CAR_Public/150924.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 191


                            Headlines


2020 COMPANIES: "Conde" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
ADT LLC: Fla. Judge Narrows Claims in "Alibris" Case
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Lax & Co" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
AT&T DIGITAL: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Granted
ATRIUM MANAGEMENT: Magistrate Judge's Order Affirmed

BOSTON, MA: BESE Sued Over Inadequate Public Education
BRICKELL MAIL: "Paule" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Trepco" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing
CARRINGTON PLACE: "Owens" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA: "Gomez" Suit Stayed, Mediation Cancelled

DELTA AIR: Employees File Class Suit Over Race Discrimination
DOMFOAM: FRS Helping Class Members File Claims for $151MM Deal
EL POLLO: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
HENRY MAYO: Nurses Reach Tentative Deal in Contract Dispute
HONEST CO: Faces Class Suit Over False Product Label

IDI INC: GPM Files Securities Class Suit
KLX ENERGY: Faces "Vigil" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LINKEDIN CORP: Final Settlement Hearing on Feb. 11 in "Perkins"
LOUISIANA: Class Blasts Post-Katrina Home Grant Program
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Federal Class Suit Over Formaldehyde

M & M ASPHALT: Sued in Fla. Over Unlawful Retaliatory Practices
M-I LLC: Final Approval Hearing on Dec. 14 in "Syed" Case
MASSACHUSETTS: Prison Head Faces Insurance Claim Suit
MATTRESS FIRM: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Green" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Griswold" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hinkins-Heggs" Suit in Maryland Ct.
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Louis-Jacques" Suit Seeks OT Wage Payment

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Khan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Martino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "McCray" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Nash" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Paul" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Polk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Raines" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Shupe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Weddle" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "White" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Worsley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Yarborough" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MICHAEL KORS: Court Notify Customers of $4.8MM Class Settlement

NORTHWEST BIO: Stull Stull Sues on Behalf of Shareholders
ORANGE GROVE: Faces "Lara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PENTAIR WATER: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement
PNC BANK: 7th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in "Gomez Bell"
REAL TIME: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hall" Action Claims

REISNER RESTAURANTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ROBERT POWELL: Claims for $4.7MM Kids-for-Cash Deal Due Oct. 5
ROYAL FLUSH: Faces "Cardoso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RUSTIC CANYON: Faces Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Septemebr 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

SUNFLOWER WESTON: "Marine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SUPER MICRO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
THD AT-HOME SERVICES: Final Approval Hearing on March 4
TOWER GROUP: Nov. 18 Fairness Hearing on $20MM Settlement
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: No Class Cert. for "Santomenno" ERISA Suit

TRANSWOOD INC: Faces "Long" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TYSON FOODS: Ohio Supreme Court Weighs Class Status Certification
VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Judge Grants Summary Judgment vs. Class Member
WAL-MART STORES: Hit with California Unpaid Wages Class Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit


                            *********


2020 COMPANIES: "Conde" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Carlos Conde, Shikwana Jennings, Lisa Drake, and all others
similarly-situated v. 2020 Companies LLC, Open Door Marketing,
LLC, Barry Millay, and Larry Clarke, Case No. 4:15-cv-04080 (N.D.
Calif., September 8, 2015), seek restitution of all wages deprived
and all other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
California Labor Code.

2020 Companies LLC provides professional marketing and contracting
services to telecommunications, cable, energy, and service
industries in California, Florida, Texas, and Maryland. It offers
door to door sales, business to business sales, retail sale
staffing, and event marketing services.  Barry Millay is the chief
executive officer of 2020 Companies.

Open Door Marketing, LLC provides marketing and advertising
consultancy services. Its principal place of business is located
at Brent, Alabama. Larry Clark is the president of Open Door
Marketing.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Matthew Carlson, Esq.
      CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES
      100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 817-1470
      E-mail: mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com

          - and -

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


ADT LLC: Fla. Judge Narrows Claims in "Alibris" Case
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ISSEN ALIBRIS, an individual, Plaintiff, v.
ADT LLC, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 9:14-CV-
81616-ROSENBERG/BRANNON (S.D. Fla.), District Judge Robin L.
Rosenberg of the United States District for Southern District of
Florida granted in part Defendant's Renewed Motion for Judgment on
the Pleadings or, in the Alternative, to Dismiss Second Amended
Complaint and Memorandum of Points and Authorities, entered final
judgment in favor of Defendant as to Counts I and II of
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and remanded Counts III
through IV to the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of Los Angeles.

On August 7, 2013, Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint in
California state court, asserting breach of contract and general
negligence claims against ADT Security Services, Inc., Human
Capital Management, Inc., Human Capital Management, LLC, and Does
1 to 15. In his initial Complaint, Plaintiff alleged that on or
about July 26, 2011, ADT Security Services, Inc. accepted
Plaintiff's application for employment and entered into a written
contract with Plaintiff, pursuant to which ADT Security Services,
Inc. agreed not to consider any outdated information provided by
its background check vendor.  Plaintiff further alleged that on or
about August 10, 2011, ADT Security Services, Inc. breached this
contract by refusing to employ Plaintiff based solely on
information obtained in violation of federal and California state
law, causing Plaintiff both loss of employment and emotional
distress.  Finally, Plaintiff alleged that ADT Security Services,
Inc., Human Capital Management, Inc., Human Capital Management,
LLC, and Does 1 to 15 negligently caused damage to Plaintiff on or
about August 10, 2011, by relying upon information wrongfully
provided by their background check vendor, Checkpast LLC
(Checkpast), and denying Plaintiff employment.

On July 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint
("FAC") in California state court against Defendant ADT LLC and
Does 2 to 20.  Plaintiff withdrew his breach of contract claim and
asserted (on his own behalf and on behalf of a putative class)
claims for (i) violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq. ("FCRA"), (ii) violation of the
California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act, Cal.
Civ. Code Sec. 1786 et seq. ("ICRAA"), (iii) violation of
California Labor Code SEc. 432.7, (iv) negligence, (v) adverse
employment action in violation of public policy, and (vi) unlawful
business practices in violation of California Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.

On August 13, 2014, Defendant filed its Answer to Plaintiff's FAC,
and a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

On October 10, 2014, Defendant filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings as to Counts III-IV of Plaintiff's FAC and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the Southern District of Florida. On November 3,
2014, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended
Complaint.

On December 29, 2014, the California District Court granted
Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Southern District of
Florida and denied both Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings and Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second
Amended Complaint without prejudice to renew these motions in the
new forum. On March 26, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended
Class Action Complaint ("SAC") against Defendant ADT LLC only.

In the motion, Defendant moves pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings or, in the
alternative, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss each of the six
counts in Plaintiff's SAC. Defendant seeks judgment on the
pleadings for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim.

In his Order dated August 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/NnmeVAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosenberg said he could
not conclude that the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000 and
favors to resolve all doubt through remand. The Court said
Plaintiff's FCRA and ICRAA claims are time-barred.

Issen Alibris is represented by Mark A. Ozzello, Esq. --
mozzello@mzclaw.com -- Suzy E. Lee, Esq. -- slee@mzclaw.com --
ARIAS OZZELLO & GIGNAC LLP

ADT LLC is represented by Alison Sue Hightower, Esq. --
ahightower@omm.com -- Rod Fliegel, Esq. -- rfliegel@omm.com --
Roxanna Iran, Esq. -- reran@omm.com, Nicholas S. Andrews, Esq. --
nandrews@omm.com -- Patrick Gerald DeBlasio, III, Esq. --
pdeblasio@omm.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Lax & Co" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lax & Company, Inc., Howard Robinson, and all others similarly-
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental
Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-04085
(N.D. Calif., September 8, 2015), seeks to recover damages and
other appropriate relief based on the Defendants' alleged unlawful
conspiracy, from at least July 14, 2011 to the present, to fix,
raise, maintain and stabilize the price of domestic airline
tickets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act of 1890, 15
U.S.C. section 1.

American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent
company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc. Both American
Airlines Group Inc. and American Airlines, Inc., are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Fort Worth, Texas.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more
than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest carries the
most domestic passengers of any U.S. airline. It operates more
than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United States
and six additional countries.

United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the
parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United
Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Chicago, Illinois. United operates more than 5,300 flights per day
to 369 locations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Whitney E. Street, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      520 Third Street, Suite 108
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Tel: (415) 968-8999
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: wstreet@blockesq.com

          - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 564-1637
      Fax: (212) 564-1656
      E-mail: PSafirstein@MorganSecuritiesLaw.com


AT&T DIGITAL: Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard F. Boulware, II of the United States
District for District of Nevada granted Plaintiff Kirby Spencer's
motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the case
captioned, KIRBY SPENCER, Plaintiff, v. AT&T DIGITAL LIFE, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-01136-RFB-PAL.

Spencer filed a Complaint against Defendant AT&T Digital Life,
Inc. (AT&T) on July 10, 2014, alleging that AT&T had violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by repeatedly sending
non-emergency text messages to Spencer's cell phone despite his
demand that AT&T stop doing so. On January 22, 2015, the last date
to amend pleadings, Spencer filed the instant Motion for Leave to
File an Amended Complaint. The proposed Amended Complaint does not
contain any new or different causes of action, but does assert
class action allegations against AT&T.

In the motion, Spencer seeks to represent two classes:  (1) a
"Called Party Class" consisting of persons who received text
messages from AT&T without having personally provided their phone
numbers to AT&T; and (2) a "Revocation Class" consisting of
persons who received text messages from AT&T after requesting or
communicating their desire that those messages cease. In opposing
Spencer's motion, AT&T argues that Spencer's proposed amendments
are futile, that he unduly delayed in filing his motion, and that
AT&T would be prejudiced by the amendment.

In his Order dated September 1, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/3QUy63from Leagle.com, Judge Boulware found that
that AT&T has not carried its burden of demonstrating that it will
be prejudiced by the amendment, nor has it shown that any of the
remaining Foman factors strongly favor denial of leave to amend
and that Spencer's motion, made after some discovery had been
performed that allegedly provided certain information about the
scope of a potential class in this case, does not constitute bad
faith or undue delay.  The Court directed the Plaintiff to file
the Amended Complaint.

Kirby Spencer is represented by:

Evan Meyers, Esq.
MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel:(312)893-7002

     - and -

Craig K. Perry, Esq.
CRAIG K. PERRY & ASSOCIATES
8010 W Sahara Ave #260,
Las Vegas, NV 89117
Tel: (702)228-4777

AT&T Digital Life, Inc. is represented by Douglas W. Sullivan,
Esq. -- dsullivan@crowell.com & Joel D. Smith, Esq. --
jsmith@crowell.com -- CROWELL & MORING, Ryan M. Lower, Esq. --
rlower@morrislawyer.com -- Raleigh C. Thompson, Esq. --
rthompson@morrislaw.com -- MORRIS LAW GROUP


ATRIUM MANAGEMENT: Magistrate Judge's Order Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, LINDA KINDLE and MICHAEL BREWLEY,
Plaintiffs, v. PETER DEJANA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
6784 (SJF)(ARL), District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein of the United
States District for Eastern District of New York overruled
Plaintiffs' Objection to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay's June
25, 2015 Order denying plaintiffs' motion to compel discovery and
affirmed the Order in its entirety.

Plaintiffs, former employees of participating employers in the
Atrium Management Services, Inc. (Atrium) Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (ESOP or Plan), commenced a putative class action alleging,
inter alia, that plaintiffs "have been cheated out of their hard-
earned retirement benefits as a result of violations of ERISA's
fiduciary rules by defendants." Plaintiffs allege that the
December 2011 sale of the ESOP's Atrium stock to Atrium Funding
LLC for about $4 million (December 2011 ESOP transaction) was "far
less than the Fair Market Value of the ESOP's Atrium stock."
Plaintiffs allege that defendants Saddle Creek LLC and John Sipala
(Sipala Defendants), who were retained as "Independent Temporary
Trustee" in the December 2011 ESOP transaction, were not in fact
independent due to their close relationship with Robert S. Moran
Jr., the attorney who negotiated the December 2011 ESOP
Transaction on behalf of defendants Peter Dejana and Atrium
Funding LLC.  Plaintiff allege that the "improper relationship"
between the Sipala Defendants and Mr. Moran "tainted the December
2011 ESOP transaction" and "created a conflict of interest and
divided loyalties such that Mr. Sipala could not fulfill his ERISA
fiduciary duty of loyalty to the ESOP.

