are involved in the business of installation of
broadband telecommunications and telephone systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      J. Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: www.overtimelawyer.com


HEALTH NET: Supreme Court Requested Plaintiffs to File Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Military
and Family Life Counseling Program Putative Class and Collective
Actions, the U.S. Supreme Court requested that the Plaintiffs file
a response to the petition, which was due August 24, 2015.

The Company said, "We are a defendant in three related litigation
matters pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Northern District of
California") relating to the independent contractor classification
of counselors ("MFLCs") who contracted with our subsidiary, MHN
Government Services, Inc. ("MHNGS"), to provide short-term, non-
medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the
country under our Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly
Military and Family Life Consultants) program."

"On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action
in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County
against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN
Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves
and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have
performed services as independent contractors in the state of
Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim
that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under
Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that
they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt
employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory
penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. We moved to compel the
case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on September
30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The Washington Supreme Court
affirmed the trial court's decision on August 15, 2013. On
February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to
the Class Action Fairness Act.

"On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington
action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed
collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former
MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors
nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege
misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay,
statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest. They also seek
penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has
since transferred the case to the Northern District of California
to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2,
2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. ("MHN") (also
a subsidiary).

"The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the
FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state
laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico,
Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October
24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations
for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado,
Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey,
North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

"On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel arbitration in the
Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion
on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8,
2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to
allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The
court stayed all other proceedings pending an outcome in the Ninth
Circuit appeal.

"On December 17, 2014, a divided (2-1) Ninth Circuit panel
affirmed the district court's decision denying our motion to
compel arbitration. On January 14, 2015, we petitioned for
rehearing en banc, and the Ninth Circuit denied the petition on
February 9, 2015. On February 13, 2015, the Ninth Circuit granted
our motion to stay the proceedings, and the proceedings will
remain stayed until the final disposition by the U.S. Supreme
Court of our petition for a writ of certiorari. Our petition for
writ of certiorari was filed on June 10, 2015.

On July 23, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court requested that the
Plaintiffs file a response to the petition, which was due August
24, 2015.

"On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred
to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two
FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the
suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two
alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to
arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs' class claims and California
Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court
granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative
motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted.

"This suit will also remain stayed until the U.S. Supreme Court's
disposition of our June 10, 2015 petition for writ of certiorari.
We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims;
however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties."


HOLLYWOOD PARK: Sued Over Failure to Provide Workers Meal Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
John K. Drayton, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Hollywood Park Casino Company Inc., LAX Property, LLC,
d/b/a Hollywood Park Casino, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. BC5939355 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide lawful and
uninterrupted 30-minute meal periods to employees who worked more
than five hours per day.

The Defendants own and operate a casino in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric A. Boyajlan, Esq.
      Heather Davis, Esq.
      Cody L. Payne, Esq.
      PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
      136 Main St., Suite A
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 290-3095
      Facsimile: (866) 264-7880


HOME DEPOT: Recalls LED Downlights Lights Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 8, 2015
Posting date: September 8, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54768

This recall involves TCP Connected LED Downlights Lights.  They
are 5" or 6", 11 Watt white coloured recessed LED lights.  The
model number and date code are listed on the black plastic housing
at the back of the light.

The following model numbers in Canada are included in this recall:

  TCP Item Number     Date Code
  ---------------     ---------
  CD611LCF            1424217
                      1441217
  CD611LCDLF          1424217

An incorrectly assembled internal part in the unit may create a
risk of injury due to electrical shock hazard during installation.

Neither Health Canada nor Technical Consumer Products, Inc. has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries to
Canadians related to the use of these products.

Approximately 1697 units were sold to consumers at Home Depot
stores in Canada. Approximately 24,438 units were sold to
retailers in the United States, of which approximately 2000 were
sold to consumers.

The recalled products were sold from June 2014 to June 2015 in
Canada.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Technical Consumer Products, Inc.
              Aurora
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: The Home Depot of Canada Inc.
             Toronto
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately discontinue use of the product.
Consumers should disconnect the power and uninstall the product.

Consumers with affected products should contact Technical Consumer
Products, Inc. by telephone at 1-800-397-2864 or visit the firm's
website and click on "Recall" to obtain a replacement product.

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/HTwoDU


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: Motion for Interlocutory Appeal Allowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Huntington Bancshares Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted the Bank's motion for
an interlocutory appeal of the district court's decision.

The Bank is a defendant in a putative class action filed on
October 15, 2013. The plaintiffs filed the action in West Virginia
state court on behalf of themselves and other West Virginia
mortgage loan borrowers who allege they were charged late fees in
violation of West Virginia law and the loan documents. Plaintiffs
seek statutory civil penalties, compensatory damages and
attorney's fees. The Bank removed the case to federal court,
answered the complaint, and, on January 17, 2014, filed a motion
for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that West Virginia law is
preempted by federal law and therefore does not apply to the Bank.

Following further briefing by the parties, the federal district
court denied the Bank's motion for judgment on the pleadings on
September 26, 2014. On June 8, 2015, the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals granted the Bank's motion for an interlocutory appeal of
the district court's decision.


IBERIABANK: "Haas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Haas and Shellie McCall, individually and on behalf all
others similarly situated v. Iberiabank, Iberiabank Corp.,
Florida Bank Group, Inc. n/k/a Iberiabank, Case No. 8:15-cv-02087-
JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., September 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants offer commercial and retail banking products and
services to customers in Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Arkansas,
Tennessee and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA
      1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 477-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 477-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              pmeireles@shavitzlaw.com


ILLINOIS: Dept. of The Lottery Sued Over Failure to Pay Winners
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rhonda Rasche and Daniel Chasteen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. B.R. Lane, Acting Director of the
Illinois Department of the Lottery, the Illinois Department of The
Lottery, the Illinois Lottery Control Board, and
Northstar Lottery Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-07918 (N.D. Ill.,
September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to make payouts due and owing to the Illinois Lottery Winners.

The Illinois Department of The Lottery and The Illinois Lottery
Control Board are governmental entities of the state of Illinois.

Northstar Lottery Group, LLC is a provider of operations
management, technology solutions and innovative lottery products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Eleonora P. Khazanova, Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      Nicholas J. Hagman, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              ella@attorneyzim.com
              matt@attorneyzim.com
              nick@attorneyzim.com


I LOVE: "Velasco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nicolas Velasco and other similarly situated individuals v. I Love
Sushi, Inc., Supavee Nitiwatana, and Surasak Kamkajon, Case No.
0:15-cv-61901-WJZ (S.D. Fla., September 9, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Broward County,
Florid.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: apetisco@rgpattornneys.com


IOS/PCI: "Raleigh" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Raleigh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. IOS/PCI, LLC d/b/a Inspection Oilfield Services, Case
No. 4:15-cv-02594 (S.D. Tex., September 9, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

IOS/PCI, LLC is a diversified company providing oil and gas
related services and equipment in areas such as casing, drill
pipe, drill tools, tubing, machine shop and fabrication, and
mobile services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


IOWA SELECT: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------
Iowa Select Herbs, LLC (the "Company") is conducting a consumer
recall for inventory sold between January 1, 2015 and August 17,
2015 pursuant to a Consent Decree issued by the federal court for
the Northern District of Iowa. The Consent Decree was issued
because the Company manufactured and distributed unapproved new
drugs, misbranded drugs, misbranded dietary supplements, and
dietary supplements not manufactured in compliance with the
current Good Manufacturing Practice regulations for Dietary
Supplements, and therefore adulterated. There are no reports to
date of side effects or adverse events.

The recalled products are herbal extracts marketed under the Iowa
Select Herbs brand in either an alcohol or alcohol free (A/F)
solution packaged in various sizes from 1oz to 1 gallon. The
following lots are being recalled:

  PRODUCT       QUANTITY**     LOT          EXP. DATE
  -------       ----------     ---          ---------
  CHAPARRAL     2              31467        5/19
  CILANTRO      2              32446        4/20
  CYPRESS       1              06305L12     4/20 and 9/19
                               and
                               6030542
  RASBEERRY     1              19183 and    4/20 and 12/19
                               30614
  SAGE          1              32880 and    4/20 and 12/19
                               32282
  WHITE WILLOW  2              32973        4/20
  ALISMA        1              130601H040   2/19
  ELDERBERRIES  3              33223 and    5/19 and 6/19
                               19847
  FENUGREEK     39             32684        11/19
  GOLDENSEAL    3              32996        9/19
  RHODIOLA      1              131101H504   12/19
  WHITE PEONY   80             111001H209   2/20
  EXTRACT
  YOHIMBE       4              20508 and    4/18
                               32533
  ST JOHNS      1              19892        2/19
  WORT
  PANAX GINSENG 1              8958         12/19
  PAPAYA LEAF   36             unknown      unknown
  CAPSULES
  ZIZIPHUS      2              0515GF       8/19
  ACIA BERRY    10             22345        5/17
  ALFALFA       1              30464        2/19
  ALOE VERA     10             m10752       11/16
  ARNICA        10             30599        2/19
  FLOWERS
  ARTICHOKE     10             45894        5/17
  LEAF
  ASHWAGANDA    12             22349        5/19
  ASTRAGULUS    1              30900        5/19
  ATRACTYLODES  10             45811        5/17
  BEET ROOT     10             22351        8/19
  BLACK COHOSH  2              19972        8/19
  ROOT
  BOSWELLIA     2              209tc13      7/17
  SERRATA
  BROAD BEANS   1              15882         11/18
  BUCHU LEAF    1              30338         7/17
  CASCARA ROOT  1              17233         3/17
  CATS CLAW     1              31487         4/19
  CINNAMON      3              29792         5/19
  BARK
  CITRUS PEEL   1              55756         4/19
  CRANBERRY     1              76542         3/17
  CUDWEED       1              31796         3/17
  DAMIANA LEAF  2              31265         4/17
  FENNEL SEED   1              31001         4/20
  EXTRACT
  GINGER        1              33500         5/19
  GINGKO        1              30520         8/18
  GRAPESEED     3              32574         2/19
  GREEN TEA     1              32513         2/19
  HAWTHORNE     1              96483         2/20
  BERRY
  LOBELIA LEAF  1              31266         6/19
  MOMORDICA     1              58545F        6/19
  GALLON
  Nettle Leaf   4              56598         5/19
  (4oz)
  OREGANO       2              19976         5/18
  Organic       1              unknown       unknown
  Papaya Leaf
  POMEGRANATE   1              15114217282   unknown
  PROPOLIS      1              22386         8/18
  EXTRACT
  PSOREALEA     1              49697         2/19
  SEED
  REISHI        1              8427          2/20
  RHUBARB ROOT  1              30176         2/18
  SANGRE DE     1              32900         2/18
  GRADO
  SARSPARILLA   1              30709         7/19
  SCHIZNDRA     1              22389         7/18
  TUMERIC       1              37441         7/20
  VALERIAN      24             31-Mar        4/20
  ROOT EXTRACT
  YARROW        24              22396        7/18
  FLOWERS
  PAPAYA LEAF   999             33161;       4/20
  EXTRACT                       R1380ST;
  (Various sizes)               52972
  A BILBERRY    1               19889        5/19
  ACEROLA       10              32795        4/19
  BERRY
  ASTAGULUS     13              31685        5/19
  ROOT
  BAYBERRY      1               31186        4/20
  BILBERRY      10              19889        5/19
  LEAF
  BITTER MELON  1               58545F       5/19
  BLACK         1               64832        5/17
  CURRANT
  BLOOD ROOT    1               30746        5/19
  Burdock Root  24              20771        4/20
  Chamomile     10              31778        3/19
  Flowers
  CHICORY Root  2               55426 and    4/20
                                55910
  COLD BE GONE  300             87366        1/20
  (Various Sizes)
  Dandelion     26              324966       9/20
  Leaf
  DANDELION     21              30902;       4/20 and 9/19
  ROOT                          32945;
                                20792;
                                33154;
                                33583
  DULSE LEAF    2               22356        4/20
  ECHINACEA     6               32263        4/20
  PURP.
  (various sizes)
  ELEUTHERO     1               30469        12/19
  ROOT
  GARCINIA      4               21484        6/19
  FRUIT
  GINGER ROOT   22              31123 and    5/19
                                33500
  Graviola Leaf 17              22363        9/20
  GYMNEMA       28              m10866       2/19
  SYLVESTRE
  HIBISCUS      2               30763        3/19
  JERUSALEM     24              5514         5/19
  ARTICHOKE
  JEWEL WEED    4               17544800916  5/19
  JUNIPER       2               19836        5/19
  BERRY
  KAVA KAVA     29              30540 and    2/20
                                33660
  Lemon Balm    12              32700        2/20
  Leaf
  LICORICE ROOT 130             32698 and    2/20
                                33380
  MAGNOLIA BARK 2               PAS130828    4/20 and 5/19
  Marshmallow   3               30933        4/19
  Root
  MILK THISTLE  113             32358;       4/20 and 10/19;
  EXTRACT                       32964;       10/19;1019
  (various sizes)               631H42200122
  MUIRA PUAMA   22              R11165       1/20
  NETTLE LEAF   1               20769        5/19
  OATSTRAW      49              31953 and    9/19
                                33183
  OATSTRAW      60              31953 and    9/19
  EXTRACT                       33183
  OLIVE LEAF    42              32772        5/19
  EXTRACT
  Osha Root     35              32303        3/20
  Propolis      1               22386        8/18
  Resin
  Pygeum Bark   39              32407        12/19
  QUACK GRASS   2               20668        12/19
  Saw Palmetto  20              32654        9/19
  Berry
  Scullcap      3               32863        4/19
  SOLOMON SEAL  3               350150980313 2/19
                                and 32862
  SUMA ROOT     3               210535       2/19
  WORMSEED      25              0415AN01     7/20
  YUCCA ROOT    2              31990         2/19

**Quantity refers to the number of units distributed and not the
size of the unit (e.g. ounces or gallons).

The recalled products were sold nationwide between January 1, 2015
to August 17, 2015 to wholesalers and consumers using the
Company's website and through online marketplace websites, such as
Amazon and Ebay.

Iowa Select Herbs is notifying its wholesale and retail customers
through written correspondence. We urge consumers who have
purchased these products to immediately discontinue their use and
contact their physician if they have experienced any problems that
may be related to taking these products. The Company is advising
consumers to return the products to their place of purchase.
Consumers may also return products directly to Iowa Select Herbs.
Customers can call the Company at 319-826-1000 Monday through
Friday from 9:00 am - 5:00 pm CST for instructions on the return
and refund process.

Any adverse events or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting Program either online, by regular mail or by fax:

Online:
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/medwatch/index.cfm?action=r
eporting.home
Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at:
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Forms/UC
M163919.pdf. Mail to address on the preaddressed form.
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.


JJ MAA: Sued Over Failure to Pay Medical Expenses Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
Janice Butler v. JJ MAA, Inc., d/b/a Jamba Juice and Hartford Fire
Insurance Company, Case No. 2015L0091B7 (D. Ill., September 8,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
applicable coverage for medical expenses incurred by individuals
injured at the Jamba Juice premises.

JJ MAA, Inc. owns and operates a business premises located at 1322
South Halsted Street.

Hartford Fire Insurance Company is an insurance company conducting
and doing business within the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Langendorf, Esq.
      ROBERT A. LANGENDORF, P.C.
      134 North Lasalle Street, Suite 1515
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 782-5933
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1771
      E-mail: robert@langendorfpc.com


KBR INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Consolidated Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
KBR, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, In re KBR, Inc.
Securities Litigation, the Company awaits a ruling on the motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

The Company said, "Lead plaintiffs, Arkansas Public Employees
Retirement System and Local 58/NECA Funds, seek class action
status on behalf of our shareholders, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company, our former chief executive officer, our
current and former chief financial officers, and our former chief
accounting officer, arising out of the restatement of our 2013
annual financial statements, and seek undisclosed damages. The
case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Master File No. 14-cv-01287."

"We intend to vigorously defend against these claims and filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint for failure to plead
particularized facts supporting a strong inference of scienter on
the part of the individual defendants. Oral argument on the motion
to dismiss was held on March 5, 2015 and we await a ruling on this
motion. At this early stage, we are not yet able to determine the
likelihood of loss, if any, arising from this matter."


KEY ENERGY: Hearing on Class Certification Motion Held
------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a hearing on the class
certification motion was scheduled for August 10, 2015.

Between May of 2013 and June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class
actions and one enforcement action) were filed in California
involving alleged violations of California's wage and hour laws.
In general, the lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including
overtime and minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon
employment terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse
reasonable and necessary business expenses, failure to provide
wage statements consistent with California law, and violations of
the California meal and break period laws, among other claims. Two
of the five cases have been consolidated in United States District
Court for the Central District of California. A hearing on the
class certification motion was scheduled for August 10, 2015.

One of the remaining cases has been stayed pending outcome of the
class certification motion. The fourth case is waiting for a
decision regarding whether it will move forward in California
state court or in federal court. The fifth case is an enforcement
action for civil penalties based on California's Private Attorneys
General Act, which is pending in California state court.

"We have investigated the claims in all five lawsuits, and intend
to vigorously defend them. At this time, we cannot estimate any
possible loss or range of loss," the Company said.


KEY ENERGY: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss two class action lawsuits and another Defendant
filed a Joinder in Motion and Motion to Dismiss on the same date.

In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging
violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5, Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Those lawsuits were styled as follows: Sean
Cady, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J.
Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368, filed on August 15, 2014; and
Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J.
Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4.14-cv-2403, filed on August
21, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, the Court entered an order that consolidated
the two lawsuits into one action, along with any future filed tag-
along actions brought on behalf of purchasers of Key Energy
Services, Inc. common stock. The order also appointed Inter-Local
Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the class action and
approved the law firm of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as
lead counsel for the consolidated class and Kendall Law Group,
LLP, as local counsel for the consolidated class.

The lead plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on
February 13, 2015. Among other changes, the consolidated amended
complaint adds Taylor M. Whichard III and Newton W. Wilson III as
defendants and expands the class period to include the timeframe
between September 4, 2012 and July 17, 2014.

Defendants Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, J.
Marshall Dodson and Newton W. Wilson III filed a Motion to Dismiss
on April 14, 2015. Defendant Taylor M. Whichard III filed a
Joinder in Motion and Motion to Dismiss on the same date.

"Because this case is in the early stages, we cannot predict the
outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible
loss or range of loss," the Company said.


KEY ENERGY: Defending Class Action in Corpus Christi, TX
--------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in March 2015, two
collective action lawsuits were filed in the Southern District of
Texas, Corpus Christi Division, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

"We have answered the lawsuits and asserted affirmative defenses.
Because the cases are in the early stages, we cannot predict the
outcomes at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any
possible loss or range of loss for either case," the Company said.


KEY ENERGY: Collective Action Lawsuit Dismissed Without Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in April 2015, a
collective action lawsuit was filed in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees, alleging violations of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act and the FLSA. This lawsuit was dismissed, without prejudice,
on April 30, 2015.


KEY ENERGY: Defending Class Action in Houston, TX
-------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in May 2015, a class
and collective action lawsuit was filed in the Southern District
of Texas, Houston Division, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, alleging violations of the FLSA and the
New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

"We have answered the lawsuit and asserted affirmative defenses.
Because the case is in the early stages, we cannot predict the
outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible
loss or range of loss of this case," the Company said.


KEYSTONE: Recalls Multiple Trailer Models Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Other
Units affected: 372
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015393TC
ID number: 2015393
Manufacturer recall number: 15-243

Certain travel trailers may have been manufactured with a
defective transfer switch. Travel trailer operation in high
ambient temperatures could cause the wiring in the switch to fail
and overheat increasing the risk of fire causing injury and/or
damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the transfer
switch.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  KEYSTONE     MONTANA      2008
  KEYSTONE     EVEREST      2008
  KEYSTONE     RAPTOR       2008
  KEYSTONE     CHALLENGER   2008
  KEYSTONE     FUZION       2008
  KEYSTONE     BIG SKY      2008


KLX ENERGY: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Aguilar" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gonzalo Aguilar, Christopher Rodriguez, Christopher Fierro, Martin
Contreras, Ricardo Montalvo, and Isaiah Rocha on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. KLX Energy
Services, LLC and Cornell Wireline Services, LLC d/b/a CWES, LLC,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00781-FB (W.D. Tex., September 9, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are in the business of providing services to the
oil and gas company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 331.1800
      Facsimile: (806) 398.9095
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
              rachael@youngfirm.com


LIBERTY GLOBAL: Liberty Puerto Rico Continues to Face Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Global plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Liberty Puerto Rico
continues to face class action claim filed in Puerto Rico.

The Company said, "In November 2012, we completed a business
combination that resulted in, among other matters, the combination
of our then operating subsidiary in Puerto Rico with San Juan
Cable, LLC dba OneLink Communications (OneLink). In connection
with this transaction (the OneLink Acquisition), Liberty Puerto
Rico, as the surviving entity, became a party to certain claims
previously asserted by the incumbent telephone operator against
OneLink based on alleged conduct of OneLink that occurred prior to
the OneLink Acquisition (the PRTC Claim). This claim included an
allegation that OneLink acted in an anticompetitive manner in
connection with a series of legal and regulatory proceedings it
initiated against the incumbent telephone operator in Puerto Rico
beginning in 2009."

"In March 2014, a separate class action claim was filed in Puerto
Rico (the Class Action Claim) containing allegations substantially
similar to those asserted in the PRTC Claim, but alleging ongoing
injury on behalf of a consumer class (as opposed to harm to a
competitor). The former owners of OneLink have partially
indemnified us for any losses we may incur in connection with the
PRTC Claim up to a specified maximum amount. However, the
indemnity does not cover any potential losses resulting from the
Class Action Claim.

"Liberty Puerto Rico has recorded a provision and a related
indemnification asset representing its best estimate of the net
loss that it may incur upon the ultimate resolution of the PRTC
Claim. While Liberty Puerto Rico expects that the net amount
required to satisfy these contingencies will not materially differ
from the estimated amount it has accrued, no assurance can be
given that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have
an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or
financial position in any given period."


LOS ANGELES, CA: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Provide CUT Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
T-Mobile West v. City of Los Angeles, and Does 1 through 20, Case
No. BC594114 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015), asserts that The City
has illegally refused to grant the Plaintiffs refund requests for
Communications Users Tax ("CUT") collected and remitted on Roaming
Charges.

City of Los Angeles is a charter city of the State of California,
having adopted a charter as authorized by the Constitution of the
State of California, Article XL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Colker, Esq.
      Hugh Goodwin, Esq.
      Henry Cheng, Esq.
      DLA PIPER LLP
      2000 University Avenue
      East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2214
      Telephone: (650) 833-2000
      Facsimile: (650) 833-2001
      E-mail: david.colker@dlapiper.com
              hugh.goodwin@dlapiper.com
              henry.cheng@dlapiper.com


MASIMO CORPORATION: District Court Granted Joint Request
--------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the District Court has
granted the parties' joint request that the stay remain in place
pending a decision on the appeal.

On January 2, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California by Physicians Healthsource, Inc. The
complaint alleges that the Company sent unsolicited facsimile
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005
and related regulations. The complaint seeks $500 for each alleged
violation, treble damages if the District Court finds the alleged
violations to be knowing, plus interest, costs and injunctive
relief.

On April 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to stay the case
pending a decision on a related petition filed by the Company with
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). On May 22, 2014, the
District Court granted the motion and stayed the case pending a
ruling by the FCC on the petition. On October 30, 2014, the FCC
granted some of the relief and denied some of the relief requested
in the petition. Both parties appealed the FCC's decision on the
petition. On November 25, 2014, the District Court granted the
parties' joint request that the stay remain in place pending a
decision on the appeal.

The Company believes it has good and substantial defenses to the
claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.
The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will occur or
to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss
has been accrued by the Company as of the date of filing of this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.


MASIMO CORPORATION: Motion for Summary Judgment Currently Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Masimo Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that the Company's motion for
summary judgment is currently pending before the Court.

On January 31, 2014, an amended putative class action complaint
was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama by and on behalf of two participants
in the Surfactant, Positive Pressure, and Oxygenation Randomized
Trial at the University of Alabama. On April 21, 2014, a further
amended complaint was filed adding a third participant. The
complaint alleges product liability and negligence claims in
connection with pulse oximeters the Company modified and provided
at the request of study investigators for use in the trial. A
previous version of the complaint also alleged a wrongful death
claim, which the Court dismissed on January 22, 2014. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, interest, attorney
fees and injunctive and other relief.

On January 30, 2015, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment, which is currently pending before the Court. The Company
believes it has good and substantial defenses to the remaining
claims, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail.
The Company is unable to determine whether any loss will occur or
to estimate the range of such loss; therefore, no amount of loss
has been accrued by the Company as of the date of filing of this
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.


MATSON INC: To Contest Class Actions on Horizon Lines Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Matson, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
4, 2015, that in the event a settlement does not resolve class
action lawsuits related to a merger with Horizon Lines, Inc.,
intend to contest them vigorously.

On November 25, 2014, a putative stockholder class action
complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Joshua Loken v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 10399-VCL (the "Loken Action"). The complaint names as
defendants each member of the Company's Board (the "Individual
Defendants"), the Company, and Matson Navigation Company, Inc.,
Matson, Inc., and Hogan Acquisition, Inc. (collectively, "the
Matson Companies"). The complaint generally alleges that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good
faith, loyalty and due care when they negotiated and authorized
the execution of the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with
Matson and that each of the Company and the Matson Companies aided
and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The relief
sought includes, among other things, an injunction prohibiting the
consummation of the Merger, or, in the alternative, rescission of
the Merger Agreement in the event the Merger is consummated, with
damages of an unspecified amount.

On December 1, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned J. Cola Inc. v. Horizon Lines, Inc., et al., Case No.
10412-VCL (the "J. Cola Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson
Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty
and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of
the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each
of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015,
Plaintiff in the J. Cola Action filed an amended complaint, adding
a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary duty of
disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014
Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material
information and/or included materially misleading information. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the
Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount.