On June 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to compel
disclosure from the Sipala Defendants, specifically requesting "an
order directing the Sipala Defendants to produce: (1) all
communications between the Sipala Defendants and Mr. Moran; (2)
all documents concerning the relationship between the Sipala
Defendants and Mr. Moran; and (3) all communications between the
Sipala Defendants and the Dejana Defendants."

On June 25, 2015, Magistrate Judge Lindsay denied the Motion to
Compel, finding plaintiffs' requests were "overbroad," went "well
beyond their stated intention to obtain information regarding the
Sipala defendants' alleged conflict of interest" and "instead cast
a wide net seeking extensive and irrelevant documentation
concerning all communications between Mr. Sipala and Mr. Moran"
Order, at 2.

On July 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed their objection to the Order,
which the Sipala Defendants oppose.

In the motion, Plaintiffs request that the Order "be set aside
because the court misapplied Supreme Court and Second Circuit law
concerning the ERISA fiduciary duty of loyalty", and that the
"Order makes no reference to the ERISA fiduciary duty of loyalty.

In her Order dated August 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/t5utDhfrom Leagle.com, Judge Feuerstein found no
clear error in Magistrate Judge Lindsay's Order finding these
request to be "overbroad" and not limited to the "Sipala
defendants' alleged conflict of interest, and that plaintiffs have
not satisfied their heavy burden of showing that Magistrate Judge
Lindsay's Order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.

Plaintiffs are represented by Aaron Siri, Esq. --
aaron@sirillp.com -- SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP

     - and -

Andrew Lah, Esq.
Daniel Mark Feinberg, Esq.
LEWIS, FEINBERG, LEE & JACKSON, P.C.
476 9th St
Oakland, CA 94607
Tel: (510)839-6824

Defendants are represented by John Hoover Snyder, Esq. --
john@jhs.nyc -- JOHN H. SNYDER PLLC


BOSTON, MA: BESE Sued Over Inadequate Public Education
------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe Nos. 1-2 and John Doe Nos. 1-3, Minor Children, Each by
Their Parent and Next Friend v. James A. Peyser, et al., Case No.
15-2788F (D. Mass., September 15, 2015), is an action that seeks
to vindicate the right of all Boston's children to obtain an
adequate public education, free from the arbitrary and unnecessary
barrier posed by the charter school cap.

James A. Peyser oversees the Executive Office of Education and is
responsible for the overall administration of public education in
the Commonwealth and the Governor's education reform agenda.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William F. Lee, Esq.
      WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
      HALE & DORR LLP
      60 State Street
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 526-6000
      E-mail: William.Lee@wilmerhale.com

         - and -

      Paul F. Ware Jr., Esq.
      Kevin P. Martin, Esq.
      GOODWIN PROCTER LLP
      53 State Street
      Boston, MA 021 09
      Telephone: (617) 570-1000
      E-mail: pware@goodwinprocter.com
              kmartin@goodwinprocter.com

         - and -

      Michael B. Keating, Esq.
      FOLEY HOAG LLP
      155 Seaport Boulevard
      Boston, MA 0221 0
      Telephone: (617) 832-1000
      E-mail: mkeating@foleyhoag.com


BRICKELL MAIL: "Paule" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Nolber Paule, and all others similarly-situated v. Lucia E.
Medina, Fernando Medina, Jorge Baez and Brickell Mail Receiving,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23379 (S.D. Fla., September 8, 2015), seeks
to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the
costs and reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own, manage, and operate a private mail service
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler St., Ste 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


BUMBLE BEE FOODS: "Trepco" Suit Alleges Product Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Trepco Imports and Distribution LTD, and all others similarly-
situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC fka Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC,
Tri-Union Seafoods, LLC dba Chicken of the Sea, Starkist Company,
and King Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01987 (S.D. Calif.,
September 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for alleged
conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize, or maintain prices, allocate
customers, and restrict capacity in the market for shelf-stable
packaged seafood products such as tuna, clam, crab, mackerel,
oyster, salmon, sardines, and shrimp ("Packaged Seafood") sold in
the United States, from at least as early as January 1, 2000,
through present.

The Plaintiff brings this action to (i) recover treble damages,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and court costs, and (ii)
secure injunctive relief for violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act of 1890, 15 U.S.C. section 1, pursuant to Sections 4
and 16 of the Clayton Act of 1914, 15 U.S.C. sections 15 and 26.

Bumble Bee Foods LLC is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business located at 280 10th Avenue, San Diego,
California 92101. Bumble Bee produces and sells PSPs throughout
the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia.
Bumble Bee is privately owned by Lion Capital, based in the United
Kingdom.

StarKist Company is a domestic corporation with its headquarters
at 225 North Shore Drive, Suite 400, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15212. StarKist produces and sells PSPs throughout the United
Sates, its territories and the District of Columbia. StarKist is
privately owned by Dongwon Enterprise, a company based in South
Korea.

Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is a domestic corporation with its
principal place of business located at 9330 Scranton Road, Suite
500, San Diego, CA 92121. Tri-Union Seafoods LLC produces and
sells packaged seafood products throughout the United States, its
territories and the District of Columbia, and markets these
products under the brand name Chicken of the Sea. Unless otherwise
indicated, Tri-Union Foods LLC will be referred to herein as
"Chicken of the Sea."

King Oscar, Inc. is a domestic corporation with its principal
place of business at 3838 Camino Del Rio North, Suite 115, San
Diego, CA 92108.  King Oscar produces and sells packaged seafood
products throughout the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia.

Defendants Chicken of the Sea and King Oscar are wholly owned by
Thai Union Frozen Products, a public company headquartered in
Thailand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
      STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1750
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 400-5822
      Fax: (619) 400-5832
      E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

          - and -

      Vincent J. Esades, Esq.
      HEINS MILLS & OLSON, P.L.C.
      310 Clifton Avenue
      Minneapolis, MN 55403
      Tel: (612) 338-4605
      Fax: (612) 338-4692

          - and -

      Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
      KARON LLC
      700 W. St. Clair Ave., Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 622-1851
      Fax: (216) 241-8175


CARRINGTON PLACE: "Owens" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Audriana Owens, and all others similarly-situated v. Carrington
Place of Chestnut Hill, LLC dba Springfield Residences, Case No.
2:15-cv-05015 (E.D. Pa. September 8, 2015), seeks monetary
damages, declaratory and injunctive relief, and other equitable
and ancillary relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment
and Collection Law.

The Defendant owns and operates several assisted living
facilities, including those doing business as "Springfield
Residences," an elderly housing community at Wyndmoor,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Murphy, Esq.
      MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC
      Eight Penn Center, Suite 1803
      1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd.
      Philadephia, PA 19101
      Tel: (215) 375-0961
      E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com


DANIEL C. CONSUEGRA: "Gomez" Suit Stayed, Mediation Cancelled
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDUARDO GOMEZ, ET AL., Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL C.
CONSUEGRA, P.L., ET AL., Defendants, CASE NO. 8:15-CV-1494-T-33TBM
(M.D. Fla.), District Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington
granted the request of the Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra,
P.L. for stay of proceedings.

According to the Judge, the Court "has broad discretion to stay
proceedings as an incident to its power to control its own
docket." Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); see also
Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1366-67 (11th Cir.
1997) (citation omitted) (stating district courts "enjoy broad
discretion in deciding how to best manage the cases before them").

After reviewing the Motion to Stay and the response, the Court
determines that this action should be stayed. As Gomez and Tello
concede in their response, they fit the class definitions in Case
Nos. 8:15-cv-571-JSM-AEP and 9:15-cv-80261-WPD.  (stating
"Plaintiffs fit the Lopez class definition" and "Plaintiffs fit
the Cruz class definition"). Furthermore, Consuegra seeks a stay
of this action only "until such time as a class is certified and
Plaintiffs opt out, or until such time as the class certification
is denied."

In light of the overlapping nature of these actions, staying the
action until such time as a class is certified and Gomez and Tello
opt out, or until such time as class certification is denied, will
promote judicial efficiency and avoid the risk of inconsistent
rulings. In addition, such a stay is not of immoderate or
indefinite duration.

The Court ruled that:

     (1) Defendant Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L.'s
Motion to Stay is GRANTED.

     (2) This case is stayed until such time as a class is
certified and Plaintiffs Gomez and Tello opt out, or until such
time as class certification is denied.

     (3) The Clerk is directed to administratively close this
case.

     (4) The parties are directed to file a status report
regarding the class action proceedings on or before December 1,
2015, and every 90 days thereafter.

     (5) The mediation conference scheduled for October 16, 2015,
is cancelled.

A copy of the Court's Sept. 18 Order is available at
http://is.gd/mjILVOfrom Leagle.com.

Eduardo Gomez, Plaintiff, is represented by Austin Tyler Brown,
Parker & DuFresne, PA & Earl Warren Parker, Jr., Parker &
DuFresne, PA.

Martha Tello, Plaintiff, is represented by Austin Tyler Brown,
Parker & DuFresne, PA & Earl Warren Parker, Jr., Parker &
DuFresne, PA.

Law Offices of Daniel C. Consuegra, P.L., a Florida Professional
Limited Liability Company, Defendant, is represented by David P.
Hartnett, Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP & West Allan Holden, Hinshaw &
Culbertson, LLP.

Dyck-O'Neal, Inc., a Texas Corporation, Defendant, is represented
by Benjamin W. Raslavich, Golden Scaz Gagain, PLLC.

Peter J. Grilli, Mediator, is represented by Peter John Grilli,
Peter J. Grilli, PA.


DELTA AIR: Employees File Class Suit Over Race Discrimination
-------------------------------------------------------------
WLWT5 News reported that four current and former Delta Airlines
employees said they were racially discriminated against while
working for Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

A class action complaint filed in federal court accuses Delta of
systematic race discrimination when it came to work assignments,
discipline and promotions.

The complaint was filed against the airline along with several
managers and supervisors.

Delta has not responded to the complaint.


DOMFOAM: FRS Helping Class Members File Claims for $151MM Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Recovery Strategies, in a press release, stated: "If you
or your business purchased Flexible Polyurethane Foam from January
1, 1999 through August 1, 2015, you may be entitled to participate
in the $151,250,000 in class action settlements if:

   -- You purchased one or more products, such as upholstered
furniture (e.g., a couch with foam cushions), carpet underlay
(foam padding) or bedding products (e.g., a foam mattress or
pillow) that contain flexible polyurethane foam from a store or
company other than the Defendants; and

   -- The product was manufactured in the United States; and

   -- You were the end-user of the product, meaning that you did
not buy it for resale to someone else; and

   -- You made your purchase in AL, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, HI, IL,
IA, KS, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NV, NH, NM, NY, NC, ND, OR,
RI, SD, TN, VT, WV, or WI.

About the Class Action:  Several class action lawsuits were filed
in 2010 alleging that the defendants conspired to raise and fix
the prices of flexible polyurethane foam.  Those lawsuits were
consolidated in December 2010 in the Northern District of Ohio.
The class settled with defendants Domfoam and Valle in 2012 for no
monetary value in exchange for their cooperation in litigating
against the other defendants; the court granted approval of those
two settlements in April 2015.  Since then, the class reached nine
additional settlements totaling $151,250,000, as follows:
Carpenter ($63.5 million); FFP ($2.75 million); FXI ($9 million
plus an additional $500,000 solely for the costs of providing
notice to the class and for administration of the settlement);
Future Foam ($10.5 million); Hickory Springs ($10.25 million);
Leggett ($26.5 million); Mohawk ($16 million); Vitafoam ($2.75
million); and Woodbridge ($9.5 million).  The court preliminarily
approved those nine settlements, which now are pending the Court's
final approval.  The settlement funds (less expenses, noticing
costs and fees) will be distributed to the class at the completion
of a claims process.  You may obtain more information about the
class action and about the settlements by contacting class counsel
or the claims administrator, or by visiting the court-approved
website at www.polyfoamclassaction.com.

The Services FRS Provides:  If you hire FRS and become an FRS
client, we will work within your guidelines to manage the claims
process: FRS will work on your behalf to enhance the likelihood
that all of your eligible business units (e.g., subsidiaries,
divisions, acquisitions and divestitures) are included in the
claim process; we will provide advice on what, if any, documents
need to be collected and maintained, and, when requested, we will
assist in that effort; to reduce the support needed from your in-
house staff when required documents are not available or are too
burdensome to collect; we will negotiate on your behalf, where
possible, to develop alternate means to satisfy documentation
requirements; we will prepare, assemble and submit your claim
package, and manage it throughout the claims processing phase,
including working with you to address any concerns or questions
the claims administrator may have; we will provide regular updates
on the recovery process and all related developments; we will
audit your payment to assure that it has not been under
calculated; we will follow up with you to assure that your
recovery check is deposited; and we also will notify you when we
learn of other settlements that may be valuable to you.  FRS's
recovery specialists are always available to answer any questions
you may have.  FRS is paid an agreed-upon contingent fee only from
the recovery we obtain on your behalf, and we cover all expenses.

About FRS:  Founded in 2008, FRS is a leading asset recovery and
cost reduction firm that specializes in, among other services,
class action settlement claims recovery.  FRS's management and
staff have decades of experience in class action claims recovery
and administration, and FRS tracks dozens of settlements per year
to assure that its clients, while keeping client time to a
minimum, participate in as many settlements as possible.  We
provide our clients with industry-leading asset recovery and cost
reduction services, without any risk or expenses, while adhering
to the highest level of professional ethics and standards.  Over
15,000 clients, from small business owners, on the one hand, to
household names in the "Fortune 500," on the other, have trusted
FRS with their asset recovery and cost reduction matters.  FRS has
earned that trust by recovering over a $100 million dollars in
class action settlements and other recoveries.  FRS also provides
customized cost savings programs designed to efficiently manage
its clients' expenses.

You have the right to file a claim on your own and to not hire FRS
to participate in the monetary relief provided by the above-
referenced settlements. FRS believes, however, that there are
services that we provide that may increase your recovery and that
are unlikely to be provided by the claims administrator or by
class counsel.


EL POLLO: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against El Pollo
Loco Holdings, Inc. LOCO on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock betweenMay 15, 2015 and August 13, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

For additional information about the shareholder class action
lawsuit, or to request information about the action online, please
visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/el-pollo-loco-holdings-inc.

Through its subsidiary, El Pollo Loco develops, franchises,
licenses, and operates quick-service restaurants in the U.S. under
the El Pollo Loco name.

The complaint alleges that El Pollo Loco and certain of its
executive officers made a series of false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse information
about El Pollo Loco's business and prospects during the Class
Period, including that traffic at El Pollo Loco stores had
declined substantially due to the removal of the value items from
the restaurants' menu boards, and that as a result, comparable
store sales were not growing at the 3 -- 5% that defendants had
led investors to believe they would grow in the second quarter of
2015.

According to the complaint, on August 13, 2015, El Pollo Loco
issued a press release announcing its second quarter 2015 results.
Therein, the Company disclosed that, contrary to its prior claims
of being on track to achieve a 3 -- 5% comparable store sales
increase, second quarter 2015 "[s]ystem-wide comparable restaurant
sales [had grown] 1.3%, including a 0.5% decrease for company-
operated restaurants, and a 2.6% increase for franchised
restaurants."

Following this news, shares of El Pollo Loco's stock declined by
$3.80 per share, or over 20 percent, to close the following day at
$14.56 per share, on heavy trading volume.

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

Members of the class may,no later than October 23, 2015, petition
the Court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action. Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff. Any member of the purported class may move the court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.

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

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


HENRY MAYO: Nurses Reach Tentative Deal in Contract Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luke Money, writing for SignalSCV.com, reported that Henry Mayo
Newhall Hospital's registered nurses announced a tentative
agreement in a months-long contract dispute between the Santa
Clarita Valley's only hospital and its nurses.

The proposed three-year collective bargaining agreement will be
put to a vote during meetings Sept. 16 and Sept. 17, according to
a news release from the California Nurses Association, which
represents about 650 registered nurses at Henry Mayo.

"Our nurses were united and strong for months in our dedication to
protecting our patients and our profession," said Henry Mayo RN
Sandra Dorso, who is also a nurse negotiator.

"We're pleased to win an agreement that defends our rights and
will also promote retention of experienced nurses for our
community," Dorso added in a statement.

The union and the hospital were able to reach an agreement in
talks that ended, according to the union.

"We're very pleased that we've come to an agreement, but we prefer
not to comment on any specifics until the ratification vote,"
hospital spokesman Patrick Moody said.

Members of the nurses union have been working without a contract
since Jan. 22.

The lengthy contract dispute saw the union twice threaten a one-
day strike, most recently one that was scheduled.

In both cases, those strikes were averted and the two sides
returned to the bargaining table.

During the months of negotiations, the hospital and the union
locked horns over a proposal that would require disputes between
the two parties to go through arbitration, in which a third party
would help resolve the issue.

The union and the hospital agreed to have an opt-out clause when
it comes to arbitration, according to Cynthia Hanna, the lead
negotiator on the contract.

"The normal process would be arbitration, but if a nurse chooses
they can opt out of that and proceed through the traditional legal
venues," she said.

Moody said a nurse would have 60 days to decide whether to opt out
of arbitration.

Another stumbling block was the issue of nurses being able to
bring class-action lawsuits against the hospital.

Hospital administrators had wanted language in the contract
stipulating nurses could not file class-action suits, saying such
actions could devastate a hospital of Henry Mayo's size.

Hanna said filing class-action lawsuits would be possible under
the tentative pact so long as nurses opted out of the arbitration
process.

"This agreement has provided the nurses with protection and
remedies to continue to fight for our patients' rights as well as
for ourselves," said Henry Mayo nurse Susan Salkeld in a
statement.

Registered nurses will also "earn pay increases of up to 24
percent" over the life of the agreement, retroactive to January
when the last contract expired, according to the union.


HONEST CO: Faces Class Suit Over False Product Label
----------------------------------------------------
Emily Smith, writing for Page Six, reported that Jessica Alba's
Honest Co. is being sued for allegedly not being honest.

Consumer Jonathan D. Rubin filed a class-action lawsuit against
Alba's firm in San Francisco, claiming its products described as
"natural" contain synthetic preservatives, The Wrap first
reported.

The list of products accused of being "deceptively and
misleadingly labeled" include the brand's hand soap, dish soap,
diapers and multisurface cleaner.

Honest Sunscreen, which some customers complained didn't stop them
from getting burned, "is ineffective," the lawsuit adds.

The Honest Co. said it was "committed to providing safe and
effective products, and we take all consumer feedback very
seriously."


IDI INC: GPM Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces the filing of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of IDI, Inc. ("IDI" or
the "Company") (NYSE MKT:IDI) who purchased IDI shares between
April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").
IDI investors have until September 21, 2015 to file a lead
plaintiff motion.

The complaint alleges that the Company misled investors regarding
its internal controls, operations and accounting practices.
According to a report published by seekingalpha on July 21, 2015,
IDI failed to disclose that Chairman Michael Brauser has a "long
track record of fraud lawsuits, bankruptcy and shareholder
wipeouts," including suits by Equifax accusing him of "fictitious
receivables" and by Softbank accusing him of "various frauds." The
seekingalpha report further alleges that the Company is engaged in
a potentially crippling civil action with Transunion that could
render IDI stock worthless. On this news, shares of IDI fell by
over 45% thereby damaging investors.

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

Contacts
Glancy Prongay & Murray, Los Angeles
Casey Sadler, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com


KLX ENERGY: Faces "Vigil" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Vigil, Jr., individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. KLX Energy Services and Bulldog Frac Rentals
LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01200-JFC (W.D. Penn., September 15, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing parts
distribution, rental equipment and on-site services to the oil and
gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
      ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      707 Grant Street, Suite 2500
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1918
      Telephone: (412) 281-7229
      Facsimile: (412) 281-4229
      E-mail: arihn@peircelaw.com

         - and -

      Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
      MIGLIACCIO LAW FIRM PLLC
      438 16th St SE Washington, DC 20003
      Telephone: (202) 470-3520
      Facsimile: (202) 810-0081
      E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

         - and -

      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      WHTFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W., Suite 605
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
      E-mail: jrathod@wbmllp.com


LINKEDIN CORP: Final Settlement Hearing on Feb. 11 in "Perkins"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh gave her stamp of approval of a
settlement agreement reached in the case, PAUL PERKINS, PENNIE
SEMPELL, ANN BRANDWEIN, ERIN EGGERS, CLARE CONNAUGHTON, JAKE
KUSHNER, NATALIE RICHSTONE, NICOLE CROSBY, and LESLIE WALL;
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LINKEDIN CORPORATION, Defendant, CASE NO. 13-CV-
04303-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

The Court issued a preliminary approval order on Sept. 15.  The
parties will return to the court at a later date to obtain final
approval of the deal.

Pursuant to the Settlement, a class is certified for settlement
purposes only.  The Settlement Class is defined to include: "[A]ll
current and former LinkedIn members who used Add Connections to
import information from external email accounts and to send emails
to persons who were non-members in which the member's name,
photograph, likeness and/or identity was displayed between
September 17, 2011 and October 31, 2014." Excluded from the
Settlement Class are the following: (1) Defendant, its
subsidiaries, and affiliates and each of their respective
officers, directors and employees, (2) Class Counsel and
Defendant's Counsel, and (3) any judicial officer to whom the
Action is assigned.

The Settlement Class consists of approximately 20.8 million
persons.

The Court appoints Plaintiffs Paul Perkins, Pennie Sempell, Ann
Brandwein, Erin Eggers, Clare Connaughton, Jake Kushner, Natalie
Richstone, Nicole Crosby, and Leslie Wall as Class
Representatives.

The Court appoints Michael W. Sobol, Nicholas R. Diamand, and
Melissa Gardner of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP;
Dorian S. Berger and Daniel P. Hipskind of Olavi Dunne LLP; and
Larry C. Russ of Russ, August & Kabat as Class Counsel.

Gilardi & Co. LLC is appointed as Settlement Administrator.

Settlement Class Members who wish to receive a payment under the
Settlement Agreement must complete and submit a timely and valid
Claim Form. A Settlement Class Member may file only one Claim
Form, regardless of how many LinkedIn accounts he, she, or it may
have. All Claim Forms must be postmarked or received by the
Settlement Administrator on or before the Claims Deadline, which
is set as December 14, 2015.

Settlement Class members who wish to exclude themselves from the
Settlement Class for purposes of this settlement may do so by
submitting a request for exclusion to the Settlement Administrator
on or before the Objection/Exclusion Deadline, which is set as
December 14, 2015.

Any member of the Settlement Class who has not filed a timely and
valid request for exclusion may object to the granting of final
approval to the Settlement Agreement. Settlement Class Members may
object on their own, or may do so through separate counsel at
their own expense.

A Final Approval Hearing shall be held before this Court on
February 11, 2016, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 8 of the United
States Courthouse, 280 South 1st Street, 4th Floor, San Jose, CA
95113 to consider: (a) whether the proposed settlement of the
Action on the terms and conditions provided for in the Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be given
final approval by the Court; (b) whether a final judgment should
be entered; (c) whether to award payment of attorney's fees and
expenses to Class Counsel and in what amount; and (d) whether to
award payment of an incentive award to the Class Representative
and in what amount. The Court may adjourn the Final Approval
Hearing without further notice to Class Members.

At least 14 days prior to the Objection/Exclusion Deadline,
Plaintiffs shall file with the Court their motion for attorney's
fees, costs, and service awards.  No later than January 14, 2016,
Plaintiffs shall file with the Court their motion for final
approval.  No later than February 4, 2016, Plaintiffs shall file
any replies in support of Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's fees,
costs, and service awards and Plaintiffs' motion for final
approval.

All discovery and pretrial proceedings and deadlines are stayed
and suspended until further notice from the Court, except for
actions as are necessary to implement the Settlement Agreement.

A copy of the Court's Sept. 15 Order is available at
http://is.gd/ZxHAYsfrom Leagle.com.

Paul Perkins et al. are represented by Larry C. Russ, Russ August
& Kabat, Daniel Paul Hipskind, Olavi Dunne LLP, Melissa Ann
Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Nicholas Diamand, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein LLP, Dorian Seawind Berger, Olavi
Dunne LLP & Larry Craig Russ, Russ August Kabat.