On December 2, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Finn Kristiansen v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case No.
10418-VCL (the "Kristiansen Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson
Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty
and due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of
the November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each
of the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. On January 9, 2015,
Plaintiff in the Kristiansen Action filed an amended complaint,
adding a cause of action for breach of the directors' fiduciary
duty of disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23,
2014 Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material
information and/or included materially misleading information. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the
Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount.

On January 29, 2015, a putative stockholder class action complaint
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Frederick Schwartz v. Jeffrey A. Brodsky, et al., Case
No. 10594-VCL (the "Schwartz Action"). The complaint names as
defendants the Individual Defendants, the Company, and the Matson
Companies. The complaint generally alleges that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty,
due care when they negotiated and authorized the execution of the
November 11, 2014 Merger Agreement with Matson and that each of
the Company and the Matson Companies aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint also alleges
that the Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duty of
disclosure in connection with the Company's December 23, 2014
Proxy Statement, which Plaintiff claims omitted material
information and/or included materially misleading information. The
relief sought includes, among other things, an injunction
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, or, in the
alternative, rescission of the Merger Agreement in the event the
Merger is consummated, with damages of an unspecified amount.

On February 5, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware issued an order consolidating the Loken Action, J. Cola
Action, Kristiansen Action, and Schwartz Action into "In re
Horizon Lines, Inc. Stockholders Litigation," Consolidated C.A.
10399-VCL (the "Consolidated Action").

On February 13, 2015, the defendants and the plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action reached an agreement in principle, subject to
the court's approval (the "Memorandum of Understanding"),
providing for the settlement and dismissal, with prejudice, of the
Consolidated Action. Pursuant to such Memorandum of Understanding,
the Company agreed to make additional disclosures to the Company's
stockholders through a supplement to the Company's Definitive
Proxy Statement and the Company and Matson agreed to amend the
Merger Agreement in order to reduce the amount of the termination
fee payable by the Company to Matson under certain circumstances
pursuant to Section 7.3(a) of the Merger Agreement from $17.1
million to $9.5 million.

On February 13, 2015, the Company, Matson and Merger Sub entered
into Amendment No. 1 to the Merger Agreement. The Company and its
Board of Directors believe that the claims in the Actions are
entirely without merit and, in the event the settlement does not
resolve them, intend to contest them vigorously.


MEDISTAT RX: Recalls Sterile Drug Products Due to Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is alerting health care
professionals and patients of a voluntary recall of all non-
expired drug products produced for sterile use and distributed
nationwide by Medistat RX, LLC, in Foley, Alabama, due to possible
contamination. The recalled products were distributed between
November 1, 2014, and September 3, 2015.

Contaminated drugs put patients at risk of serious infection.
Health care professionals should immediately check their medical
supplies, quarantine any drug products marketed as sterile from
Medistat, and not administer them to patients. Administration of a
non-sterile drug product intended to be sterile may result in
serious and potentially life-threatening infections or death.

During an ongoing inspection, FDA investigators and Alabama state
inspectors observed significant deficiencies that raise concerns
about Medistat's ability to assure the sterility of drug products
that it produced. Medistat voluntarily ceased sterile compounding
operations on September 1, 2015.

FDA has received reports of several adverse events that are
potentially associated with drug products made by Medistat.
Patients who have received any drug products produced by Medistat
and have concerns should contact their health care professional.
FDA encourages health care professionals and patients to report
adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting
program:

Complete and submit the report online at
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm; or
Download and complete the form, then submit it via fax at 1-800-
FDA-0178.

The FDA will continue to work closely with the Alabama Board of
Pharmacy to protect the public health.

FDA previously inspected Medistat in September 2014 and issued a
Form FDA 483. Medistat is registered under section 503B of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as an outsourcing
facility. The Drug Quality and Security Act, signed into law on
November 27, 2013, added a new section 503B to the FDCA. Under
section 503B, a compounder can elect to become an outsourcing
facility. Outsourcing facilities:

Must comply with current good manufacturing practice requirements;

Will be subject to inspection by FDA according to a risk-based
schedule;

and Must meet certain other requirements, such as reporting
adverse events and providing FDA with certain information about
the products they compound.


MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Faces "Parshall" Suit Over Proposed AOL Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Parshall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Millennial Media, Inc., et al., Case No. 11485
(September 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Millennial Media, Inc. to enjoin a proposed
transaction to which Millennial will be acquired by AOL, Inc.
through a flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Millennial Media, Inc. is an advertising company that places
display ads on mobile devices.

AOL, Inc. operates a media technology company with its corporate
headquarters located at 770 Broadway, New York, New York 10003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MORGAN STANLEY: Class Action Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in the Class
Action Litigation filed an amended complaint.

Beginning in December 2013, several foreign exchange dealers
(including the Company and certain affiliates) were named as
defendants in multiple purported antitrust class actions most of
which have now been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled In Re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust
Litigation.

On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint generally
alleging that defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix, maintain
or make artificial prices for key benchmark rates, to manipulate
bid/ask spreads, and, by their behavior in the over-the-counter
market, to thereby cause corresponding manipulation in the foreign
exchange futures market. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief as
well as treble damages in an unspecified amount.


MSE TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Cervantes, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. MSE Technologies, LLC a/k/a Micro Solutions
Enterprises, Clover Technologies Group, LLC, Wazana Brothers
International, Inc., and Does 1 to 100, Inclusive, Case No. BC
594130 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay wages for all hours worked at
minimum wage due to their policy, practice, and procedure of
rounding or shaving the Plaintiff and similarly situated non-
exempt hourly employees' daily hours worked.

The Defendants are producers of OEM-alternative printer
cartridges.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces DNW Suit Over Sunday Afternoon Games
-------------------------------------------------------------
DNW Foods Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC,
DirecTV, LLC, Direct TV Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-07095 (C.D.
Cal., September 9, 2015), arises out of the alleged
anticompetitive agreement between the Defendants whereby the NFL
provided DirecTV with the exclusive right to show the live
broadcasts of Sunday afternoon NFL games out of market, thereby
providing DirecTV with a monopoly on the distribution of such
games.

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

DirecTV, LLC and Direct TV Holdings LLC are providers of digital
television entertainment in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen R. Basser, Esq.
      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      One America Plaza
      600 West Broadway, Suite 900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-874
      E-mail: sbasser@barrack.com
              sward@barrack.com

         - and -

      Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
      Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
      BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
      Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street, Suite 3300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
      E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
              jgittleman@barrack.com


NUCOR STEEL: Class Certification Denied in N.D. Ohio Case
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Zack Zouhary of the United States District Court
for District of Ohio denied Plaintiffs' motion to certify class
with prejudice as to Rule 23(b)(2) certification in the case
captioned, Richard Grubb, Individually and on behalf of a Class,
Plaintiff, v. Nucor Steel Marion, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:14-
CV 158.

Plaintiffs Richard Grubb and Sheila Totaro live near Defendant
Nucor Steel Marion, Inc.'s (Nucor) Marion, Ohio steel mill.
Plaintiffs allege the Mill's electric arc furnace and slag
processing operation "shower" Plaintiffs' nearby properties with
manganese. Because manganese is potentially harmful to human
health, Plaintiffs say the Mill's emissions support a range of
tort claims.

Plaintiffs move to certify a class of all persons who, as of April
2012, resided in an area surrounding the Mill "that is subject to
an average annual ambient concentration of at least .07 micrograms
(or larger) of manganese per cubic meter". Plaintiffs submitted
materials in support the motion such as: (1) district court slip
opinions in other cases; (2) (2) a map of the proposed class area;
and (3) a PowerPoint slide deck and journal article, discussing
health effects of manganese based on studies with no connection to
the Mill.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated August 24, 2015
available at http://is.gd/nfPFeWfrom Leagle.com, Judge Zouhary
held that Plaintiffs have not carried their burden of showing
actual compliance with Rule 23  and that the Rule 23(b)(2)
certification is inappropriate where "monetary relief is not
incidental to the injunctive or declaratory relief.

Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas J. Connick, Esq. --
tconnick@connicklawllc.com -- CONNICK LAW

          - and -

Thomas A. Barni, Esq.
DINN, HOCHMAN & POTTER
5910 Landerbrook Dr # 200,
Cleveland, OH 44124,
Tel:(440)446-1100

Nucor Steel Marion, Inc. is represented by Marc J. Kessler, Esq.
-- mjkessler@hahnlaw.com -- Derek E. Diaz, Esq. --
ddiaz@hahnlaw.com -- HAHN, LOESER & PARKS


OFFICE DEPOT: Defendants Need Not Respond to Del. Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that the parties have agreed
that the defendants need not respond to the current complaint in
the consolidated class action lawsuit.

On February 4, 2015, Staples and Office Depot entered into the
Staples Merger Agreement under which the companies would combine
in a stock and cash transaction. On February 9, 2015, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed by purported Office Depot
shareholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
("Court") challenging the transaction and alleging that the
defendant companies -- Office Depot, Staples, Merger Sub, and
Starboard Value LP -- and individual members of Office Depot's
Board of Directors violated applicable laws by breaching their
fiduciary duties and/or aiding and abetting such breaches. The
plaintiffs in David Raul, v. Office Depot, Inc. et al. seek, among
other things, injunctive relief and rescission, as well as fees
and costs.

Subsequently, eight other lawsuits were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware making similar allegations,
namely Beth Koeneke v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Jamison Miller
v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Eric R. Gilbert v. Office Depot,
Inc. et al., The Feivel and Helene Gottlieb Defined Benefit
Pension Plan v. Office Depot, et al., Charles Miller v. Smith et
al., David Max v. Office Depot, Inc. et al., Patrick Connors v.
Office Depot, Inc. and Steve Renous v. Smith et al.

The Court subsequently consolidated all of the Delaware cases and
named Jamison Miller and Steve Renous as co-plaintiffs and ordered
the plaintiffs to file an amended consolidated complaint. The
consolidated case is named In re Office Depot, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation Consolidated, C.A. No. 10655-CB. After limited
discovery, the plaintiffs and defendants agreed on certain
additional disclosures to the Company's definitive proxy statement
filed on May 18, 2015, which were made in an 8-K filing on June 5,
2015, and the plaintiffs withdrew from the calendar their planned
motion to preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger.

The parties have agreed that the defendants need not respond to
the current complaint.


OFFICE DEPOT: Motion to Dismiss Florida Lawsuits Granted
--------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that Office Depot's motion
to dismiss the Florida lawsuits for improper venue has been
granted.

In February 2015, two lawsuits were filed in Palm Beach County
Circuit Court, namely Keny Petit-Frere v. Office Depot, Inc., et
al. and John Sweatman v. Office Depot, Inc., et al. making the
same allegations as in the Delaware actions. The lawsuits
generally sought injunctive relief enjoining the consummation of
the transaction, rescission of the transaction in the event it is
consummated, damages, fees, costs, and other remedies. Office
Depot filed a motion to dismiss the Florida lawsuits for improper
venue, and that motion was granted on May 15, 2015.


OFFICE DEPOT: Heitzenrater Action in Early Stage
------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that Heitzenrater v.
OfficeMax North America, Inc., et al. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York in
September 2012 as a putative class action alleging violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The complaint
alleges that OfficeMax misclassified its assistant store managers
("ASMs") as exempt employees.

The Company believes that adequate provisions have been made for
probable losses and such amounts are not material. However, in
light of the early stage of the case and the inherent uncertainty
of litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a reasonably
possible range of loss in the matter. OfficeMax intends to
vigorously defend itself in this lawsuit.


OFFICE DEPOT: Defending Against Kyle Rivet Action
-------------------------------------------------
Office Depot, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that Kyle Rivet v. Office
Depot, Inc., formerly known as Constance Gibbons v. Office Depot,
Inc., a putative class action that was instituted in May 2012, is
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey. The complaint alleges that Office Depot's use of the
fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of pay was unlawful because
Office Depot failed to pay a fixed weekly salary and failed to
provide its ASMs with a clear and mutual understanding
notification that they would receive a fixed weekly salary for all
hours worked. The plaintiffs in both complaints seek unpaid
overtime, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes in this case that adequate provisions have
been made for probable losses and such amounts are not material.
However, in light of the early stage of the case and the inherent
uncertainty of litigation, the Company is unable to estimate a
reasonably possible range of loss in these matters. Office Depot
intends to vigorously defend itself in these lawsuits.


OKARCHE BAKERY: Recalls Frozen Cookie Dough Due to Allergens
------------------------------------------------------------
Okarche Bakery of Okarche, OK is recalling ALL FROZEN COOKIE
DOUGH, because it may contain undeclared Milk, Soy, Wheat and
Yellow #5. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
these allergens run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

Product was distributed in Oklahoma City and surrounding areas
through fundraisers.

Product can be identified as Okarche's Old Fashioned Gourmet
Cookie Dough in white 3lb. plastic tubs. The recalled product does
not have a lot number or best buy date.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after the problem was discovered during a
label review.