Jake Kushner, Plaintiff, is represented by Dorian Seawind Berger,
Olavi Dunne LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP.

Natalie Richstone, Plaintiff, is represented by Dorian Seawind
Berger, Olavi Dunne LLP, Melissa Ann Gardner, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann Bernstein, LLP, Michael W. Sobol, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser Heimann and
Bernstein LLP.

LinkedIn Corporation, Defendant, is represented by Jerome Cary
Roth -- Jerome.Roth@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP &
Rosemarie Theresa Ring, Esq. -- Rose.Ring@mto.com -- Munger,
Tolles & Olson LLP.

Branton Lea, Respondent, is represented by James C Shah, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller and Shah, LLP & Nicholas Diamand, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann and Bernstein LLP.


LOUISIANA: Class Blasts Post-Katrina Home Grant Program
-------------------------------------------------------
Sabrina Canfield, writing for Courthouse News, reported that
discriminatory housing grant practices in the wake of Hurricane
Katrina has kept tens of thousands of black homeowners from
rebuilding their ruined homes, a class action claims.

After hurricanes Katrina and Rita tore through the Gulf Coast in
2005, inundating more than 80 percent of the city and decimating
71 percent of the occupied housing units, the Road Home Program
was created to distribute $11 billion in homeowner grants to help
the displaced rebuild their destroyed homes or build new ones.

Road Home grants were calculated using the lower of two baseline
values: the pre-storm value of a home, or the cost of damage to
the house. This system created "a discriminatory disparate impact
on African American homeowners because home values in
predominantly African American communities are generally lower
than home values for similar homes in predominantly white
communities," the class says.

African American homeowners as a result were more likely to
receive Road Home grants based on the pre-storm value of their
home than were white homeowners, the class action says, and
therefore faced "larger gaps than white families between the grant
amount and the cost to rebuild," meaning that an African American
family is less likely to be able to rebuild its home and remain in
its community than a white family with a comparable home that
suffered similar damage.

The Road Home Program was funded by the CDBG Disaster Recovery
Grant program, a $19 billion Community Development Block Grant
program allocated by Congress for necessary expenses related to
disaster relief, long-term recovery, and rebuilding expenses in
those areas most affected by hurricanes Rita and Katrina.

More than half a million people were displaced by hurricanes
Katrina and Rita and more than 53,000 homes in New Orleans were
damaged or destroyed. Hurricane Katrina alone caused an estimated
$81.2 billion in damages, making it the costliest hurricane in
U.S. history. To date, New Orleans has only recovered 75 percent
of its pre-Katrina population, the class action says. While the
latest population studies show that 100,000 African Americans are
still missing from the city.

The Road Home Homeowner Assistance Program was put in place to
help the approximately 150,000 owner-occupied homes that were
destroyed or seriously damaged during the hurricanes.

Homeowners who received Road Home grants were given a choice of
promising to use the funds to rebuild or repair their homes or of
receiving a reduced grant that could be used to obtain housing
outside or their home parish or outside Louisiana.

Homeowners were eligible to receive up to $150,000.

Since August, 2010, defendants have been subject to an injunction
out of the District of Columbia that bars them from dispersing
home grant awards based on the pre-storm value of a home, the
lawsuit says.

The requirement that bars Road Home grants from exceeding the pre-
storm value of a home (where pre-storm value was less than the
cost of damage) had a "discriminatory disparate impact on African
Americans living in historically segregated communities," where
comparable homes have lower values in predominantly African
American communities than in predominantly white communities, the
lawsuit says.

Data from the 2000 census shows that nearly 80 percent of homes
owned by African Americans in New Orleans were valued at less than
$100,000 and 93 percent of homes owned by African Americans were
valued at less than $150,000, compared to 55 percent of homes
owned by white homeowners, the lawsuit says.

Because the Road Home formula limited grant awards to the pre-
storm value of the home where the amount was less than the cost of
damage, African American recipients of Road Home grants were more
likely than white grantees to have a "gap" between their
rebuilding resources and the cost to rebuild, the class action
says.

The average rebuilding gap for African American applicants was far
larger than the average gap for white applicants, the class says,
which "disproportionately burdens African American homeowners and
hinders their ability to return to their home," the lawsuit says.

If defendant truly desired to reach its stated intention of
helping residents come home, why not simply calculate grants based
on the cost of damage to a home, "which would permit the program
to achieve its goal of restoring communities and permitting
homeowners to rebuild their homes," the lawsuit says. As it stands
now, plaintiffs' homes are still under construction due to the
fact that damages far exceeded defendant's calculations.

Named defendants are the Louisiana Office of Community Development
and the Louisiana Recovery Authority, and Patrick Forbes, in his
official capacity as director.

The class action was filed in East Baton Rouge Federal Court by
DeVonn Jarrett of New Orleans.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Federal Class Suit Over Formaldehyde
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that
two West Virginia women have filed a proposed class action lawsuit
against Lumber Liquidators Inc., alleging that a line of Chinese
wood flooring sold by the company emits "excessive" levels of
formaldehyde and has cost them thousands of dollars.

Plaintiffs Liz Elson and Michelle Lewis filed their lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia.

In their 17-page complaint, the plaintiffs point to a March report
by CBS' news show "60 Minutes." According to the report, the
company's laminate wood flooring emits formaldehyde gas as "toxic
levels that exceed strict state and federal standards for such
emissions."

The lawsuit states that Lumber Liquidators sells the laminate wood
flooring in the 19 stores it operates in West Virginia. Hundreds
of similar suits have been filed across the country since the "60
Minutes" report.

"The result is that West Virginia consumers, like plaintiffs, have
purchased unsafe laminate flooring, and Lumber Liquidators
continues to sell unsafe flooring to West Virginia consumers,"
Elson and Lewis allege.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer and the National
Institute for Environmental Health Sciences both classify
formaldehyde as a human carcinogen. A carcinogen is a substance or
agent suspected to cause cancer.

Short-term health effects from exposure to formaldehyde -- a
colorless, flammable chemical -- include burning sensations in the
eyes, nose and throat; coughing; wheezing; nausea; and skin
irritation.

Elson and Lewis allege that after learning of the 60 Minutes
story, they tried contacting Lumber Liquidators to repudiate their
sales and return the flooring. At the time of filing their
complaint, they still had not been reimbursed for their purchases,
including materials and installation and the costs of replacing
the flooring.

Elson alleges she paid more than $3,700 for the purchase of 12mm
KM Warm Springs Chestnut Laminate Flooring from the company's
Wheeling store.

Lewis alleges she paid more than $2,200 for the purchase of 12mm
ISP American Mission Olive Laminate Flooring, also from the
Wheeling store.

The plaintiffs seek to represent similarly situated persons in
West Virginia who have purchased the Chinese laminate wood
flooring and were sold from March 1, 2011, to the date of
judgment.

"Lumber Liquidators failed to properly investigate and inform
customers regarding the formaldehyde emissions problems associated
with its products," the proposed class action states.

"Had Defendant adequately and fairly represented its products,
Plaintiffs and the Class would not have purchased these products
and would not incur additional damages in returning these products
to Lumber Liquidators.

"Lumber Liquidators' violations of law and systemic warranty
breaches have caused, and will continue to cause, significant
financial harm to plaintiffs and the Class."

The plaintiffs, who do not assert claims for any personal injury
damages, argue the class is entitled to a return of the full
purchase price paid for the Chinese-made laminate flooring and
other associated damages.

They seek compensatory and consequential damages, equitable and
injunctive relief, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Charleston law firm Bailey & Glasser LLP is representing the
plaintiffs in the lawsuit. The case has been assigned to Judge
John Preston Bailey.

John Preston Bailey, Esq.
Bailey & Glasser LLP
209 Capitol Street Charleston, WV 25301
T: 304-345-6555
F: 304-342-1110
http://www.baileyglasser.com


M & M ASPHALT: Sued in Fla. Over Unlawful Retaliatory Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth A. Dyer, Jr., Michael A. Hill, Robert P. Anderson, Joseph
T. Allen, Correy W. Bowers, Calvin A. Williams, Tavern D. Latimer,
Ricky A. McGee, Patrick B. Minor, Andrew Tomlin, Johnny L.
Walters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. M & M Asphalt Maintenance Inc. d/b/a All County
Paving, All County Paving, Inc., Jeffrey Cohen, Kenneth Goldberg,
and David Goldberg, Case No. 6:15-cv-01512-PGB-TBS (M.D. Fla.,
September 15, 2015), alleges that the Defendant willfully
retaliate the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees,
specifically by, reducing working hours and termination.

The Defendants operate an asphalt paving, repair and sealcoating
business Orlando, Florida and Delray Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott C. Adams, Esq.
      N. Ryan Labar, Esq.
      LABAR & ADAMS, P.A.
      2300 East Concord Street
      Orlando, FL 32803
      Telephone: (407) 835-8968
      Facsimile: (407) 835-8969
      E-mail: sadams@labaradams.com
              rlabar@labaradams.com


M-I LLC: Final Approval Hearing on Dec. 14 in "Syed" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Sarmad Syed, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. M-I LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, PreCheck, Inc., a Texas Corporation,
and Does 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00742-WBS-BAM
(E.D. Cal.), District Judge William B. Shubb issued an order
preliminarily approving a settlement agreement.

Based on the parties' Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
Proposed Settlement and good cause shown therein, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Preliminary Approval of Proposed Settlement. The Agreement,
including all exhibits thereto, is preliminarily approved as fair,
reasonable and adequate and within the range of reasonableness for
preliminary settlement approval. The Court finds that: (a) the
Agreement resulted from extensive arm's length negotiations; and
(b) the Agreement is sufficient to warrant notice of the
Settlement to persons in the Settlement Class and a full hearing
on the approval of the Settlement;

2. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), the Court conditionally
certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement
Class:

All individuals on whom, during the period from May 20, 2009
through the date of this Order, a consumer report for employment
purposes was furnished by PreCheck, Inc., and where the address
provided listed California as the individual's state of residence
at the time the report was furnished, but not any individuals who
timely opt-out of the settlement.

3. In connection with this conditional certification, the Court
makes the following preliminary findings for settlement purposes
only:

     a. The Settlement Class appears to be so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable;

     b. There appear to be questions of law or fact common to the
Settlement Class for purposes of determining whether this
Settlement should be approved;

     c. Plaintiff's claims appear to be typical of the claims
being resolved through the proposed settlement;

     d. Plaintiff appears to be capable of fairly and adequately
protecting the interests of the Settlement Class Members in
connection with the proposed settlement;

     e. Common questions of law and fact appear to predominate
over questions affecting only individual persons in the Settlement
Class. Accordingly, the Settlement Class appears to be
sufficiently cohesive to warrant settlement by representation; and

     f. Certification of the Settlement Class appears to be
superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient
resolution of the claims of the Settlement Class.

4. Class Counsel. The Dion-Kindem Law Firm and The Blanchard Law
Group, APC are appointed as Class Counsel.

5. Class Representative. Plaintiff Sarmad Syed is appointed Class
Representative;

6. Class Notice. The parties' proposed Class Notice is approved
for distribution in accordance with the schedule included in the
Settlement Agreement.

7. Opt-Outs and Objections. Class Members shall have the right to
either opt-out or object to this settlement pursuant to the
procedures and scheduled included in the Settlement Agreement.

8. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing is set for
December 14, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 5. The parties shall
file briefs in support of the final approval of the settlement no
later than 14 days before the fairness hearing.

9. The Court orders the stay lifted, and the October 26, 2015
Status Conference is now vacated.

A copy of the Court's Sept. 18 Order is available at
http://is.gd/0lEkVEfrom Leagle.com.

Sarmad Syed, Plaintiff, is represented by Lonnie C. Blanchard,
III, Blanchard Law Group, APC & Peter R. Dion-Kindem, Peter R.
Dion-Kindem, P.C.

PreCheck, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Raymond Joseph Muro,
Nelson Griffin, LLP & Thomas Joseph Griffin, Nelson Griffin, LLP.


MASSACHUSETTS: Prison Head Faces Insurance Claim Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
inmates are people too. And they get sick; with a sizeable number
infected with hepatitis C. Prison populations are among the most
infected, requiring treatment. However, the problems many
plaintiffs are having with the inability to access the effective
but expensive Harvoni drug are also being felt by those in the
penal system. To that end, the Wall Street Journal reports that
two inmates have launched a Gilead Hep C Denied Insurance Claim
Lawsuit.

Defendants in the proposed class action are Carol Higgins O'Brien,
identified as the commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of
Correction, and the Massachusetts Partnership for Correctional
Healthcare. The latter is a contracted provider of healthcare
services for state prisons. The plaintiffs in the Harvoni lawsuit
are Emillan Paszko and Jeffrey Fowler.

"Prisoners who ought to receive the new medications are not
receiving them, and a vast number of prisoners with Hepatitis C
are not being afforded the necessary testing to determine whether
they too should receive treatment," according to the lawsuit,
which was filed in federal court in Boston.

The lawsuit is among several Harvoni Denied Insurance Claim
Lawsuits emerging over an issue that is as compelling as it is
sad. Harvoni and a slightly older companion drug known as Sovaldi
-- both developed by Gilead Sciences -- are highly regarded in the
medical community as being the most effective drugs yet in the
fight against hepatitis C. The expense, however, is proving to be
prohibitive and many healthcare plans and insurers are balking at
the cost, delaying approval of treatment or even refusing
treatment altogether.

Most insurance providers have a contractual authority to opt for a
lesser-expensive alternative provided the alternative is similar -
- such as a generic -- to the prescribed treatment. However,
Sovaldi and Harvoni are in a class by themselves. Doctors who
prescribe Sovaldi or Harvoni do so given a belief that no other
treatment option would be effective.

The WSJ notes that Medicaid programs in most states restricted
access to Sovaldi, and some prison systems restricted access to
newer drugs due to budget constraints. The cost for a 12-week
regimen of Sovaldi and Harvoni is described as $84,000 and $94,500
respectively.

Prison systems historically have a high rate of infection. The
Harvoni lawsuit takes the prison commissioner and health
contractor to task for failure to update their treatment protocols
given the availability of new and effective drugs.

"Defendants have not changed their protocol to recognize the new
reality in Hepatitis C treatment, and they have done nothing to
conduct the necessary pre-treatment testing of the many prisoners
-- the nonresponders, relapsers, and treatment-na‹ve -- who may
benefit from treatment now or in the future," the lawsuit states.

The two plaintiffs are reported to be quite ill. Paszko, who is
located at Shirley, Massachusetts, has serious complications from
hep C. His co-plaintiff, situated in a different facility, was
reportedly treated with older drugs, but the treatment proved
unsuccessful.

A federal judge has been petitioned to certify the Harvoni lawsuit
as a class action. The case is Paszko et al v. O'Brien et al, Case
No. 1:15-cv-12298-NMG, in US District Court, District of
Massachusetts.


MATTRESS FIRM: Faces "Gomez" Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Mattress Firm, Inc. d/b/a
Mattress Firm, Case No. 1:15-cv-23460-KMW (S.D. Fla., September
15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to provide
website screen reader software or other means to accommodate the
visually impaired.

Mattress Firm, Inc. owns and operates a chain of bedding stores
called Mattress Firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott R. Dinin, Esq.
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      E-mail: inbox@dininlaw.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Wond Carter v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02781 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Green" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aline Green v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02752-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Griswold" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Quantia Griswold v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02774 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Hinkins-Heggs" Suit in Maryland Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
Angela D. Hinkins-Heggs v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-02756-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for
work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Jackson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Jackson v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02764-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: "Louis-Jacques" Suit Seeks OT Wage Payment
------------------------------------------------------------
Marie Volmidor Louis-Jacques v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-02770 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for
work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Jimenez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yadira Jimenez v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02778 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Khan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bibi Khan v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02745-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dolores S. Lee v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02782 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Marshall" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Marshall v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02772 (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Martino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Martino v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02754-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "McCray" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Colette McCray v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02760-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Nash" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy L. Nash v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02729-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Paul" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Remicile Paul v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02729-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Polk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth B. Polk v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02735-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Raines" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Raines v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02737-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Shupe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tasha Shupe v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02741-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Crystle Rochelle Thomas v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-02744-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for
work in excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Thomas v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02743-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ruby D. Walker v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02749-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Weddle" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ellen Jean Weddle v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02751-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "White" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alma White v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02748-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Willette Williams v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02748-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Worsley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Worsley v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02758-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MAXIM HEALTHCARE: Faces "Yarborough" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tunya Yarborough v. Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02761-JFM (D. Md., September 15, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for work in
excess of 40 hours during a workweek.

Maxim Healthcare Services, Inc. is a Maryland corporation which
provides in-home personal care, management and treatment of a
variety of conditions by nurses, therapists, medical social
workers, and home health aides.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN
      GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 E. Broad St., 10th Floor
      Columbus, OH 43215
      Telephone: (614) 221-4221
      Facsimile: (614) 744-2300
      E-mail: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
              rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com

         - and -

      G. Tony Atwal, Esq.
      Timothy J. Becker, Esq.
      JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
      33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4530
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 436-1800
      Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
      E-mail: tatwal@johnsonbecker.com
              tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

         - and -

      Jason J. Thompson, Esq.
      Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      Facsimile: (248) 864-7840
      E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com
              npioch@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Carlos Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32802
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-33414
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


MICHAEL KORS: Court Notify Customers of $4.8MM Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit concerning
the labeling and marketing of merchandise sold in Michael Kors
Outlet Stores during the period July 25, 2010 through July 25,
2014.

The lawsuit alleges that Michael Kors deceptively and misleadingly
labeled and marketed merchandise that it sells at its Michael Kors
Outlet Stores, including by using allegedly misleading price tags
on its Michael Kors Outlet Products, which Plaintiffs claim
resulted in damages to Plaintiffs and the Settlement Class.
Michael Kors maintains that its marketing and labeling is not
deceptive or misleading, and is entirely proper and permitted by
law.

Consumers are included in the Settlement Class if between July 25,
2010, and July 25, 2014 they purchased at least one item at a
Michael Kors Outlet Store that was sold with a price tag showing
both an "MSRP" (Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price) and an "Our
Price."  These items do not include watches, jewelry, fragrances,
eyewear or any other product that did not have a price tag that
showed both an "MSRP" and an "Our Price."  The Settlement Class
does not include directors, officers or employees of Michael Kors,
its parents and subsidiaries, or any entity in which Michael Kors
has a controlling interest.

Michael Kors has agreed to establish a Settlement Fund of
$4,875,000 from which Settlement Class Members will receive
payments. The amount of such individual payments cannot be
determined at this time.  The amount will be based on a number of
factors, including the number of Settlement Class Members who
submit a valid Claim Verification Form and the amount of the
Settlement Fund available for distribution.  Michael Kors has also
agreed to change the labeling of its price tags of certain items
in its outlet stores.

To receive a payment as a Settlement Class Member, consumers must
submit a Claim Verification Form online at
www.MichaelKorsOutletSettlement.com or by mail. To submit the form
by mail, consumers may request that the form be mailed to them by
calling 1-866-879-7386.   All Claim Verification Forms must be
fully completed and submitted online or postmarked if by mail no
later than 30 days after the Court grants Final Approval.
Consumers that are included in the Settlement Class and entitled
to a payment, once the Court approves the Settlement and it
becomes final and effective, will receive a check in the mail for
their share of the Settlement.

Consumers who do not want to be legally bound by the Settlement,
you must exclude themselves from the Settlement Class. The request
to exclude must be postmarked no later than December 8, 2015.
Consumers who do not exclude themselves, will release their
Michael Kors Outlet Store pricing claims and will not be able to
sue Michael Kors for any claim relating to the lawsuit. Consumers
who stay in the Settlement Class, may object to it by December 8,
2015.  For further information on how to opt-out or object to the
Settlement, please visit www.MichaelKorsOutletSettlement.com, or
call 1-866-879-7386.

The Court will hold a hearing on January 7, 2016, to consider
whether to approve the Settlement and a request for Service Awards
of $5,000 each for the Plaintiffs and attorneys' fees of up to 30%
of the Settlement Fund, along with the reimbursement of expenses.
Class members may appear at the hearing, but are not required to
attend. Class members may hire their own attorney, at their own
expense, to appear or speak for them at the hearing.


NORTHWEST BIO: Stull Stull Sues on Behalf of Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody announces that a class action lawsuit was
commenced in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland on behalf of persons who purchased or acquired the shares
of Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. ("Northwest Biotherapeutics" or
the "Company") between March 8, 2013 and August 20, 2015 (the
"Class Period").

If you purchased Northwest Biotherapeutics securities during the
Class Period you may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in
the action by October 26, 2015.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
concealed that: (1) claims regarding positive results from the
DCVax-Direct Trial (the "Results") were based on preliminary and
unconfirmed trial results; (2) the Results had not been reviewed
or analyzed by the hospitals conducting the trials; (3) the
Company's statements about the Results were derived from patient
case report forms sent to the Company only because it sponsored
the study; (4) the Company was the subject of an aggressive stock
promotion campaign including promoters using false identities and
credentials; (5) German regulators required additional information
from the Company in order for the Company's DCVax-L Trial to
continue uninterrupted; and (6) as a result of the above, the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading.

SS&B is also investigating whether allegations in news reports
that Northwest Biotherapeutics has used undisclosed, paid stock
promoters to increase the value of its shares, which SS&B believes
may have been a waste of corporate assets that exposed the Company
to liability.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Michael J. Klein, Esq. of SS&B by e-mail at NWBO@ssbny.com, by
calling 1-800-337-4983 x147, by fax at 212/490-2022, or by writing
to Stull, Stull & Brody, 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017.
You can also visit our website at www.ssbny.com.

SS&B has litigated many class actions for violations of securities
laws and breaches of fiduciary duty on behalf of defrauded
investors over the past 40 years and has obtained court approval
of substantial settlements on numerous occasions.  SS&B has
offices in New York and Beverly Hills.  The SS&B website
(www.ssbny.com) has additional information about the firm.


ORANGE GROVE: Faces "Lara" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Lara v. Orange Grove Bodyshop, Inc. and Does 1- 25, Case
No. BC594728 (D. Cal., September 15, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Orange Grove Bodyshop, Inc. owns and operates an auto shop located
at 640 N Fair Oaks Ave, Pasadena, CA 91103.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Perko, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JACK PERKO
      26895 Aliso Creek Road, Suite B66
      Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
      Telephone: (949) 390-4442
      Facsimile: (949) 916-1039
      E-mail: jack@jackperkolaw.com


PENTAIR WATER: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District for
Eastern District of Louisiana granted the motion of the Indirect-
Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs), together with Pentair Water Pool &
Spa, Inc. (Pentair), to preliminarily approve a class action
settlement between IPPs and Pentair.  The Court certified a class
for the purpose of the Pentair settlement.

The case is, IN RE: POOL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Section: R (2), MDL No. 2328.

On November 21, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced
that it conducted an investigation into unfair methods of
competition by Pool and entered a consent decree with Pool
resolving the matter. Shortly after the FTC's announcement,
several plaintiffs filed suit in this district and several others.
On April 17, 2012, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated the suits for pretrial purposes in this Court.  On
May 17, 2012, IPPs filed their initial consolidated class action
complaint in the multidistrict litigation in the Court. On
September 5, 2012, IPPs filed their Second Amended Class Action
Complaint (SCAC). The SCAC alleged that Pool's and Manufacturer
Defendants' conduct violated various antitrust and deceptive trade
practices laws of California, Arizona, Florida, and Missouri.
Specifically, IPPs alleged violations of California's antitrust
law, the Cartwright Act; the Unfair Competition Law; the state
antitrust provisions of Ariz. Rev. Stat. Sections 44-1401; the
consumer protection provisions of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act including Sec.501.204; and the consumer
protection provisions of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

Negotiations leading to the settlement agreement between IPPs and
Pentair took place over the course of two years. Class Counsel for
IPPs and counsel for Pentair mediated the action before the
Honorable Layn Phillips, a former federal district judge and a
respected mediator of antitrust disputes. The parties reached an
agreement at the March 5, 2015 mediation session and finalized the
terms on March 31, 2015, as a result of follow-up email and
telephone communications facilitated by Judge Phillips.