The product can be returned to Tower Caf‚, 412 S. Main ,Okarche,
OK 73762. Or call if you have any questions 405-263-7911, 8 am to
5 pm CST, ask for Craig Hubbard

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm461612.htm


OLLI SALUMERIA: Recalls Salami Products Due to Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced that Olli Salumeria Americana, LLC., an
Oceanside, Calif., establishment, is recalling approximately 5,391
pounds of salami products due to misbranding. The products'
packaging does not contain a list of ingredients, and FSIS wants
consumers to be aware that this product was formulated with wine
that contains sulfites. Consumption of these products may cause
adverse health consequences for consumers who have sulfite
sensitivities.

The salami was produced on various dates from Aug. 3-27, 2015. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- "Olli Salumeria Napoli Applewood Smoked Salame" in 5.5 lb.
       bulk cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2610"
       on the packaging.
  --- "Olli Salumeria Sopressata Robust Salame" in 5.5 lb. bulk
       cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2659" on
       the packaging.
  --- "Olli Salumeria Genoa Mild Salame" in 5.5 lb. bulk cases
       containing 3 pieces each with case code "2449" on the
       packaging.
  --- "Olli Salumeria Toscano Fennel Pollen Salame" in 5.5 lb.
       bulk cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2609"
       on the packaging.
  --- "Olli Salumeria Pepperoni Classic American Salame" in 5.5
       lb. bulk cases containing 3 pieces each with case code
       "2295" on the packaging.
  --- "Olli Salumeria Calabrese Spicy Salame" in 5.5 lb. bulk
       cases containing 3 pieces each with case code "2448" on
       the packaging.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "Est.
45334" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were sold
to one distributor, who then sold it to restaurants in Arizona,
California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Nevada and New
York.

The problem was discovered by an FSIS consumer safety inspector
during routine inspection activities.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

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

Consumers or media with questions about the recall can contact the
company at info@olli.com.

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


ONE MINUTE: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Undeclared Drugs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The One Minute Miracle Inc. is voluntarily recalling all lots of
Miracle Diet 30, capsules and Miracle Rock 48, capsules to the
consumer level. These products have been recalled due to FDA
analysis revealing that these dietary supplements contain
undeclared drug products making them unapproved drugs.

Miracle Diet 30 has been found to contain undeclared
phenolphthalein, phenolphthalein was an ingredient used in over-
the counter laxatives but was removed from the market because of
concerns of carcinogenicity. There is a reasonable probability
that the health risks of long term phenolphthalein consumption
could include serious gastrointestinal disturbances, irregular
heartbeat, and cancer with long term use.

Miracle Rock 48 has been found to contain undeclared
thiosildenafil, thiosildenafil is an analogue of sildenafil which
is an approved drug used for the treatment of male sexual
enhancement. Based on the similarity of chemical structures
thiosildenafil, the analogue of sildenafil is likely to have a
similar pharmacological effect as sildenafil and there is a
reasonable probability that concomitant use of this dietary
supplement and nitrates could cause a sudden and significant drop
in blood pressure that may be life threatening.

The company has received no reports of illness associated with
these products to date.

Miracle Diet 30 capsules is marketed as a dietary supplement to
support appetite control and weight loss and is packaged in 30-
count plastic bottles. All lots of Miracle Diet 30 through the
expiration date of 04/15/2018 are affected. Product was
distributed via internet nationwide in the United States.

Miracle Rock 48 capsules is marketed as a dietary supplement for
male sexual enhancement and is packaged in two blister packages of
2- count capsules, 4 capsules per box. All lots of Miracle Rock 48
through the expiration date of 06/01/2018 are affected. Product
was distributed via nationwide in the United States.

In addition to the voluntary recall of the above products, The One
Minute Miracle Inc. has chosen to voluntarily withdraw the
following products from the marketplace to provide its customers
with the certainty of safety. Those products include all sizes and
lots of Miracle Cholesterol, Miracle Night Time, Miracle Joint-
Flex, Miracle Stud 72, Miracle Magic Man, Male Mint Gum, Miracle
48 Hrs, Miracle Magic Woman, Miracle Cougar, Miracle Cougar Gum,
Miracle Cougar G-Spot, Miracle G-Spot, Vagina Rejuvenation,
Miracle Anti-Wrinkle, Miracle Stud Delay, Miracle Male Stud Spray,
Miracle Male Stud Coffee, Miracle Male Coffee, Male 10, Miracle
Male Stud Sublingual, Male 72 Hr, Miracle Tongue Sublingual,
Miracle Tongue and Master Blaster

The One Minute Miracle is notifying its customers via U.S. Postal
Service and is arranging for return of recalled products.
Consumers that have Miracle Diet 30 and/or Miracle Rock 48 which
are being recalled should stop using and return product(s)
immediately to: The One Minute Miracle Inc. 3322 NE 166 Street,
North Miami Beach, FL 33160

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact The One
Minute Miracle Inc. by phone (305)947-6244 or email
theoneminutemiracle@gmail.com Monday through Friday, 9:00am
through 5:00pm EST. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to taking or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm462132.htm


ORGANICGIRL PRODUCE: Recalls Baby Spinach Products Due to Cadmium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Organicgirl Produce is voluntarily recalling a limited quantity of
5 oz. organicgirl Baby Spinach with a Use-by Date of September 13
and Product Code B030298-001B08S due to test results indicating
the presence of trace levels of the naturally-occurring element
cadmium. The recall includes 1,290 cases distributed primarily to
Western and Midwestern states. No other organicgirl Baby Spinach
products or other organicgirl salads are included in the recall.

No illnesses are reported in association with this recall.

Because it is naturally-occurring in the earth's soil, trace
levels of cadmium are found in many foods as well as in the water
and air. There is no minimum health tolerance for Cadmium in crops
or soil in the U.S. at this time and the probability of acute
health consequences from consumption of Cadmium is remote.
organicgirl Produce is coordinating closely with regulators.

This recall action is being taken out of an abundance of caution
due to an isolated instance in which a single package of 5 oz.
organicgirl Baby Spinach tested randomly by the California
Department of Public Health demonstrated the presence of trace
levels of cadmium. This recall is one in which any health risk is
perceived to be non-life-threatening with any potential health
effects being temporary or reversible.

The precautionary recall is being conducted to reach retailers and
consumers to notify them that according to the California
Department of Public Health, the recalled product should not be
consumed.

Consumers are being asked to check their refrigerators for a 5 oz.
package of organicgirl Baby Spinach with a Use-by Date of
September 13 and Product Code of B030298-001B08S. If found, it
should be discarded. organicgirl will gladly replace it. Consumers
with questions may call the organicgirl consumer hotline at 866-
486-4939, Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m., Pacific Standard Time.

Retailers are asked to check their inventories and store shelves
to confirm that none of the recalled product is present or
available for purchase. organicgirl Produce customer service
representatives have already contacted retailers who received
product subject to this recall.

The recalled product was distributed to a total of 13 states
including Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Michigan, Missouri, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas and Utah.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm462305.htm


ORTHOFIX INTERNATIONAL: Singh Action Remains at Early Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Orthofix International N.V. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the class action
lawsuit filed by Tejinder Singh remains at an early stage.

On August 14, 2013, a securities class action complaint against
the Company, previously styled Tejinder Singh v. Orthofix
International N.V., et al., and which is now styled Plumbers &
Pipefitters National Pension Fund v. Orthofix International N.V.,
et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York arising out of the then anticipated
restatement of the Company's prior financial statements. Since the
date of original filing, the complaint has been amended.

The lead plaintiff's complaint, as amended, purports to bring
claims on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 2, 2010 and July 29, 2013. The complaint
asserts that the Company and four of its former executive
officers, Alan W. Milinazzo, Robert S. Vaters, Brian McCollum, and
Emily V. Buxton (collectively, the "Individual Defendants"),
violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 ("Rule 10b-5") by making false or misleading
statements in or relating to the Company's financial statements.
The complaint further asserts that the Individual Defendants were
liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
for any violation by the Company of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act or Rule 10b-5. As relief, the complaint requests compensatory
damages on behalf of the proposed class and lead plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 6, 2015, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss as to Mr. Milinazzo and denied it with respect to the
Company and the other Individual Defendants.

"This matter remains at an early stage and, as of the date of this
Form 10-Q, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss, or
range of loss, in connection with it," the Company said.


OVER & OVER: "Garcia" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Garcia, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Over & Over Ready Mix, Inc. and Does 1
through 100, Case No. BC593543 (D. Cal., September 8, 2015), seeks
to recovery of unpaid overtime wages and penalties under
California Labor Code.

Over & Over Ready Mix, Inc. is a supplier of commercial and
residential concrete needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Kristina R. Sherry, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310)322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com
              ksherry@bollaw.com


OVERWAITEA FOOD: Recalls Cucumbers Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 8, 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: Overwaitea Food Group
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10036

Overwaitea Food Group is recalling field cucumbers purchased from
Save On Foods, PriceSmart Foods, Coopers Foods, Overwaitea, and
Freson Brothers due to possible Salmonella contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled product described below.

This recall applies to fresh field cucumbers sold in bulk,
unwrapped purchased from Save On Foods, PriceSmart Foods, Coopers
Foods, Overwaitea, and Freson Brothers on or before September 4,
2015. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased affected
cucumbers should check with their retail store.

The following cucumbers have been sold from Save On Foods,
PriceSmart Foods, Coopers Foods, Overwaitea, and Freson Brothers
stores in Alberta and British Columbia.

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 product    UPC
  name     -----------       ----      ------------------    ---
  -----
  None     Field cucumbers   Variable  Purchased from Save   PLU
           (bulk, unwrapped)           On Foods, PriceSmart  4062
                                       Foods, Coopers Foods,
                                       Overwaitea, and Freson
                                       Brothers on or before
                                       September 4, 2015

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/c4F5C2


PAPA JOHN'S: Class Action Trial Has Been Stayed
-----------------------------------------------
Papa John's International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that trial in a class
action lawsuit, originally scheduled for August 2015, has been
stayed.

Perrin v. Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA,
Inc. is a conditionally certified collective and class action
filed in August 2009 in the United States District Court, Eastern
District of Missouri ("the Court"), alleging that delivery drivers
were not properly reimbursed for mileage and expenses in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Approximately 3,900 drivers out of a potential class size of
28,800 opted into the action.

In late December 2013, the District Court granted a motion for
class certification in five additional states, which added
approximately 15,000 plaintiffs to the case.  The trial,
originally scheduled for August 2015, was stayed in June 2015,
pending U.S. Supreme Court review of another relevant case
regarding certification. After the stay was granted, the parties
reached a settlement in principle subject to approval by the
Court. The Company continues to deny any liability or wrongdoing
in this matter.

In accordance with this preliminary settlement agreement, the
Company has recorded a pre-tax expense of $12.3 million for the
quarter ended June 28, 2015 under the provisions of ASC 450,
Contingencies.  This amount is separately reported as Legal
settlement expense in the condensed consolidated statements of
income.


PEOPLE CREATING: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Unlawful Termination
---------------------------------------------------------------
John-Paul Nagel v. People Creating Success, Inc., People Creating
Success-North Los Angeles, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, Case No.
BC593906 (D. Cal., September 8, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged wrongful termination of the Plaintiff who
discloses information about the employer's working conditions.

The Defendants provide supported living services, independent
living services and day services for adults with developmental
disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Heather Appleton, Esq.
      Cherryl F. Cercado,. Esq.
      APPLETON LAW GROUP, APC
      2101 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 4240
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 474-7022
      Facsimile: (310) 474-7023
      E-mail: happleton@appletonlg.com
              ccercado@appletonlg.com


PILOT TRAVEL: Settlements in Hot Fuel Case Win Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the United States District
Court for District of Kansas sustained Plaintiffs' Motion and
Memorandum in Support of Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
in the case captioned, IN RE: MOTOR FUEL TEMPERATURE SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION (This Document Relates to All Cases), Case
No. 07-MD-1840-KHV.

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL Panel") designated this Court as the transferee court for
federal cases challenging sales practices of motor fuel retailers
and refiners with regard to motor fuel temperature. The cases
challenge defendants' practice of selling motor fuel by the gallon
without disclosing or adjusting for temperature and without
disclosing the effect of temperature on motor fuel in 26 states
(Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Delaware, Florida,
Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North
Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah and Virginia), the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico and Guam. The Court has conditionally certified and
preliminarily approved 28 settlements between plaintiffs and
various defendants. Following a hearing on April 1, 2010, the
Court declined final class certification and final settlement
approval. The Court concluded that plaintiffs had not shown that
the named representatives were adequate representatives under
Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23(a)(4), but that the parties could restructure
the agreement to try to remedy the problem.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek final approval of 28 settlements.
The Defendants opposed the motion asserting that the settlements
are unfair because (1) they do not benefit class members; (2) they
allow excessive attorney's fees; and (3) the Valero settlement
contains a most-favored-nations clause. Additinally, they assert
that the proposed settlements (1) violate Article III; (2) violate
the First Amendment; (3) create an appearance of quid pro quo
corruption; and (4) usurp the prerogatives of federal and state
regulators and violate separation of powers.