Under the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, Pentair
would pay a settlement amount of $600,000 into an Escrow Account
pending the Court's final approval of the settlement.  The
Agreement provides that the settlement amount is an "all-in"
figure, meaning that $600,000 is the total amount Pentair will pay
under the agreement in exchange for the Released Claims.  The
settlement amount shall be used to pay (1) the notice and
administration costs, (2) attorneys' fees and litigation expenses,
(3) incentive awards, (4) class member benefits, and (5) any
remaining administration expenses and any other costs of any kind
associated with the resolution of the action.

In the motion, counsel for IPPs and Pentair submitted a joint
motion asking the Court to (1) grant preliminary approval of a
class action settlement, (2) certify a settlement class, (3)
appoint class counsel, (4) authorize notice to the proposed class
of the proposed settlements, (5) schedule a fairness hearing, (6)
stay all claims against Pentair in the MDL, and (7) establish a
schedule for hearing motions for attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and incentive awards for the named plaintiffs.  On
August 21, 2015, counsel for IPPs filed a motion to (1) expand the
scope of Special Master Rick Stanley's original appointment, (2)
appoint Angeion Group as Claims Administrator and Notice Agent,
and (3) appoint First NBC Bank as Escrow Agent.

A copy of the Court's Order and Reasons dated August 31, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/HhKqbEfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Russ M. Herman, Esq.
HERMAN, HERMAN, KATZ & COTLAR, LLP
820 O'Keefe Ave # 100
New Orleans, LA 70113
Tel: (504)581-4892

Defendants are represented by William Bernard Gaudet, Esq. --
William.gaudet@arlaw.com -- ADAMS & REESE, LLP


PNC BANK: 7th Cir. Affirms Class Certification in "Gomez Bell"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner of the United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit affirmed district court's certification of a class
in the case captioned, MARISELI GOMEZ BELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 14-
3018.

Mariseli Gomez Bell alleged that her former employer, PNC Bank,
failed to pay her overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201-262, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1-105/15 and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act, 820 ILCS 115/1-115/15. Bell claims that the
failure was not an isolated incident, but rather part of a policy
or practice of PNC that affected many other employees.
Consequently she successfully moved the district court to certify
a class of plaintiffs. The district court certified a class of
employees from twenty-six PNC branches in Illinois, excluded
employees from two proposed branches (the DePaul branch and the
Naperville branch) and including, instead, employees from another
branch (the Oak Park branch). The district court concluded that
whether PNC has an unofficial policy or practice that requires
employees to work off-the-clock overtime hours was a question
common to the class.

On appeal, PNC asks the court to address only the following two
issues (1) whether the district court abused its discretion in
certifying a class without requiring the plaintiff to prove the
existence of an unwritten policy to satisfy the commonality and
predominance requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23; and (2) Whether
the district court abused its discretion in certifying a class by
treating individualized liability issues as damages issues.

In the Order dated August 31, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/bc14a8from Leagle.com, Judge Rovner found that the
district court was correct to conclude that a class action would
be an appropriate and efficient pathway to resolution. The
district court properly considered each of the issues and did not
abuse its discretion in certifying the class.


REAL TIME: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hall" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Marilee Hall, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Real Time Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02047-
JM-DHB (S.D. Cal., September 15, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of using false, deceptive and misleading
representations in connection with the collection of alleged
debts.

Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a Texas corporation that is engaged
in the business of debt collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fisher Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

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


REISNER RESTAURANTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dinita Ferguson, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Reisner Restaurants Inc., d/b/a Subway, Case No. 1:15-
cv-03241-TWT (N.D. Ga., September 15, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment interest
and costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Reisner Restaurants Inc. owns and operates a chain of Subway
franchise restaurants in Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger W. Orlando, Esq.
      THE ORLANDO FIRM, P.C.
      315 West Ponce De Leon Avenue, Suite 400
      Decatur, GA 30030
      Telephone: (404) 373-1800
      Facsimile: (404) 373-6999

         - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


ROBERT POWELL: Claims for $4.7MM Kids-for-Cash Deal Due Oct. 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Mark, writing for Citizenvoice.com, reported that  Plaintiffs
in a six-year-old class-action suit against former attorney Robert
Powell, a key figure in the kids for cash scandal, might finally
receive their share of a $4.75 million settlement soon.

But first they have to stake their claim. They have one month to
do that.

Proof of claim forms must be submitted by mail and received in
Pittsburgh no later than Oct. 5, said David Senoff, managing
partner of the Philadelphia office of Caroselli, Beachler,
McTiernan and Conboy, the law firm administering the settlement.

Claim forms were mailed to the last known address for every
plaintiff for whom the firm had a mailing address, Senoff said.
Those who did not receive a claim form in the mail, or who feel
they deserve a portion of the settlement money, can print out a
form online at www.kidswinsettlement.com.

"Anybody who thinks they are eligible can simply fill out that
form and mail it in," Senoff said.

Forms should be mailed no later than Sept. 30, to make sure they
arrive in time, he said. Also, anyone who wishes to opt out of the
settlement -- and thus maintain the right to pursue a separate
claim against Powell -- must fill out the form and return it so it
is received by Oct. 5, Senoff said.

Powell, 56, agreed in March to pay at least

$4.75 million to settle the class-action suit filed in 2009
against him and other figures in the scandal, including developer
Robert Mericle. Powell, a former Drums-based lawyer, co-owned a
detention center developed by Mericle, to which former Luzerne
County judges Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan
funneled juvenile defendants in a kickback scheme to enrich all
four men.

A federal judge approved the settlement on Aug. 10.

Those who qualify for a portion of the settlement include
juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella between Jan. 1, 2003 and
May 28, 2008, as well as parents of juveniles who were ordered to
pay the cost of their child's incarceration.

The payments will be distributed following a final hearing in the
case, scheduled for federal court in Wilkes-Barre on Dec. 16,
Senoff said. The settlement money will be kept in escrow until
then, he said.

Payments will be distributed via a three-tier points system, based
on if and where plaintiffs were placed after being adjudicated
delinquent, according to Senoff. Those tiers are:

   * 1-point tier: Those who received probation only from
     Ciavarella.

   * 2-point tier: Those who were adjudicated delinquent and sent
     to a facility other than Pennsylvania Child Care (PACC) or
     Western PA Child Care (WPACC).

   * 5-point tier: Those who were adjudicated delinquent and
     placed in PACC or WPACC.

Payment to parents or guardians of juveniles adjudicated
delinquent by Ciavarella will be limited to reimbursement for
court-ordered expenses they incurred to pay for the juvenile's
incarceration and rehabilitation.

Senoff said his firm will review all claim forms received to be
sure the claims are valid. The firm maintains a list of all
juveniles who appeared before Ciavarella in the stipulated time
frame, he said.

"One purpose of the form is to be sure people who are claiming are
actually victims," Senoff said. "We have the court records for
everybody who was prosecuted or went through the system."

Those who disagree with the amount they receive from the
settlement may appeal, Senoff said.

"There will be a mechanism that if you disagree with the amount
the court says you are entitled to, there will be a separate
judge," he said.

Those who received payments from Mericle when he settled the
class-action suit against him in 2012 may also receive payments
from Powell, according to Senoff.

"Absolutely," he said. "Any of the juveniles are eligible to
participate in all of the suits."

More good news for the plaintiffs: The total amount Powell pays
out could increase -- by millions.

According to the agreement reached in March, total monetary
damages will be determined by Powell's net worth as of Dec. 21,
2016, or 30 days after two legal actions Powell is involved in are
settled and he receives all fees and expenses which he is awarded.

That could bump up the total Powell is obligated to pay the
plaintiffs to as much as $7.5 million, according to Senoff.

"What I tell people is it's $4.75 million with a chance to get to
$7.5 million," he said.

Whatever the final total, the plaintiffs should be satisfied with
the settlement, Senoff said.

"I think it was a fair settlement," he said. "When it appeared
that Mr. Powell was not going to be covered by an insurance policy
we were concerned that some of the victims would go uncompensated
by Mr. Powell."

Powell pleaded guilty in July 2009 to failing to report a felony
and being an accessory to a crime, after admitting he paid more
than $700,000 in bribes to Ciavarella and Conahan to funnel
juveniles to his detention center.

He was later sentenced to 18 months in federal prison and was
permanently disbarred.


ROYAL FLUSH: Faces "Cardoso" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
German Sosa Cardoso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. A Royal Flush of New York II, Inc.,
A Royal Flush, Inc., William Malone, Timothy Butler, and Debra
Russo, Case No. 1:15-cv-07260 (S.D.N.Y., September 15, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an equipment rental and leasing
Services Company with its principal place of business at 146
Andover Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06605.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com
              graham@peltonlaw.com


RUSTIC CANYON: Faces Suit Over Alleged Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------
Laura Bliss, writing for City Lab, reported that in Los Angeles, a
class-action lawsuit has been filed against a group of high-end
restaurants that add an extra 3 percent fee on customers' bills in
order to cover employees' healthcare. The plaintiff's allegations
aren't about the surcharge itself, but rather argue that it's an
example of price-fixing, which does violate the law.

CBS Los Angeles reports: "The suit alleges the owner of Rustic
Canyon in Santa Monica started the discussions over a year ago
with the owners of seven other L.A. restaurants to add a three
percent surcharge to bills, money that they say helps pay for
their employees' healthcare.  But the suit claims the owners of
Animal, AOC, The Hungry Cat, Lucques, Melisse, Rustic Canyon, Son
of a Gun, and Trois Mec conspired to raise their prices together,
violating antitrust laws."

Roxane Polidora is the leader of the Antitrust & Competition Team
at the multinational law firm Pillsbury, and advisor to the State
Bar of California's Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section.
She says that the plaintiff will have to prove that there was true
conspiratorial action among the restauranteurs, which seems
unlikely.

"Often that's not the case when restaurants are competing with one
another," she says.  "If one restaurant starts implementing a
surcharge, then others might follow suit to meet competition. They
may decide that patrons appreciate it, or because they'd be at an
economic disadvantage otherwise.  So long as the restaurant owner
is making a unilateral decision, he or she is not engaging in
price fixing."

The 3 percent fee these restaurants are charging is part of a new
(if still small) wave of industry practices that attempt to
redress long-standing disparities in employee compensation. "In
California, front-of-house personnel can share tips, but back-of-
house personnel can't," says Anna Graves, a partner and leader of
the restaurant practice at Pillsbury. "But these restaurants
really value their back-of-house employees, and they are adding
these surcharges with the best of intentions."

Some of the businesses included in the lawsuit have done away with
optional gratuities, including instead an 18 percent service
charge that's distributed among all employees. High-end
restaurants in San Francisco, Seattle, and New York City have made
similar moves. Some others have totally eliminated extra charges
and simply raised menu prices.

These practices have gained particular traction in the past couple
of years as the national conversation around more equitable pay
for low-wage workers has expanded. In cities where significant
minimum-wage increases are already in effect, such as Seattle and
San Francisco, flat charges in lieu of traditional gratuity
structures have been a way for restaurants to make up for higher
labor costs.

Could this lawsuit change the course of alternative tipping?
Polidora and Graves doubt it. "This case is not going to affect
every restaurant which decides that fairer pay and healthcare for
team members are important," Graves says.


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Septemebr 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces the filing of a class action
lawsuit on behalf of investors of ServiceSource International,
Inc. who purchased the Company's securities between January 22,
2014 and May 1, 2014 inclusive (the "Class Period").

Pursuant to notice published by counsel for plaintiff Scott Weller
on July 28, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal, ServiceSource
investors have until September 28, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff
motion.

ServiceSource provides recurring revenue management, maintenance,
support, and subscription for technology and technology-enabled
healthcare and life sciences companies. The Company has allegedly
misled investors regarding the operational efficiency and
profitability of its Managed Services business. The complaint
alleges that defendants made allegedly false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and
management which caused the stock price to inflate, allowing
certain insiders to sell their ServiceSource stock at
artificially-inflated prices. The complaint further alleges that
Mike Smerklo, President and CEO of ServiceSource, obtained
millions of dollars in cash bonuses and other perks as a result of
the alleged fraud. Upon disclosure of the alleged fraud
ServiceSource's share price declined sharply thereby injuring
investors, the complaint alleges.