In her Memorandum and Order dated August 21, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/omjsYofrom Leagle.com, Judge Vratil found that class
certification is appropriate under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) and that
the proposed settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate under
Rule 23(e)(2). Accordingly, the Court approves the 28 proposed
settlements. The Court finds that the class members listed on
Exhibit 7 to the Dahl Affidavit have opted out of the settlement.

Judge Vratil does not address the "Second Motion For Award Of
Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, And Class Representative Incentive
Awards and Memorandum In Support," finding that the general notice
to class members provided sufficient information regarding
attorney's fees to allow class members a fair opportunity to lodge
general objections to the settlements and fee request.  He
scheduled the hearing regarding the Second Motion for Attorneys'
Fees on November 19, 2015 at 9:30 a.m.

Plaintiffs are represented by George A. Zelcs, Esq. --
gzelcs@koreintillery.com -- KOREIN TILLERY, LLC, Joseph A.
Kronawitter, Esq. -- jkronawitter@hab-law.com -- HORN, AYLWARD &
BANDY LLC & Thomas V. Bender, Esq. -- tbender@wbsvlaw.com --
WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, PC

The Defendants and their counsel are:

BP Corporation North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Douglas M. Todd, Phillips McFall McCaffrey McVay & Murrah, PC,
Jarrod J. White, Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & O'Neal, Lisa J.
Zastrow, Kummer Kaempger Bonner Rensahw & Ferrario, Michael F.
Saunders, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, Nancy G. Milburn,
Arnold & Porter, LLP, Ronald C. Redcay, Arnold & Porter, LLP,
Sandra Grisham Robinson, Cabaniss Johnston Gardner Dumas & O'Neal,
Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Thomas G. Wolfe, Phillips
McFall McCaffrey McVay & Murrah, PC.

Casey's General Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by James D.
Griffin, Esq. - jgriffin@sakg.com -- SCHARNHORST AST KENNARD
GRIFFIN PC, Martin M. Loring, Esq. --
martin.loring@huschblackwell.com & Michael E. Norton, Esq. --
michael.norton@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP

Chevron USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brendan A. McShane,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Cynthia H. Cwik, Jones Day, Darius Ogloza,
Ogloza Fortney LLP, David G. Hosenpud, Lane Powell PC, Ernest J.
Getto, Latham & Watkins LLP, Garrett S. Long, Latham & Watkins
LLP, Heather L.T. Potts, Latham & Watkins LLP, Kirsten Ferguson,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Lisa T. Silvestri, Gable & Gotwals, Mary
Rose Alexander, Latham & Watkins LLP, Robert C. Hackett, Mohr
Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Stephen Stublarec, Latham
& Watkins LLP, Terry D. Ragsdale, Gable & Gotwals & Thomas J.
Heiden, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Circle K Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley
Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Donald H.
Tucker, Jr., Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan,
James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda,
Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman,
Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson
Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP.

Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ameri
Giannotti, Eimer Stahl LLP, David E. Everson, Jr., Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, Michael J. Byrne, Moore & Van Allen, Nathan P. Eimer,
Eimer Stahl LLP, Regan A. Sweeney, Wallace King Domike and
Reiskin, PLLC, Richard M. Hutson, II, Hutson Law Office PA, Robert
C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Terrence
A. Callan, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP & Vanessa G.
Jacobsen, Eimer Stahl LLP.

ConocoPhillips Company, Defendant, represented by Daniel S. Mason,
Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Eric W. Buetzow, Zelle Hofmann
Voelbel & Mason LLP, Jose M. Umbert, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason
LLP, Joseph W. Bell, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Lisa T.
Silvestri, Gable & Gotwals, M. Benjamin Singletary, Gable &
Gotwals, Michael B. Campbell, Campbell Trial Law, Michael S.
Christian, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Philip J. Dabney,
Holland & Hart LLP, Terry D. Ragsdale, Gable & Gotwals & William
F. Ford, Jr., Lathrop & Gage, LLP.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Anwar M.
Johnson, Fox Galvin, LLC, Benjamin Silva, Jr., Silva & Saucedo PC,
Candace A. Blydenburgh, McGuireWoods, LLP, Chad J. Pomeroy, Durham
Jones & Pinegar, Charles E. Griffin, Butler Snow O'Mara Stevens &
Cannada, Christopher T. Saucedo, Silva & Saucedo PC, Dana W.
Tucker, Fox Galvin, LLC, David L. Arrington, Durham Jones &
Pinegar, David J. Lender, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, David R.
Singh, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, James D. Bowers, Fields,
Brown, LLC, James J. Jackson, James W. Quinn, Weil, Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, Kenneth M. Jones, Atkins & Evans, Kermit L. Kendrick,
Burr & Forman LLP, Kevin F. Meade, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP,
Michael W. Sillyman, Kutak Rock LLP, Nelson L. Atkins, Atkins &
Evans, Patrick J. Conlon, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Ricky J.
McKinney, Burr & Forman LLP, Robert H. Alexander, Jr., Law Office
of Robert H. Alexander, Jr. PC, Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett
Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Steven J. Fram, Archer & Greiner,
PC, Taylor Fields, Fields & Brown, LLC & William J. Long, Burr &
Forman LLP.

Flying J Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse
Hendricks German May, Helaine S. Goodner, Fowler White Burnett,
James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Jonathan A.
Dibble, Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett
Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson
Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA, Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy
Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP.

MFA Oil Company, Defendant, represented by William F. Ford, Jr.,
Lathrop & Gage, LLP.

Petro Stopping Centers, LP, Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Bennett, Ropes & Gray LLC, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German
May, Jane E. Willis, Ropes & Gray LLC, Jeffrey B. Storer, Ropes &
Gray LLC, Laurence R. Tucker, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Mark D.
Vaughn, Ropes & Gray LLC, Samira A. Omerovic, Ropes & Gray LLP &
Tyson H. Ketchum, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley
Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P.
Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn
Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J.
Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman
Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett
Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC, Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson
Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP.

7-Eleven, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, David B. Donchin,
Durbin, Larimore & Bialick, Donald H. Tucker, Jr., Smith Anderson
Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, James K. Larimore, Durbin,
Larimore & Bialick, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Stephen R.
McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L.
Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Shell Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner,
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris, Greensfelder,
Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale,
PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker. Gale, PC.

Sinclair Oil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Robert C.
Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC & William F.
Ford, Jr., Lathrop & Gage, LLP.

Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Defendant, represented by
Chad A. Stegeman, Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP, James F.
Bennett, Dowd Bennett LLP, James P. Tuite, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld, LLP, Patrick J. Whalen, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP,
Robert C. Hackett, Mohr Hackett Penderson Blakely & Randolph PC &
Selena L. Evans, Dowd Bennett LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Ericka D. McCaskill, Berkowitz Oliver
Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLPMO, Kurt D. Williams, Berkowitz
Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLPMO, Sanford M. Saunders,
Jr., Greenberg Traurig LLP, Sharon A. Stallbaumer, Berkowitz
Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, William J. Taylor,
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig
LLP.

The Kroger Co., also known as Kroger Co., Defendant, represented
by Ashley T. Kisner, Strasburger & Price, LLP & Earsa R. Jackson,
Strasburger & Price, LLP.

Kum & Go, LC, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B.
Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R.
Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano,
Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner,
PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Quiktrip Corp., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin
R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano,
Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner,
PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Love's Travel Stops & Country Stores Inc, Defendant, represented
by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Gary W. Davis,
Crowe & Dunlevy, John J. Griffin, Jr., Crowe & Dunlevy & L. Mark
Walker, Crowe & Dunlevy.

TA Operating Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jane E.
Willis, Ropes & Gray LLC, Laurence R. Tucker, Armstrong Teasdale
LLP & Tyson H. Ketchum, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

Murphy Oil USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley
Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Donald H.
Tucker, Jr., Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan,
James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kathryn M. Zynda,
Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman,
Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen Alexander Hester,
Williams & Anderson PLLC, Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell
Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon
LLP.

Equilon Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner,
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris, Greensfelder,
Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale,
PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker. Gale, PC.

EZ Mart Stores Inc, Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland,
Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German
May, Gary W. Davis, Crowe & Dunlevy & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell
Williams Law.

Sunoco Corporation, Defendant, represented by Barbara R. Binis,
Reed Smith, LLP.

Star Fuel Marts Inc, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Kathryn M. Zynda, Corbyn Law Firm, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Tristan
L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Shell Oil Products Company LLC, Defendant, represented by Abby L.
Risner, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris,
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder,
Hemker & Gale, PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker.
Gale, PC.

Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company, Defendant, represented by
Craig J. de Recat, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP, Daniel B. Hodes,
Rouse Hendricks German May, David G. Hosenpud, Lane Powell PC &
Robert Roy Begland, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

TravelCenters of America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Bennett, Ropes & Gray LLC, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German
May, Jane E. Willis, Ropes & Gray LLC, Jeffrey B. Storer, Ropes &
Gray LLC, Laurence R. Tucker, Armstrong Teasdale LLP, Mark D.
Vaughn, Ropes & Gray LLC, Samira A. Omerovic, Ropes & Gray LLP &
Tyson H. Ketchum, Armstrong Teasdale LLP.

BP West Coast Products, LLC, Defendant, represented by Erika
Norman, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Michael F. Saunders, Spencer Fane
Britt & Browne LLP, Nancy G. Milburn, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Ronald
C. Redcay, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter,
LLP.

Amerada Hess Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian J.
Molloy, Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer, PA.

Getty Petroleum Marketing, Inc., Defendant, represented by Barry
M. Kazan, Thompson Hine LLP.

Motiva Enterprises LLC, Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner,
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris, Greensfelder,
Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale,
PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker. Gale, PC.

Sunoco Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse
Hendricks German May, Heather A. Ritch, Reed Smith, LLP, Kristine
L. Sendek Smith, Beveridge and Diamond, PC & Barbara R. Binis,
Reed Smith, LLP.

BP Products North Americas Inc, Defendant, represented by Erika
Norman, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Michael F. Saunders, Spencer Fane
Britt & Browne LLP, Nancy G. Milburn, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Ronald
C. Redcay, Arnold & Porter, LLP & Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter,
LLP.

Amoco Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Andrew D. Dill,
Woodward, Hobson & Fulton, LLP & Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter,
LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Rob F. Robertson, Gable & Gotwals, Sanford
M. Saunders, Jr., Greenberg Traurig LLP, Sidney G. Dunagan, Gable
& Gotwals, William J. Taylor, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Naomi
G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Thorntons, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse
Hendricks German May & Donald J. Kelly, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs,
LLP.

Mac's Convenience Stores, LLC., Defendant, represented by A.
Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May,
James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd. &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Speedway Petroleum Corporation, Defendant, represented by A.
Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman,
Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson
Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP.

Texaco Inc, Defendant, represented by Darius Ogloza, Ogloza
Fortney LLP & David M. Harris, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC.

BP North America Petroleum, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michael F. Saunders, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP, Nancy G.
Milburn, Arnold & Porter, LLP, Ronald C. Redcay, Arnold & Porter,
LLP & Sean Morris, Arnold & Porter, LLP.

Sam's Club, Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy, Greenberg
Traurig LLP, Kurt D. Williams, Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw &
Eisenbrandt, LLP & Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Naomi G. Beer,
Greenberg Traurig LLP, Sanford M. Saunders, Jr., Greenberg Traurig
LLP, William J. Taylor, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Brian L.
Duffy, Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Race Trac Petroleum, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley
Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P.
Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R.
McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L.
Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Marathon Petroleum Company, LLC, Defendant, represented by A.
Bradley Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May,
James P. Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd.,
Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA &
Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

The Pantry Inc, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, Donald H. Tucker,
Jr., Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, James P.
Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Joel E. Friedlander,
Bouchard, Margules & Friedlander, PA, John M. Seaman, Bouchard,
Margules & Friedlander, PA, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon
LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Richard H.
Monk, III, Bradley, Arant, Boult, Cummings, LLP, Robert S.
Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister,
Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

G and M Oil Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A.
Culley, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP & Kenneth A.
Ehrlich, Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP.

G and M Oil Company, LLC., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth A.
Culley, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP, Kenneth A.
Ehrlich, Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP, Paul A.
Kroeger, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP & Timothy D.
Martin, Jeffer, Mangels, Butler & Mitchell, LLP.

United El Segundo, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark B.
Gilmartin, Mark B. Gilmartin Law Offices.

World Oil Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael G. Romey,
Latham & Watkins LLP & Monica Klosterman, Latham & Watkins LLP.

USA Petroleum Corporation, Defendant, represented by Craig J. de
Recat, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP & Robert Roy Begland, Manatt
Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley
Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P.
Muehlberger, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Robert S. Bassman, Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R.
McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L.
Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

M.M. Fowler, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes,
Rouse Hendricks German May, James C. Adams, II, Brooks Pierce
McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, LLP & Richard M. Hutson, II, Hutson
Law Office PA.

Sheetz, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B.
Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman,
Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson
Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP.

Wawa, Inc., Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Daniel B.
Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Robert S. Bassman,
Bassman Mitchell & Alfano, Chtd., Stephen R. McAllister, Thompson
Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP.