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

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


SUNFLOWER WESTON: "Marine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Marine, and other similarly situated cashier v. Sunflower
Weston, LLC, Productos Naturales, Inc. and Jesus Bermudez, Case
No. 32055212 (D. Fla., September 15, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in interstate commerce, having their
main place of business in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPER MICRO: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Super Micro Computer, Inc. ("Super Micro Computer" or the
"Company") and certain of its officers.

The class action, filed in United States District Court, Northern
District of California, and docketed under 15-cv-04049, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Super Micro Computer securities between September 15,
2014 and August 31, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Super Micro Computer
securities during the Class Period, you have until November 3,
2015 to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the
class.  A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at
www.pomerantzlaw.com.  To discuss this action, contact Robert S.
Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-
POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are
encouraged to include their mailing address, telephone number, and
number of shares purchased.

Super Micro Computer develops and provides high performance server
solutions based on modular and open-standard architecture. The
company offers a range of server, storage, blade, workstation, and
full rack solutions, as well as networking devices, server
management software, and technology support and services. It also
provides a range of application optimized server solutions,
including rackmount and blade server systems; and server
subsystems and accessories comprising server boards, and chassis
and power supplies, as well as other system accessories, including
microprocessors, and memory and disc drives. The company offers
its products to data center, cloud computing, enterprise IT, big
data, high performance computing, and embedded markets.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company improperly recorded expenses in its financial reports;
(ii) as a result, the Company's reported net income was misstated;
(iii) the Company lacked adequate internal financial controls; and
(iv) as a result of the above, the Company's financial statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On August 31, 2015, post-market, Super Micro Computer announced
that the Company "has determined that it is unable to file its
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015
within the prescribed time period without unreasonable effort or
expense. [Super Micro Computer] recently discovered certain
irregularities regarding certain marketing expenses and additional
time is required for [the Company] to complete its investigation
of the matter."

On this news, shares of Super Micro Computer declined $2.58 per
share, or 9.43%, to close at $24.77 on September 1, 2015.

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

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


THD AT-HOME SERVICES: Final Approval Hearing on March 4
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe granted preliminary approval
to the settlement reached in the case, JAMES RICHARDSON, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THD AT-HOME SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; MEASURECOMP, LLC,
a Michigan limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-00273-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

The Preliminary Approval Order provides that:

     1. The Settlement Agreement is PRELIMINARILY APPROVED as
appearing on its face to be fair reasonable, and adequate and to
have been the product of serious, informed, and extensive arm's-
length negotiations among Plaintiff and Defendants THD At-Home
Services, Inc. and MeasureComp, LLC ("Defendants") (collectively,
the "Parties"). In making this preliminary finding, the Court
considered the nature of the claims, the relative strength of
Plaintiff's claims, the amounts and kinds of benefits paid in
settlement, the allocation of settlement proceeds among the class
members, and the fact that the settlement represents a compromise
of the Parties' respective positions rather than the result of a
finding of liability at trial. The Court further preliminarily
finds that the terms of the settlement have no obvious
deficiencies and do not improperly grant preferential treatment to
any individual class member. Accordingly, the Court preliminarily
finds that the agreement was entered into in good faith.

     2. The Court finds preliminarily, and for purposes of
proceeding pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for
settlement purposes only and on approval of the agreement only,
that:

          a. The class is sufficiently numerous because the
proposed settlement class includes approximately 143 persons;

          b. Class members are ascertainable as the class sought
to be represented is adequately defined and ascertainable from
Defendants' records;

          c. The proposed class asserts common claims arising out
of the same alleged uniform policies and practices;

          d. Plaintiff's claims are typical of those asserted by
the class as the class representative alleges he suffered the same
injury(ies), in the same manner, as the proposed class;

          e. There is no evidence suggesting the class
representative or class counsel have a conflict of interest with
other class members, Plaintiff's counsel is qualified and
competent and has substantial experience in wage and hour class
actions, and Plaintiff's counsel and the named Plaintiff have and
will continue to prosecute this action on behalf of the class.

     3. Accordingly, for purposes of the agreement only, this
litigation is CERTIFIED as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23. The class is defined as follows:

        "plaintiff and any individuals employed by THD At-Home
        Services, Inc. and/or Measure Comp, LLC as measure
        techs in California between January 23, 2010 and July 16,
        2015, excluding however, any individuals whose claims
        were fully released in connection with the class
        settlement in Mejia v. MeasureComp, LLC, Los Angeles
        Superior Court, No. BC 409729."

     4. The Court APPOINTS as class counsel for settlement
purposes only Kenneth H. Yoon and Stephanie E. Yasuda, Law Offices
of Kenneth H. Yoon.

     5. The Court APPOINTS as Class Representative for settlement
purposes Plaintiff James Richardson.

     6. The Court APPROVES CPT Group, Inc. as settlement
administrator for the purposes of this settlement.

     7. A final approval and fairness hearing is SCHEDULED to be
held before the Court on March 4, 2016 at 9:00 am for the
following purposes:

          a. to determine finally whether this litigation
satisfies the applicable prerequisites for class action treatment
for settlement purposes only;

          b. to determine whether the proposed settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate and should be granted final approval by
the Court;

          c. to determine whether an order of final approval as
should be entered, and to determine whether the releases should be
released of and from the released claims as provided in the
agreement;

          d. to determine whether the proposed plan of allocation
of the gross settlement amount is fair and reasonable and should
be approved by the Court;

          e. to finally consider Plaintiff's application for an
Enhancement Payment;

          f. to finally determine whether class counsel's
application for an award of attorney fees and costs is fair,
reasonable, and adequate and should be approved by the Court;

          g. to determine that the settlement administrator's
costs should be paid from the gross settlement amount;

          h. to consider the PAGA payment; and

          i. to rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.

     8. The form of class notice is APPROVED. No later than 30
calendar days after preliminary approval, Defendants shall provide
the settlement administrator with the name, last known mailing
address, social security number, hire dates, and dates of
termination, if applicable. No later than 45 calendar after the
date of entry of this order, the settlement administrator will
send via first class mail the documents constituting the notice to
each settlement class member by first-class regular U.S. Mail.

     9. The Court finds that the class notice, along with the
related notification materials, constitute the best notice
practicable under the circumstances and are in full compliance
with the laws of the State of California, the United States
Constitution, and the requirements of due process. The Court
further finds that the notifications fully and accurately inform
settlement class members of all material elements of the proposed
settlement, of settlement class members' right to dispute their
share of the settlement, of the settlement class members' right to
be excluded from the settlement class, and of each settlement
class member's right and opportunity to object to the Settlement.

     10. The Court APPROVES the proposed procedure wall class
members who do not timely request exclusion from the settlement
will be bound by the agreement. The Court APPROVES the proposed
response deadline of 45 calendar days from the initial mailing of
the class notice.

     11. The Court APPROVES the proposed procedure for requesting
exclusion from the settlement class, as set forth in the class
notice.

     12. All costs of mailing of the notice, whether foreseen or
not, shall be paid from the gross settlement amount, including the
cost of searching for Class Members' addresses as provided in as
provided in the agreement. All other reasonable costs of the
settlement administrator shall also be paid from the gross
settlement amount as provided in the agreement.

     13. All objections to the settlement must be filed by mailing
them to the Clerk of the Court, who will file objections on the
Court's electronic filing system and provide notice to all counsel
of record. The deadline to object is 45 days after the mailing of
the notice. If mailed, the objection must be postmarked on or
prior to 45 days after the mailing of the notice. Objections must
state their basis and if any objector intends to appear in person
or by counsel at the final approval hearing, he or she must
include such fact and state the purpose for his or her appearance
in the objection. Objectors do not need to appear to have their
objections considered. The parties will be permitted to respond in
writing to all objections, which responses must be filed no later
than seven days prior to the final approval and fairness hearing.
Settlement class members who fail to file timely written
objections will be deemed to have waived any objections and will
be foreclosed from making any objection to the settlement.

A copy of the Court's Sept. 18 Order, including the Legal Notice,
is available at http://is.gd/UMvgNVfrom Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Former employee James Richardson (plaintiff) sued THD At-Home
Services, Inc. and MeasureComp, LLC on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated for the following claims: (1) failure to
provide meal periods and rest breaks, (2) failure to pay overtime
and minimum wages, (3) failure to reimburse all necessary work-
related expenses, (4) violation of Labor Code Sec. 203, (5)
violation of Labor Code Sec. 226, (6) violation of Labor Code Sec.
2698 et seq., and (7) violation of Business & Professions Code
Sec. 17200 et seq.

The net settlement fund is the portion of the gross settlement
fund of $1,150,000 available for distribution to settlement class
members who do not timely send a signed and returned valid request
for exclusion from the settlement. The net settlement fund is the
gross settlement fund less class counsel's attorneys' fees and
costs, settlement administration costs, the plaintiff's
enhancement payment, and a payment to the state under the Private
Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA").

Class counsel will ask the Court to award attorneys' fees in the
amount of $383,333.33, which represents one third of the gross
settlement amount and litigation costs estimated at $25,000 from
the gross settlement amount. In addition, plaintiff will ask the
Court to authorize an enhancement payment from the gross
settlement amount in the amount of $20,000 to compensate him for
the risks, time, and expense of his involvement in this action.
This payment is in addition to whatever payment the class
representative is otherwise entitled to as a settlement class
member.

The settlement administrator will also be reimbursed for the
expense of notifying settlement class members of the settlement,
administering the settlement, processing requests for exclusion
submitted by class members and distributing settlement payments.
Settlement administration costs are estimated at $8,000. Finally,
class counsel will ask the Court to approve a PAGA payment in the
amount of $10,000 of which $7,500 will be awarded to California
and $2,500 will be awarded to class members by adding that sum to
the net settlement fund.

Class Counsel may be reached at:

     Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
     One Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2200
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 612-0988


TOWER GROUP: Nov. 18 Fairness Hearing on $20MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASSES, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:
All persons and entities who or which purchased or otherwise
acquired the common stock of Tower Group International, Ltd., or
its predecessor, Tower Group, Inc. (collectively, "Tower"),
between March 1, 2010, and December 17, 2013, inclusive (the
"Settlement Class Period"), and were damaged thereby (the
"Settlement Class"); and

All persons and entities who or which acquired Canopius Holdings
Bermuda Limited ("Canopius") stock in the March 7, 2013 private
placement, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement PPC"). (The
Settlement Class and/or the Settlement PPC are referred to herein
as the "Settlement Classes"):

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

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

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed settlement of the Action against Tower Group,
Inc., Tower Group International, Ltd., ACP Re, Ltd., Michael H.
Lee, and William E. Hitselberger (collectively, the "Tower
Defendants" or "Settling Defendants") for $20,500,000.00 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action against the Tower Defendants.  Claims against defendant
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP are not included in the proposed
Settlement and continue to be litigated by Lead Plaintiffs.

A hearing will be held on November 18, 2015 at 4:00 p.m., before
the Honorable Analisa Torres at the United States District Court,
Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United
States Courthouse, Courtroom 15D, 500 Pearl St., New York, NY
10007-1312, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Tower
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Tower Defendants (and
in the Notice) should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan
of Allocation should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv)
whether Lead Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees
and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Classes, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and the Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator
at In re Tower Group International, Ltd. Securities Litigation,
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 170500, Milwaukee, WI 53217-8091,
(800) 328-6074.  Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can
also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, at www.TowerSecuritiesSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Classes, in order to be
potentially eligible to receive a payment under the proposed
Settlement, you must submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no
later than December 28, 2015.  If you are a member of the
Settlement Classes and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim Form,
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net
proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action related
to the Settlement.

If you are a member of the Settlement Classes and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Classes, you must submit a request
for exclusion such that it is received no later than October 28,
2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Classes, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action related to the Settlement and you will not be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement.  Any request
for exclusion from one or both of the Settlement Classes shall be
considered a request for exclusion from both Settlement Classes.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that
they are received no later than October 28, 2015, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Tower Defendants or the Tower
Defendants' counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about
this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel
or the Claims Administrator.


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: No Class Cert. for "Santomenno" ERISA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, JACLYN
SANTOMENNO; KAREN POLEY; BARBARA POLEY, Plaintiff, v. TRANSAMERICA
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; TRANSAMERICA INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC;
TRANSAMERICA ASSET MANAGEMENT INC., Defendants, Case No. CV12-
02782 DDP (MANX).

Transamerica Life Insurance Company ("TLIC") sells a 401(k) plan
product targeted at small and mid-size employers. The product
consists of a bundle of investment options and administrative
services that an employer can purchase. Plaintiffs and potential
class members of the retirement "plans" that used these TLIC
products and people who are or were participants in or
beneficiaries of the plans. Plaintiffs alleged that the fees they
were charged for these products were excessive, in violation of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The Defendants challenge the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the
case as a class action.  The Defendants argue, primarily, that the
"commonality" prerequisite is not met, because the negotiation of
fees was "plan-specific" and so requires individualized evidence
of unreasonableness.  The Defendants also argue that the
Plaintiffs cannot show proof common to all putative class members
of any of the following: TLIC's fiduciary duties; the charging of
unreasonable fees for accounts managed by affiliates; failure to
use its institutional leverage to invest in low-cost share
classes; and the use of transactions prohibited by ERISA.  The
Defendants further argue that the named Plaintiffs are not typical
of the class and are not adequate class representatives. Finally,
the Defendants argue that the action does not meet the
requirements of either Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(1)(b) or 23(b)(3).

In his Order dated August 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/3nhDXSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson found that he
cannot certify the class because the so-called "predominance"
requirement is not satisfied since the individual questions as to
the IM/Admin fee and lower-cost share classes would predominate
over the common questions in the case.

Plaintiffs are represented by Arnold Carl Lakind, Esq. --
ALakind@szaferman.com -- Robert E. Lytle, Esq. --
RLytle@szaferman.com -- Daniel S. Sweetser, Esq. --
Dsweetser@szaferman.com -- Robert L. Lakind, Esq. --
rLakind@szaferman.com -- Robert Gannon Stevens, Jr., Esq. --
RStevens@szaferman.com -- Mark A. Fisher, Esq. --
MFisher@szaferman.com -- Stephen Skillman, Esq. --
SSkillman@szaferman.com -- SZAFERMAN LAKIND BLUMSTEIN AND BLADER
PC, Havila C. Unrein, Esq. -- hunrein@kellerrohrback.com, Khesraw
Karmand, Esq. -- kkarmand@kellerrohrback.com -- Derek W. Loeser,
Esq. -- dloeser@kellerrohrback.com -- Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq. --
gobrist@kellerrohrback.com -- Juli E. Farris, Esq. --
jfarris@kellerrohrback.com -- Lynn L. Sarko, Esq. --
lsarko@kellerrohrback.com -- Michael D. Woerner, Esq. --
mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com -- KELLER ROHRBACK LLP

Defendants are represented by Brian David Boyle, Esq. --
bboyle@omm.com -- Catalina J. Vergara, Esq. -- cvergara@omm.com --
Christopher Brendan Craig, Esq. -- ccraig@omm.com -- Robert N.
Eccles, Esq. -- reccles@omm.com -- Shannon M. Barrett, Esq. --
sgee@omm.com -- Theresa S. Gee, Esq. -- tgee@omm.com -- O'MELVENY
AND MYERS LLP


TRANSWOOD INC: Faces "Long" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mason Drew Long, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Transwood, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03007-P (N.D. Tex.,
September 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Transwood, Inc. owns and operates a trucking company licensed to
conduct business in Texas.

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: info@L-B-Law.com


TYSON FOODS: Ohio Supreme Court Weighs Class Status Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wystan Ackerman, Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- at Robinson+Cole, in
an article for JD Supra Business Advisor, reported that the U.S.
Supreme Court in Ohio is poised to decide next Term, in Tyson
Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, whether a class can be certified when
many class members lack injury.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently weighed in on a similar question,
but treated it as a predominance issue. One of the interesting
aspects of class action practice is that often the same or a
similar line of argument can be cast in different ways -- what
some courts treat as an issue of standing might also be treated as
an issue of commonality or predominance. A good defense strategy
can be to make what amounts to the same or a similar argument
under different aspects of the class action rule.

In Felix v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc., No. 2013-1746, 2015 Ohio LEXIS
2113 (Ohio Aug. 27, 2015), the plaintiffs purchased and arranged
financing for a vehicle through the defendant. They alleged that
an arbitration clause in the purchase contract was unconscionable
and that the defendant's conduct violated the Ohio Consumer Sales
Practices Act ("OCSPA"). Id. at *2-5. The trial court granted
class certification, ruled that the arbitration provision violated
the OCSPA, and awarded $200 per transaction to the class members.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed.

The Ohio Supreme Court, noting that it looks to federal law on
class certification as persuasive authority, held that under the
Ohio class action rule, "Plaintiffs in class-action suits must
demonstrate that they can prove, through common evidence, that all
class members were in fact injured by the defendant's actions."
Id. at *16-17 (emphasis added). The court explained that the fact
of damage is different from the amount of damage. "If the class
plaintiff fails to establish that all of the class members were
damaged (notwithstanding questions regarding the individual
damages calculations for each class members), there is no showing
of predominance under Civ. R. 23(b)(3)." Id. at *18. The court
explained that "there is absolutely no showing that all of the
consumers who purchased vehicles through a contract with the
offensive arbitration provision were injured by it or suffered any
damages." Id. at *19. One justice dissented, asserting that the
majority had improperly addressed a merits question at class
certification. Id. at *23 (O'Neill, J., dissenting).

While some courts address this type of question as an issue of
class member standing (and perhaps the Supreme Court will do that
in Tyson Foods), this decision is a helpful reminder to defendants
that, even if you do not prevail on standing grounds, you might
prevail on essentially the same question as a predominance issue.
Another way to cast the same type of argument is that liability to
individual class members is individualized, because liability
cannot be established through common evidence.  That is another
way to get around the plaintiffs' argument that individualized
calculations of damages should not be enough to defeat class
certification.


VIVENDI UNIVERSAL: Judge Grants Summary Judgment vs. Class Member
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terry McMaho, writing for Class Action Recovery for Mutual Funds,
reported that we previously reported on what we thought at the
time were "unusual" arguments from Vivendi Universal, S.A.
("Vivendi") in its summary judgment motion in opposition to the
recovery of certain class-action members in the long-running In re
Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, 02 Civ. 5571 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.). Whether "unusual" or not, Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York has granted Vivendi's motion in
a decision which could have implications for class members, but
more likely for opt-outs.

As background, after the 2009 trial in this class action
litigation, a Southern District of New York jury found Vivendi
liable for violation of securities laws in regard to the sale of
Vivendi American Depositary Shares ("ADSs"). Since then, the
parties have argued over the apportionment of damages to various
class members. On May 15, 2015, the class plaintiffs and Vivendi
filed cross-motions of summary judgment regarding the claims of
certain class members advised by Southeastern Asset Management,
Inc. ("Southeastern"). Vivendi's opposition to Southeastern's
claims includes arguments, unusual as to class members in the
class-action context, that (i) Vivendi did not cause these members
any actual damages; and (ii) there was no "fraud on the market"
for which Southeastern could recover.

On August 11, 2015, Judge Scheindlin issued a decision granting
Vivendi's motion and denying Southeastern's motion. The Court made
two main points in its decision. First, in regard to
Southeastern's attempts to establish the elements of fraud for its
"fraud on the market" theory, Vivendi had successfully rebutted
the so-called Basic presumption. Named for the holding in Basic v.
Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), the Basic presumption holds that
"an investor who bought stock at the market price may, at the
class certification stage, avail herself of the presumption that
she 'relied on the integrity of the price set by the market' if
the market is efficient." Op. at 14 (quoting Basic, 485 U.S. at
227). According to the Court, instead of relying on the market
price of Vivendi's ADSs, Southeastern "relied on [its] own careful
assessments of Vivendi's assets and liquidity position" in
determining its valuation of the ADSs, to the point where "[e]ven
had [Southeastern] known about the fraud, it would have not
mattered." Op. at 27-28. Thus, Southeastern was essentially
indifferent to the market price of the securities and could not be
said to have relied upon it. Since Southeastern could not show
reliance as an element of fraud, Southeastern could not
participate in the class members' recovery.

Although mooted by the Court's holding that Southeastern did not
show reliance, Judge Scheindlin also held that Southeastern indeed
sustained damages as a result of the fraud. Vivendi argued that
since Southeastern eventually made a profit on its purchase of
Vivendi ADSs, Southeastern could not prove damages. However, the
Court held that considering gains made well after the close of the
class period was inappropriate. Instead of using Vivendi's metric,
which argued that the Court should consider gains that occurred
more than five years after the close of the class period, the
Court held that the bounce-back provision of the PSLRA, which caps
damages by factoring in gains that occur within 90 days of a
corrective disclosure, is a better guideline. In addition, even
though Southeastern sold at a profit, "the eventual profit it made
on its initial investment did not include extra compensation for
the out-of-pocket loss it sustained by purchasing Vivendi ADSs at
inflated prices during the Class Period." Op. at 36. Thus, fraud
on the market could give rise to damages even if a party
eventually made a profit on the investment.

This opinion reflects an unusual fact pattern in the class action
recovery context in that the investor apparently knew of the
defendant's fraud and yet continued to invest on the philosophy
that the fraud did not affect the investor's overall conclusion
that the securities were undervalued. Consequently, the
precedential value of Judge Scheindlin's decision may be limited
to such circumstances and may not have broad implications for the
class action recovery sphere in general.

More broadly, this dispute between Southeastern and Vivendi
reflects the much more adversarial nature in the class action
recovery claims process in recent years. In times past, defendants
rarely participated in the allocation of funds amongst plaintiffs.
More recently, however, when verdicts are being allocated to class
members, defendants have become much more involved in challenging
the recovery of individual class members. Class members should
keep this adversarial context in mind when seeking recovery
against defendants in the class action recovery space.

The decision also has implications for opt-outs and/or private
plaintiffs. It highlights the importance of reviewing all of the
plaintiff's documents and interviewing plaintiff's personnel
before they file a separate action.

WAL-MART STORES: Hit with California Unpaid Wages Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Ryan, writing for Law 360, reported that Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
was slapped with a putative class action under the Private
Attorneys General Act in Los Angeles court, accusing the retail
giant of misclassifying its asset protection coordinators and
shorting them on overtime wages.

The suit alleges Wal-Mart improperly classified its asset
protection coordinators as exempt and paid them on a salary basis
while withholding overtime hours and missed meal periods and rest
breaks. However, the position actually entails duties that are not
exempt, according to the complaint.


WHOLE FOODS: Pomerantz Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Whole Foods Market, Inc. and certain of its officers. The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Western
District of Texas,, and docketed under 15-cv-00681, is on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons or entities who purchased
Whole Foods securities between August 9, 2013 and July 30, 2015
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Whole Foods securities
during the Class Period, you have until October 5, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Whole Foods operates as a retailer of natural and organic foods.
The Company's stores offer produce and floral, grocery, meat,
seafood, bakery, prepared foods and catering, coffee, tea, beer,
wine, cheese, nutritional supplements, vitamins, and body care
products, as well as lifestyle products, including books, pet
products, and household products. As of May 7, 2015, the company
had approximately 417 stores worldwide.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
the Company routinely overstated the weight of its pre-packaged
products and overcharged customers; and (ii) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about Whole Foods's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On June 25, 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs
("NYCDA") announced it had uncovered "systematic overcharging for
pre-packaged foods" at Whole Foods' eight New York City locations.
On a survey of 80 different types of prepackaged products, NYCDA
reported that it had found thousands of potential overcharging
violations. In response, the Company stated that there was no
evidence of overcharging and responded that it would vigorously
defend itself against what it described as "overreaching
allegations" by NYCDA. On this news, Whole Food stock fell $0.19,
or 0.47%, to close at $40.57 on June 23, 2015.

On July 29, 2015, post-market, the Company issued a press release
and filed a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing its financial and
operating results for the quarter ended July 5, 2015 (the "July
2015 8-K"). For the quarter, net income was $154 million, or $0.43
per diluted share, on revenue of $3.63 billion, compared to net
income of $151 million, or $0.41 per diluted share, on revenue of
$3.38 billion for the same period in the prior year. Reporting
store sales growth of 0.6% for the last two weeks of the quarter,
the July 2015 8-K stated, in part, that "[w]eights and measures
audit in New York City stores garnered national media attention."

On this adverse news, Whole Foods' common stock fell $4.74 per
share, or 11.61%, to close at $36.08 on July 30, 2015.

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

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



                            *********

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  * * *