Sams East, Defendant, represented by Kurt D. Williams, Berkowitz
Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt, LLP, Brian L. Duffy, Greenberg
Traurig LLP & Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Valero Energy Group, Defendant, represented by John D. Comerford,
Dowd Bennett LLP, Patrick J. Whalen, Spencer Fane Britt & Browne
LLP, Selena L. Evans, Dowd Bennett LLP, C. William Frick, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, James F. Bennett, Dowd Bennett LLP
& Megan S. Heinsz, Dowd Bennett LLP.

PTCAA Texas, LP, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley Bodamer,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP,
Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May, James P. Muehlberger,
Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon
LLP, Rebecca J. Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Stephen R.
McAllister, Thompson Ramsdell Qualseth & Warner, PA & Tristan L.
Duncan, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Mobil Oil Guam Inc., Defendant, represented by David J. Lender,
Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, David R. Singh, Weil, Gotshal &
Manges, LLP, James W. Quinn, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Kevin F.
Meade, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, Patrick J. Conlon, Exxon Mobil
Corporation & Taylor Fields, Fields & Brown, LLC.

Shell Guam Inc., Defendant, represented by Abby L. Risner,
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, PC, David M. Harris, Greensfelder,
Hemker & Gale, PC, David J. Simmons, Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale,
PC & Gregory C. Mollett, Greensfelder, Hemker. Gale, PC.

EZ Mart Stores Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes,
Rouse Hendricks German May, John J. Griffin, Jr., Crowe & Dunlevy
& Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law.

Flash Market Inc, Defendant, represented by Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse
Hendricks German May & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law.

Hess Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Thomas B. Staley,
Robinson Staley Marshall & Duke.

J & P Flash Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian F. Walthart,
Rieves, Rubens & Mayton, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German
May & Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law.

Magness Oil Company, Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland,
Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May
& Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law.

B-B Oil Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland,
Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May
& Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law.

Coulson Oil Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Byron
Freeland, Mitchell Williams Law; and Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell
Williams Law.

Diamond State Oil LLC, Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland,
Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May
& Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law.

Port Cities Oil LLC, Defendant, represented by Byron Freeland,
Mitchell Williams Law, Daniel B. Hodes, Rouse Hendricks German May
& Sherry P. Bartley, Mitchell Williams Law.

Murphy Oil Corporation, Defendant, represented by A. Bradley
Bodamer, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Amy Crouch, Shook, Hardy &
Bacon LLP, Kevin R. Corlew, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Rebecca J.
Schwartz, Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Tristan L. Duncan, Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP.

Maverik Country Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian R.
Markley, Stinson Leonard Street LLP & Cameron M. Hancock, Kirton &
McConkie.

Dansk Investment Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Roy
Begland, Manatt Phelps & Phillips, LLP.

Brown-Thompson General Partnership, d/b/a 7-Eleven Stores,
Defendant, represented by David B. Donchin, Durbin, Larimore &
Bialick.

Brown-Thompson General Partnership, Defendant, represented by
James K. Larimore, Durbin, Larimore & Bialick & Mark E. Bialick,
Durbin, Larimore & Bialick.

Esso Virgin Islands, Inc., Defendant, represented by David J.
Lender, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, David R. Singh, Weil, Gotshal
& Manges, LLP & Kevin F. Meade, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP.

Domino Oil Co., Inc., Defendant, represented by Vincent A. Fuller,
Jr., Law Offices of Vincent A. Fuller, Jr..

Chevron Caribbean, Inc., Defendant, represented by Heather L.T.
Potts, Latham & Watkins LLP.

Sam's West, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian L. Duffy,
Greenberg Traurig LLP & Naomi G. Beer, Greenberg Traurig LLP.

TravelCenters of America Holding Company LLC, Defendant,
represented by Samira A. Omerovic, Ropes & Gray LLP.


PORK RIND: Recalls Pork Rind Products Due to Milk and Soy
---------------------------------------------------------
The Pork Rind Factory, a Spartanburg, S.C. establishment, is
recalling approximately 18,406 pounds of pork rinds due to
misbranding and possible undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced. The products contain milk and soy, known allergens
which are not declared on the product label.

The fried pork rinds were produced from March 17, 2015 through
September 3, 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 2.25 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple
      pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Suncrest Farms
      Salt and Pepper Pork Skins" and a use-by date of 09/16/15,
      01/12/16, 02/15/16.
  --- 2.25 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple
      pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Suncrest Farms
      Hot Pork Skins" and a use-by date of 12/27/15, 12/21/15.
  --- 4.00 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple
      pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Food Lion Salt &
      Pepper Flavored Pork Rinds" and a use-by date of 9/12/15,
      9/26/15, 10/10/15, 10/24/15, 11/26/15, 12/15/15, 12/17/15,
      01/01/16.
  --- 3.00 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple
      pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Larry's Old-
      Fashioned Seasoned Pork Cracklin Strips" and a use-by date
      of 10/24/15, 11/20/15.
  --- 3.00 ounce clear plastic bag packages containing multiple
      pieces of fried pork rinds with the label "Larry's Old-
      Fashioned Seasoned Pork Fatback Curls" and a use-by date of
      11/20/2015.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "EST.
M888" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items produced
were shipped to North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during routine FSIS
testing, in-plant verification activities on September 9, 2015.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

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

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Terri Morey, Plant Manager, at (864) 573-5678.

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


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Reinstates Unjust Enrichment Claim
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs'
motion for consideration of their unjust enrichment/quasi-contract
claim in the case captioned, SARAH SAMET et al., Plaintiffs, v.
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:12-CV-
01891 PSG.

Plaintiffs Sarah Samet and Robert Figy, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
alleging that. Defendant falsely labeled its comestic products as
"All Natural." Plaintiffs claimed that such false labeling
deceived customers into buying those products and unjustly
enriched Defendant as a result. The complaint sought damages under
California's Unfair Competition Law and False Advertising Law and
under a quasi-contract theory. Before the class-certification
stage, the district court dismissed the quasi-contract claim,
"concluding that restitution was not a standalone cause of action
in California and that the claim was" nonsensical as pled in any
event.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that Defendants
sold Misbranded Food Products to Plaintiffs and the Class and that
as a result of Defendants' fraudulent and misleading labeling,
advertising, marketing and sales of Defendants' Misbranded Food
Products Defendants was enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and
the Class. The Court reinstates Plaintiffs' claim for restitution
based on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract but does not grant
Plaintiffs leave to seek damages in the form of nonrestitutionary
disgorgement.

In the motion, Plaintiffs request reconsideration on the grounds
that recent decisions have held that a claim for unjust enrichment
may be brought in addition to UCL, FAL and CLRA claims and survive
a motion to dismiss as a quasi-contract claim seeking restitution.

In the Order dated August 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xj9i0Ofrom Leagle.com, Judge Grewal concluded that
Plaintiff may not seek damages in the form of nonrestitutionary
disgorgement for two reasons: (1) a motion for reconsideration may
not be used to raise arguments or present evidence for the first
time when they could reasonably have been raised earlier in the
litigation; and (2) nonrestitutionary disgorgement is not the
appropriate remedy for a quasi-contract claim based on alleged
mislabeling of a consumer product. Plaintiffs' amended complaint
specifically sought restitution, "a remedy whose purpose is `to
restore the status quo by returning to the plaintiff funds in
which he or she has an ownership interest.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
PRATT & ASSOCIATES
1871 The Alameda Suite 425,
San Jose, CA 95126,
Tel: (408)369-0800

Carol Nelkin, Esq. -- cnelkin@rk-lawfirm.com -- Jay P. Nelkin,
Esq. -- jnelkin@rk-lawfirm.com & Stuart M. Nelkin, Esq. --
snelkin@rk-lawfirm.com -- NELKIN, NELKIN & KROCK, PC, David
Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Esq. -- dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com --
John W. (Don) Barrett, Esq. -- dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com --
Katherine B. Riley, Esq. -- kriley@barrettlawgroup.com -- DON
BARRETT, P.A.

Defendants are represented by Dean N. Panos, Esq. --
dpanos@jenner.com -- Kenneth Kiyul Lee, Esq. -- KLee@jenner.com
-- JENNER & BLOCK LLP


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Clark" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and Does
1through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC594129 (D. Cal., September 9,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Route
Service Representatives' overtime wages for work in excess of 40
hours per week.

Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. provides services
for the pick-up, transportation and delivery of laboratory
specimens, supplies, reports, equipment and materials to the
appropriate destinations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
      Christina A. Humphrey Esq.
      Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818)991-8080
      Facsimile: (818)991-8081
      E-mail: ssaltzrnan@marlinsaltzman.com
              chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
              ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com

         - and -

      Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
      Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
      550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
      Glendale, CA 91203-1922
      Telephone: (818) 547-5200
      Facsimile: (818) 500-9307
      E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmai1.com
              mike.falveylaw@gmail.com


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Faces "Clark" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Clark, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. and Does
1through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC594022 (D. Cal., September 9,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay Route
Service Representatives' overtime wages for work in excess of 40
hours per week.

Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. provides services
for the pick-up, transportation and delivery of laboratory
specimens, supplies, reports, equipment and materials to the
appropriate destinations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
      Christina A. Humphrey Esq.
      Leslie H. Joyner, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818)991-8080
      Facsimile: (818)991-8081
      E-mail: ssaltzrnan@marlinsaltzman.com
              chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com
              ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com

         - and -

      Thomas W. Falvey, Esq.
      Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS W. FALVEY
      550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
      Glendale, CA 91203-1922
      Telephone: (818) 547-5200
      Facsimile: (818) 500-9307
      E-mail: thomaswfalvey@gmai1.com
              mike.falveylaw@gmail.com


R&T BUSINESS: Faces "Aldana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan C. Aldana v. R&T Business Ventures, Inc. d/b/a Instamail
Offices, et al., Case No. BC594153 (D. Cal., September 9, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

R&T Business Ventures, Inc. owns and operates a printing service
and shipping center in Pacific Palisades, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gabriel Sepulveda-Sanchez, Esq.
      SEPULVEDA SANCHEZ LAW GROUP
      3320 West Victory Boulevard
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (213) 426-1051
      E-mail: Gabriel@sepulvedaIawgroup.com


RESOURCE CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daren Levin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Resource Capital Corp., Jonathan Z. Cohen, David J.
Bryant, and Eldron C. Blackwell, Case No. 1:15-cv-07081 (S.D.N.Y.,
September 9, 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.

Resource Capital Corp. is a diversified real estate finance
company that focuses on commercial real estate, commercial real
estate-related assets, and, to a lesser extent, commercial finance
assets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
      Julia J. Sun, Esq.
      Adam M. Apton, Esq.
      Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


SABRE CORPORATION: To Appeal Final Judgment in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation intends to appeal the final judgment in a class
action lawsuit to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On April 4, 2013, the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas ("W.D.T.") entered a final judgment against
Travelocity and other OTAs in a class action lawsuit filed by the
City of San Antonio. The final judgment was based on a jury
verdict from October 30, 2009 that the OTAs "control" hotels for
purposes of city hotel occupancy taxes. Following that jury
verdict, on July 1, 2011, the W.D.T. concluded that fees charged
by the OTAs are subject to hotel occupancy taxes and that the OTAs
have a duty to collect and remit these taxes.

"We disagree with the jury's finding and with the W.D.T.'s
conclusions based on the jury finding, and intend to appeal the
final judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. The verdict against us, including penalties and interest,
is $4 million which we do not believe we will ultimately pay and
therefore have not accrued any loss related to this case," the
Company said.

"We believe the Fifth Circuit's resolution of the San Antonio
appeal may be affected by a separate Texas state appellate court
decision in our favor. On October 26, 2011, the Fourteenth Court
of Appeals of Texas affirmed a trial court's summary judgment
ruling in favor of the OTAs in a case brought by the City of
Houston and the Harris County-Houston Sports Authority on a
similarly worded tax ordinance as the one at issue in the San
Antonio case. The Texas Supreme Court denied the City of Houston's
petition to review the case. We believe this decision should
provide persuasive authority to the Fifth Circuit in its review of
the San Antonio case."


SABRE CORPORATION: 2 Class Actions Filed v. Sabre and 2 GDSs
------------------------------------------------------------
Two putative class action lawsuits (with virtually identical
complaints) were filed against Sabre Corporation and two other
GDSs, in the Federal District Court of New York, Southern
Division, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

The Company said, "On July 14, 2015 and July 20, 2015, two
putative class action lawsuits (with virtually identical
complaints) were filed against us and two other GDSs, in the
Federal District Court of New York, Southern Division. The
plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative class
of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that the
GDSs conspired to, for example, negotiate for full content from
the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for consumers, in
violation of various federal and state laws. Although the amount
of damages allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs has not been
asserted to date, the plaintiffs are also seeking declaratory and
injunctive relief. We may incur significant fees, costs and
expenses for as long as these litigation matters are ongoing.  We
intend to vigorously defend against these claims.


SAFEWAY: Recalls Cucumbers and In-Store Produced Products
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 9, 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, Yukon
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10035

Industry is recalling field cucumbers and any in-store produced
products that contain field cucumbers purchased from the listed
retail stores 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 any in-store produced products that contain field
cucumbers purchased from the listed retail stores on or before
September 8, 2015. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased
affected products should check with their retail store.

The following products may have been sold from the following
stores in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British
Columbia, and Yukon.

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 product    UPC
  name     -----------       ----      ------------------    ---
  -----
  None     Field cucumbers   Variable  Purchased from the    PLU
          (bulk, unwrapped)            listed retail stores  4062
                                       on or before
                                       September 8, 2015
Various   Any in-store      Variable  Purchased from the    Vari
           produced products           listed retail stores  ous
           that contain                on or before
           field cucumbers             September 8, 2015

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/c4F5C2


SCHRADER FARMS: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
-----------------------------------------------------------
Schrader Farms Meat Market, a Romulus, N.Y., establishment, is
recalling approximately 20 pounds of ground beef product that may
be contaminated with non-O157 Shiga toxin-producing E. coli, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The ground beef item was produced on September 2, 2015. The
following product is subject to recall:

  --- 1-lb. packages containing of "SCHRADER FARMS Meat Market
      Ground Beef" or "SCHRADER FARMS Meat Market GROUND BEEF,
      BULK" with a pack date of September 2, 2015.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "Est.
44950" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These products were
sold at the Schrader Farms retail store in Seneca County, New
York.

The problem was discovered during routine establishment testing,
however this establishment released product into commerce
prematurely (Review of Testing Results). FSIS and the company have
received no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of
these products.

Many clinical laboratories do not test for non-O157 Shiga toxin-
producing E. coli (STEC), such as STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121
or O145 because it is harder to identify than STEC O157. People
can become ill from STECs 2-8 days (average of 3-4 days) after
consuming the organism. Most people infected with non-STEC E. coli
develop diarrhea (often bloody), and vomiting. Some illnesses last
longer and can be more severe. Infection is usually diagnosed by
testing of a stool sample. Vigorous rehydration and other
supportive care is the usual treatment; antibiotic treatment is
generally not recommended.

Most people recover within a week, but, rarely, some develop a
more severe infection. Hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) is uncommon
with STEC O26, O103, O45, O111, O121 or O145 infection. HUS can
occur in people of any age but is most common in children under 5
years old, older adults and persons with weakened immune systems.
It is marked by easy bruising, pallor, and decreased urine output.
Persons who experience these symptoms should seek emergency
medical care immediately

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

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

FSIS advises all consumers to safely prepare their raw meat
products, including fresh and frozen, and only consume ground beef
that has been cooked to a temperature of 160ø F. The only way to
confirm that ground beef is cooked to a temperature high enough to
kill harmful bacteria is to use a food thermometer that measures
internal temperature, http://1.usa.gov/1cDxcDQ.

Media with questions regarding the recall can contact Michelle
Schrader, Marketing & Sales, at (607) 869-6328. Consumers with
questions regarding the recall can contact Sue Schrader, Owner, at
(607) 869-6328.

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


SOVRAN SELF: Intends to Vigorously Defend Putative Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sovran Self Storage, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend a putative class action.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New
Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance
Producer Licensing Act.

On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, and the
possibility of any adverse outcome cannot be determined at this
time.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Hearing on Cert. Motion on Nov. 30 to Dec. 2
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Canadian
Horsepower label litigation, the hearing on the plaintiffs'
certification motion will take place from November 30 to December
2, 2015 in London, Ontario.

On March 19, 2010, Robert Foster and Murray Davenport filed a
lawsuit under the Class Proceedings Act in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against us and several other defendants
(including Sears Canada Inc., Sears Holdings Corporation, John
Deere Limited, Platinum Equity, LLC, Briggs & Stratton
Corporation, Kawasaki Motors Corp., USA, MTD Products Inc., The
Toro Company, American Honda Motor Co., Electrolux Home Products,
Inc., Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A., Inc. and Kohler
Co.), alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of lawn
mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, to lessen competition in
lawn mowers and lawn mower engines in Canada, and to mislabel the
horsepower of lawn mower engines and lawn mowers in violation of
the Canadian Competition Act, civil conspiracy prohibitions and
the Consumer Packaging and Labeling Act. Plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of all persons in Canada who purchased, for
their own use and not for resale, a lawn mower containing a gas
combustible engine of 30 horsepower or less provided that either
the lawn mower or the engine contained within the lawn mower was
manufactured and/or sold by a defendant or their predecessors
between January 1, 1994 and the date of judgment. Plaintiffs seek
undetermined money damages, punitive damages, interest, costs and
equitable relief. In addition, Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation
and Platinum Equity, LLC, the purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company
and its subsidiaries and Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have
notified us that they claim indemnification with respect to this
lawsuit under our Stock Purchase Agreement with them.

Settlements involving all but two of the defendants (Kawasaki and
Tecumseh) have been negotiated and have either been approved by
the court or are in the process of being approved.  These
settlements are not binding on Kawasaki and Tecumseh, nor are they
determinative of their liability, if any.  It is unclear at this
time how aggressively the plaintiffs will pursue the litigation
given these settlements.

A schedule leading to the hearing of the plaintiffs' certification
motion has been established.  Pursuant to this schedule, the
hearing will take place from November 30 to December 2, 2015 in
London, Ontario.  Because of certain recently filed defense
motions, it is unclear at this stage whether the hearing will
proceed on those dates.


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Cert. Motion in Quebec Action Has Not Been Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the certification
motion in the Quebec action has not been scheduled.

On May 3, 2010, a class action was commenced in the Superior Court
of the Province of Quebec by Eric Liverman and Sidney Vadish
against us and several other defendants (including those listed)
advancing allegations similar to those outlined immediately above.
Plaintiffs seek undetermined monetary damages, punitive damages,
interest, costs, and equitable relief.

"Snowstorm Acquisition Corporation and Platinum Equity, LLC, the
purchasers of Tecumseh Power Company and its subsidiaries and
Motoco a.s. in November 2007, have notified us that they claim
indemnification with respect to this lawsuit under our Stock
Purchase Agreement with them," the Company said.

"As was the case with the Ontario litigation, settlements
involving all but two of the defendants (Kawasaki and Tecumseh)
have been negotiated and have received or are in the process of
receiving, court approval.  These settlements are not binding on
the non-settling defendants, nor is it determinative of their
liability, if any.  It is unclear at this time how aggressively
the plaintiffs will pursue the litigation against the non-settling
defendants.

"The certification motion in the Quebec action has not been
scheduled. It is unlikely, however, that it will be heard before
the certification in the Ontario action."


TECUMSEH PRODUCTS: Judicial Expert Appointed by Commercial Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tecumseh Products Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a judicial expert was
appointed by the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon related to
the Products Liability/ Warranty Claim.

The Company said, "On July 31, 2014, Tecumseh Europe S.A. was
served a writ (on the merits) before the Commercial Court of La
Roche-sur-Yon by the five companies of the Atlantic Industrie SAS
group. The dispute alleges product failures associated with the
supply by Tecumseh Europe of evaporating units mounted on
Atlantic's thermodynamic water heaters pursuant to a November 2009
purchase agreement. The writ seeks the payment of 16,715,109 Euros
as damages alleging our failure to satisfy our obligation of
information, hidden defects, lack of conformity and breach of the
purchase agreement. We have informed our insurance company about
this dispute. Under our insurance policy, we are responsible for
the first 60,000 Euros, with our insurance covering up to the next
3.5 million Euros. Our insurance company has assumed the defense
of this claim, subject to a reservation of rights. A judicial
expert was appointed by the Commercial Court of La Roche-sur-Yon
on June 9, 2015, and has requested from the parties relevant
documents for a first meeting likely to be held in September or
October 2015."


TRANSAM TRUCKING: Court Certifies "Blair" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eric F. Melgren of the United States District Court
for District of Kansas granted Plaintiffs' class certification and
conditional certification of collective claims and denied
TransAm's motion for leave to file a surreply in the case
captioned, LARRY BLAIR and CHARLIE DAVIS, On behalf of themselves
and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRANSAM
TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 09-2443-EFM-KGG.

In 2009, Plaintiffs Larry Blair and Charlie Davis filed suit on
behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated
against Defendant TransAm Trucking, Inc., a trucking company with
its principal place of business in Kansas. Plaintiffs bring this
action as a collective action for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and as a class action for violations of the Kansas
Wage Payment Act. Plaintiffs, truck drivers, allege TransAm
Trucking failed to pay them minimum wages, failed to pay wages
due, and made improper deductions. Plaintiffs argue that they have
been misclassified as independent contractors. TransAm has two
types of drivers, which it refers to either as Company Drivers or
Owner Operators. The Independent Contractor Agreement is a
contract in which the driver agrees to lease to TransAm the use of
a truck for the hauling of freight to TransAm's customers. Each
driver signs a separate agreement for each truck he leases to
TransAm. The agreement is for a one-year term that automatically
renews unless canceled by either party with 14 days notice.

In November 2013, the Court denied motions for summary judgment on
the issue of whether the drivers are employees or independent
contractors as a matter of law. In April 2014, Plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint alleging failure to pay minimum wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act and failure to pay wages due
and making improper deductions under the Kansas Wage Payment  Act.

In the motion, Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
certification of collective claims under Sec. 216(b) of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and a motion for class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act (KWPA) and TransAm seeks leave to file a surreply
to Plaintiffs' reply brief.

In his Order dated August 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/UmaGTCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Melgren certified
Plaintiffs' proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23 concluding that it satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 with
respect with Plaintiffs' KWPA claims. He also granted conditional
certification of collective claims under Sec. 216(b) of the FLSA.
Larry Blair and Charlie Davis are appointed as class
representatives, and Brady & Associates, The Woody Law Firm PC,
and Siro Smith Dickson PC as class counsel.

The Court denied TransAm's motion because it has not persuaded the
Court that there is any new relevant material raised in
Plaintiffs' reply brief or that there exists any other exceptional
circumstance that would justify a surreply.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Athena M. Dickson, Esq.
Eric W. Smith, Esq.
Rik N. Siro, Esq.
SIRO SMITH DICKSON, PC,
1621 Baltimore Ave,
Kansas City, MO 64108
Tel: (816)471-4881

          - and -

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


TransAm Trucking, Inc. is represented by Frederick H. Riesmeyer,
II, Esq. -- friesmeyer@sb-kc.com -- Shannon Cohorst Johnson, Esq.
-- sjohnson@sb-kc.com -- SEIGFREID BINGHAM, PC


TREK BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycles Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 10, 2015
Posting date: September 10, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54950

This recall involves model year 2015 Trek 9.8 Superfly FS SL, X1
and XT bicycles equipped with Bontrager Approved Carbon seatposts.

Recalled bicycles have a serial number ending in J or K.  The
serial number is located on the bottom of the bicycle frame.
Superfly FS, X1 or XT is printed on the bicycle's top tube.  Trek
is printed on the frame downtube.  "Bontrager Carbon" is printed
on the seatpost.

The seatpost can crack and break, posing a fall hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Trek has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
bicycles in Canada.

Approximately 45 recalled bicycles were sold in Canada.

The recalled bicycles were sold from September 2014 to August
2015.

Manufactured in Taiwan.

Distributor: Trek Bicycle Corporation
             Waterloo
             Wisconsin
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the bicycles and contact
an authorized Trek retailer for a free replacement seatpost plus a
$20 coupon toward any Bontrager merchandise.  The coupon can be
used through to December 31, 2015.

For additional information, consumers may contact Trek toll-free
at 1-800-373-4594, between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CST, Monday
through Friday. Consumers may also visit the company's website and
click on Safety & Recalls at the bottom of the page for more
information.  Included here is a link to a serial number look up
tool.

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/YX0nmy


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Does Not Properly Pay Drivers, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Olasapo Ogunmokun and Mazoor Mumin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc. and
Raiser, LLC, Case No. 511072 (D.N.Y., September 9, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay reasonable
expenses incurred by the Plaintiffs including but not limited to
mileage accrued on personal vehicles and gas, unlawful withholding
of gratuities intended for drivers and failure to pay minimum
wages in violation of New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate an international transportation network
company headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marie Napoli, Esq.
      NAPOLI LAW PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, l0th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000
      E-mail: INFO@NAPOLILAW.COM

         - and -

      Jeanne Lahiff, Esq.
      Murray Friedman, Esq.
      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-0007
      Facsimile: (212) 658-9177
      E-mail: jeanne@lawicb.com
              murray@lawicb.com
              brittany@lawicm.com


UNDER ARMOUR: Lawsuits Consolidated in Shareholder Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Under Armour, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that following the Company's
announcement of the creation of a new class of common stock,
referred to as the Class C common stock, par value $0.0003 1/3 per
share, three purported class action lawsuits were brought against
the Company and the members of the Company's Board of Directors on
behalf of the stockholders of the Company, the first of which was
filed on June 18, 2015. These lawsuits were filed in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, and have been consolidated
into one action, In re: Under Armour Shareholder Litigation, Case
No. 24-C-15-003240. The lawsuits generally allege that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with approving the creation of the Class C common
stock, as well as in connection with recommending that certain
governance related changes to the Company's charter be submitted
to stockholders for approval at a special meeting to be held on
August 26, 2015.

Among other remedies, these lawsuits seek to enjoin any further
actions from being taken with respect to both the issuance of any
shares of Class C common stock and the matters being voted upon by
stockholders at the special meeting.  The lawsuits also seek
unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend the lawsuit vigorously. However, because of the inherent
uncertainty as to the outcome of this proceeding, the Company is
unable at this time to estimate the possible impact of this
matter.


UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Approves Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court has approved
the settlement of the Class Action Litigation.

The Company said, "In June 2013, two purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York and the United States District
Court, Southern District of Texas against the Company and our
former CEO, former CFO, and former Chairman. The Southern District
of New York complaint was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff on
July 2, 2013.  The surviving complaint, with the caption
Fitzpatrick, Charles J. v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., et. al. (Cause No.
4:13-cv-01649), alleged that we and our officers and directors
violated the federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making
purportedly false and misleading statements concerning our
licensing agreements and product development  (the "Class Action
Litigation").  The complaint sought unspecified damages on behalf
of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock during the
period from December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013.

"On July 25, 2014, the judge granted in part and denied in part
our motion to dismiss the case, significantly limiting the claims
remaining in the Class Action Litigation.  On August 25, 2014, we
filed an answer to the complaint.

"In November 2014, we entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle the Class Action Litigation.  The proposed settlement
would result in a payment of $2.35 million in cash to the
settlement class, inclusive of fees and expenses. In addition, we
agreed to issue $2.15 million in common stock to the settlement
class with a range of shares of common stock between 358,333
shares and 430,000 shares, calculated by using the trailing 5 day
average stock price from the date of Court approval of the
settlement.

"On April 30, 2015, the Court approved the settlement of the Class
Action Litigation on the terms set forth above. As a result, the
Company issued 430,000 shares of common stock. The cash payment
portion of the settlement of $2.35 million was paid from insurance
proceeds. The common stock portion of this settlement, totaling
$2,150,000, is included in other expense and in current
liabilities (Settlement of Class Action and Derivative Lawsuits)
on the accompanying consolidated financial statements. Following
the issuance of the common stock in May 2015, this amount was
reclassified to Additional Paid In Capital and Common Stock.


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Davis" Trespassing Suit in W.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Betty L. Davis, Clarence J. Schexnayder, and William Earle Wood,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Union
Pacific Railroad Company, SFPP, L.P. f/k/a Santa Fe Pacific
Pipelines, Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating L.P. "D", and Kinder
Morgan G.P., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00261 (W.D. Tex., September 9,
2015), is a class action that seeks to recover to the class of
Texas property owners' unpaid rents, damages, and interest, as a
result of the Defendant's trespass upon the class's real property
and wrongful occupation with the railroad to use the subsurface of
the railroad right-of-way.

The Defendants operate a subterranean petroleum pipeline that runs
beneath the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad Company
through El Paso County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger B. Greenberg, Esq.
      SPONSEL MILLER GREENBERG PLLC
      50 Briar Hollow Lane
      Suite 370 West
      Houston, TX 77027
      Telephone: (713) 892-5400
      Facsimile: (713) 892-5401
      E-mail: roger@smglawgroup.com

         - and -

      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
              achang@bottinilaw.com
              ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


UNIT CORP: Merits of Plaintiffs' Claims Stayed Pending Cert. Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Unit Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Panola
Independent School District No. 4, et al. v. Unit Petroleum
Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of Latimer County,
Oklahoma, the merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed
while class certification issues are pending.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees. Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class
action on behalf of persons who receive royalty from us for our
Oklahoma production.

"We have asserted several defenses including that the deductions
are permitted under Oklahoma law. We have also asserted that the
case should not be tried as a class action due to the materially
different circumstances that determine what, if any, deductions
are taken for each lease," the Company said.

On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the
trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs
petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on October 8,
2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied.

On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to
certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than
their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further
amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners
entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le
Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

"In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held
where, in addition to the defenses, we argued that the amended
class definition is still deficient under the court of civil
appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification," the
Company said.  Closing arguments were held on December 2, 2014.
There is no timetable for when the court will issue its ruling.
The merits of Plaintiffs' claims will remain stayed while class
certification issues are pending.


VERTEX PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Dismiss Case Under Advisement
------------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court
has heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss and took the
motion under advisement.

On May 28, 2014, a purported shareholder class action Local No. 8
IBEW Retirement Plan & Trust v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Incorporated, et al. was filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, naming the Company and certain
of the Company's current and former officers and directors as
defendants. The lawsuit alleged that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in the
Company's disclosures during the period from May 7, 2012 through
May 29, 2012, all in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The purported class consists of all persons (excluding
defendants) who purchased the Company's common stock between May
7, 2012 and May 29, 2012. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as disgorgement of the
proceeds from certain individual defendants' sales of the
Company's stock.

On October 8, 2014, the Court approved Local No. 8 IBEW Retirement
Fund as lead plaintiff, and Scott and Scott LLP as lead counsel
for the plaintiff and the putative class.

On February 23, 2015, the Company filed a reply to the plaintiffs'
opposition to its motion to dismiss.  The court heard oral
argument on the motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015 and took the
motion under advisement.

The Company believes the claims to be without merit and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation. As of June 30, 2015, the Company
has not recorded any reserves for this purported class action.


VICTOR'S CAFE: "Arita" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Mercy Arita v. Victor's Cafe, LLC, Case No. 9:15-cv-81269-DMM
(S.D. Fla., September 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Victor's Cafe, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Palm Beach,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher C. Copeland, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER C COPELAND, P.A.
      824 W. Indiantown Road
      Jupiter, FL 33458
      Telephone: (561) 691-9048
      Facsimile: (866) 259-0719
      E-mail: Chris@CopelandPA.com


VITALIZE LABS: Court Trims Claims in Suit Over E-BOOST
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Raymond J. Dearie of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of New York ruled on Defendants'
consolidated motions for summary judgment in the case captioned,
CEDRIC MOSELY and J. RAFAEL COSIO, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VITALIZE LABS, LLC,
Defendant. J. RAFAEL COSIO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VITAQUEST INTERNATIONAL, LLC,
and GARDEN STATE NUTRITIONALS INC., Defendants. VITAQUEST
INTERNATIONAL, LLC, and GARDEN STATE NUTRITIONALS INC.,
Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. VITALIZE LABS, LLC, Third-
Party Defendant, Case Nos. 13 CV 2470 (RJD)(RLM), 14 CV 4474
(RJD)(RLM).

Vitalize markets and sells various energy products under the trade
name "E-BOOST," such as powder packets, dissolvable tablets, and
liquid shots, all in a variety of flavors. Cosio and Cedric Mosely
brought a class action suit against Vitalize in 2013 (the
"Vitalize Suit"), claiming various violations under the consumer
protection laws of their respective home states, California and
New York.  They sought to represent a nationwide class, consisting
of all consumers who purchased E-BOOST products for personal use
during the relevant period, as well as state classes for
California and New York.  Mosely later withdrew from the case,
leaving Cosio as the sole remaining named plaintiff. Cosio lacked
physical proof of purchase he nade in California.

In the consolidated motions, Defendants seek to dismiss all or
some of the plaintiff's claims in both cases for lack of Article
III standing on one of three grounds (1) defendants seek to
dismiss the action in its entirety, based on the argument that
Cosio has failed to establish a cognizable "injury in fact,"
because Cosio cannot prove that he actually purchased any E-BOOST
products; (2) defendants assert that Cosio does not have standing
to bring claims for certain E-BOOST products that Cosio admits he
never purchased; and (3) the defendants in the VitaQuest Suit seek
to dismiss plaintiff's claims under the consumer protection laws
of New Jersey and New York, because Cosio allegedly purchased E-
BOOST products only in his home state of California.

In the Memorandum and Order dated August 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ZaKeHCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dearie denied
defendants' consolidated summary judgment motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims for lack of Article III standing for failure to
establish a cognizable "injury in fact" and dismissed plaintiff's
claims under the consumer protection laws of New Jersey and New
York in both cases, because Cosio allegedly purchased E-BOOST
products only in his home state of California.

J. Rafael Cosio is represented by:

George Volney Granade, II, Esq.
Kim Richman, Esq.
Michael Robert Reese, Esq.
REESE RICHMAN LLP
875 6th Ave #18,
New York, NY 10001
Tel: (212)643-0500

Vitaize Labs, Inc. is represented by Anthony Andrew LoPresti, Esq.
-- alopestri@lo-firm.com -- Cornelius Joseph O'Reilly, Esq. --
coreilly@lo-firm.com -- LOPRESTI & O'REILLY LLP


VON BERGENS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogelio Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. Von Bergens Country Market LLC, Melvin Von
Bergen, and Bobette Von Bergen, Case No. 1:15-cv-07933 (N.D. Ill.,
September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Von Bergens Country Market LLC sells vegetables, fruits, and herbs
at a retail market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd. Suite 840
      Chicago, IL, 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450

         - and -

      Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 784-3541
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org


WEI'S HIBACHI: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Chen, Xiaoling Yang, and Mingxian Zhao, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wei's
Hibachi Buffet, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-02095-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla.,
September 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages and minimum wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

Wei's Hibachi Buffet, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Tampa,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
      WENZEL FENNTON CABASA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 337-7992
      Facsimile: (813) 224-0431
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com


WELLS FARGO: Sued in Cal. Over Real Estate Loan Services Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fred Gober, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
v. Wells Fargo & Company and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No.
2:15-cv-07120 (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's scheme to fraudulently conceal or misleadingly omit
the assessment of improperly marked-up, unnecessary and
unreasonable fees for commercial real estate loan services.

The Defendants operate a national bank with its principal
executive offices at 420 Montgomery, San Francisco, California
94163.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      Hannah P. Belknap, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: christopher.ridout@zimmreed.com
              hannah.belknap@zimmreed.com

         - and -

      Joseph Henry ("Hank") Bates, Esq.
      Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
      Tiffany Wyatt Oldham, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      One Cantrell Building
      2800 Cantrell, Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72212
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com
              rpulliam@cbplaw.com
              toldham@cbplaw.com


WEST MARINE: District Court Granted Final Approval of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the District Court
granted has final approval of the settlement in a class action
lawsuit.

In October 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by two California former hourly employees
who alleged, among other things, that the Company miscalculated
and failed to pay overtime for certain selling incentive bonuses
(or "spiffs"), in violation of California and Federal laws.
Without admission of any wrongdoing, the Company entered into a
settlement and release agreement for all class and individual
claims to avoid the uncertainty and costs associated with
protracted litigation and the District Court granted final
approval of the settlement on May 21, 2015.

The Company recorded a charge of approximately $0.4 million in the
fourth quarter of 2014 for the payments, including attorneys'
fees, costs and administrative expenses, in connection with this
settlement liability. Such amount had no material impact on the
Company's financial statements.


WEST MARINE: To Defend Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------
West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 4, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend a class action lawsuit vigorously.

In October 2014, a putative class action was filed against the
Company in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego, by a California former hourly employee claiming
violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages and attorney's fees, alleging the Company's failure to pay
overtime to hourly store employees who earned bonus wages or
commissions during pay periods in which they worked overtime, and
the derivative claims of failure to provide accurate wage
statements and all wages owed upon termination of employment. The
Company intends to defend this action vigorously and the outcome
of this matter cannot be determined at this time.


WOMEN'S CLINIC: Doesn't Properly Calculate Workers OT, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tova Siegel v. Women's Clinic, d/b/a Women's Clinic and Family
Counseling Center and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No.
BC593820 (D. Cal., September 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for improperly calculating payment for overtime to the
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees employed within the State
of California.

Women's Clinic owns and operates medical clinics located in Los
Angeles County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Foster Tepper, Esq.
      TEPPER & TAKVORYAN, APC
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310)859-9754
      Facsimile: (310) 859-9751
      E-mail: fostert@ttapc.com


ZULILY INC: Sued in Wash. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karan Jugal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Zulily, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01447 (W.D.
Wash., September 9, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading Schedule 14D-9 Solicitation/Recommendation
Statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Zulily, Inc. is an online retailer that focuses on selling
merchandise to moms purchasing for their children, themselves, and
their homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger Townsend, Esq.
      1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Telephone: (206) 652-8660
      Facsimile: (206) 652-8290
      E-mail: Rtownsend@bjtlegal.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH
      Two Bala Plaza, Ste. 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
              mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


* Transport Canada Recalls Ricon Wheelchair Lifts
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: September 8, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 179
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015395TC
ID number: 2015395
Manufacturer recall number: FL-686

On certain school buses equipped with a Ricon wheelchair lift, the
lift platform sides may crack, which could cause the lift to lean
against the vehicle door(s) and potentially fall out of the
vehicle when the doors are opened, putting the lift operator at
risk of injury. Correction: Ricon Corporation repair facilities
will inspect lift platforms, link arms and bearings for cracks,
damage or misalignment and repair as necessary. Note: This recall
supersedes recall 2014-330. Vehicles repaired under the previous
recall will require re-inspection and potential repair.



                            *********

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  * * *